Rising tensions in East Jerusalem

[wiggin]

Great news.

Twitter Link

Difference between Israel and Gaza (and Egypt, Jordan and the rest) is that Israel is a functional democracy. Good riddance to Netanyahu.

(a) There are still substantial issues trying to get Yamina and Ra'am in the same coalition. It is not at all clear the coalition agreement will actually go through; I'd give it less than even chances given the fundamental divide between different members of the coalition. It appears that outright bribery (with power and funding) appears to have papered over these differences, but even if the coalition does manage to vote for the final details of the agreement, it is unlikely to last very long.

(b) If, indeed, Netanyahu is no longer PM, have you looked at Naftali Bennett? I doubt you'll appreciate the replacement.

[Loki]

It's always depressing to see how normalized the settlements are in Israel. Just saw a story about the presidential "election." Not much written about the losing candidate except that she won a prestigious lifetime achievement prize. I google her. She spent her whole adult life living in settlements, first in the Sinai and then in the West Bank. You'd think that would be newsworthy, but I guess not anymore.

[RandBlade]

(a) There are still substantial issues trying to get Yamina and Ra'am in the same coalition. It is not at all clear the coalition agreement will actually go through; I'd give it less than even chances given the fundamental divide between different members of the coalition. It appears that outright bribery (with power and funding) appears to have papered over these differences, but even if the coalition does manage to vote for the final details of the agreement, it is unlikely to last very long.

(b) If, indeed, Netanyahu is no longer PM, have you looked at Naftali Bennett? I doubt you'll appreciate the replacement.

(a) As you may or may not be aware I am not a big fan of Proportional Representation. Its democratic but it isn't a good system for generating stable governments so yes its not especially surprising if this leads to an unstable government and elections not too far down the track. But if Netanyahu is dislodged from power in the meantime then great.

(b) Probably. Sometimes I think breaking a few eggs is worthwhile even if you don't make an omelette. If the new leader isn't good then replace them with another new leader, until you find one that is good.

[Steely Glint]

Honestly, I leave this thread alone for five minutes and it gets filled with baby brain centrist garbage.

Three points:

1) The closer you get the present day, the less easy it is to 'both sides' the conflict. Like sure, if you want to go back in time to the Yom Kippur war or the six day war you're going to find a complex situation with a lot of blame to go around. Israel helps the colonial powers occupy the Suez Canal, Arabs start a war of aggression against Israel, Israel illegally occupies and annexes the Golan Heights. You know, classic pranks. But that was half a century ago.

Today, it's pretty hard to look at the situation as it exists today and go 'hmm, yes, lots of blame on both sides here' unless you've your head completely up your ass because there's almost nothing one side can actually do, except impotently shoot rockets which get shot down by the other sides state of the art missile defense system paid for by a global superpower. Militarily, Israel has simply won the conflict.

The Palestinians aren't building illegal settlements in Israel, controlling Israeli access to basic necessities or sending in riot police to attack places of religious worship, and Israel is doing that. No one can go back in time and unstart the 6 day war, Israel can unilaterally stop ethnically cleansing the west bank any time they like. They aren't being forced to do it by some complex piece of foreign relations game theory, they're doing it because they want the land.

2) ~65% of the population of the gaza strip are under 24 years old. ~40% are under 14 years old, literal children. They were not alive at the time when there was blame on both sides. A lot of them weren't even alive for the second intifada, and they were infants when Hamas took control of Gaza. They had no say in the decisions of their parents and grandparents (and frankly, even they didn't get that much say). If your position is that the people of Palestine deserve to suffer because in 1967 the Arab summit declared that there would be no peace, no negotiation, no recognition of Israel then that's collective punishment and, frankly, you're already a scumbag but if you extend that saying that their children also deserve to suffer for that, then that's collective intergenerational punishment which is barbaric and you're cordially invited to eat my shit. Literally, you should come to my house and consume my feces straight out of the toilet bowl if you think that.

3) The very idea of a curse on both your houses is just incredibly pathetic and hollow when one side is being armed by the U.S to the tune of 3.8 billion dollars every year and the other side isn't. Talk to me about a plague on both houses when Gaza gets an Iron Dome, defense aid and UNSC member ready to veto every resolution even mildly critical of them, and actually have some agency in the 'conflict'.

[RandBlade]

What the heck are you smoking Steely. Nothing one side can do apart from firing rockets at civilians? Hmmm - here's an idea. How about NOT firing rockets at civilians and negotiating for peace instead? As Arafat nearly achieved until he rejected the peace accords? The Palestinians can stop firing rockets at civilians at any time of their choosing.

If Israel has won the conflict then why don't Hamas sue for peace instead of still denying Israel's basic right to even exist? The conflict will be won when all parties recognise Israel's right to exist.

You seem to think that just because Israel is more powerful militarily that they should just bend over drop their pants and take it when terrorists choose to attack them? Is Israel have won, why don't the aggressors stop attacking and sue for peace instead allowing the conflict to end? That's how conflicts end normally, not by having one side shut down its weaponry and just be punched for free.

[Aimless]

Honestly, I leave this thread alone for five minutes and it gets filled with baby brain centrist garbage.

Three points:

1) The closer you get the present day, the less easy it is to 'both sides' the conflict. Like sure, if you want to go back in time to the Yom Kippur war or the six day war you're going to find a complex situation with a lot of blame to go around. Israel helps the colonial powers occupy the Suez Canal, Arabs start a war of aggression against Israel, Israel illegally occupies and annexes the Golan Heights. You know, classic pranks. But that was half a century ago.

Today, it's pretty hard to look at the situation as it exists today and go 'hmm, yes, lots of blame on both sides here' unless you've your head completely up your ass because there's almost nothing one side can actually do, except impotently shoot rockets which get shot down by the other sides state of the art missile defense system paid for by a global superpower. Militarily, Israel has simply won the conflict.

The Palestinians aren't building illegal settlements in Israel, controlling Israeli access to basic necessities or sending in riot police to attack places of religious worship, and Israel is doing that. No one can go back in time and unstart the 6 day war, Israel can unilaterally stop ethnically cleansing the west bank any time they like. They aren't being forced to do it by some complex piece of foreign relations game theory, they're doing it because they want the land.

2) ~65% of the population of the gaza strip are under 24 years old. ~40% are under 14 years old, literal children. They were not alive at the time when there was blame on both sides. A lot of them weren't even alive for the second intifada, and they were infants when Hamas took control of Gaza. They had no say in the decisions of their parents and grandparents (and frankly, even they didn't get that much say). If your position is that the people of Palestine deserve to suffer because in 1967 the Arab summit declared that there would be no peace, no negotiation, no recognition of Israel then that's collective punishment and, frankly, you're already a scumbag but if you extend that saying that their children also deserve to suffer for that, then that's collective intergenerational punishment which is barbaric and you're cordially invited to eat my shit. Literally, you should come to my house consume my feces straight out of the toilet bowl if you think that.

3) The very idea of a curse on both your houses is just incredibly pathetic and hollow when one side is being armed by the U.S to the tune of 3.8 billion dollars every year and the other side isn't. Talk to me about a plague on both houses when Gaza gets an Iron Dome, defense aid and UNSC member ready to veto every resolution even mildly critical of them, and actually have some agency in the 'conflict'.

Are you sure you're English? Okay, you can still talk, even though it was y'all who started this shitshow in the first place you fuckers

[Steely Glint]

Well, that's the other thing - if you want to talk about historical roots and go back far enough it just ends up being our fault

[RandBlade]

Realistically now the outlines of any eventual peace accords are pretty clear and the Israelis would probably accept it if the Palestinians did. The irony is that from the Palestinian perspective now the eventually accords would probably be worse than what Arafat rejected at the turn of the century, but that's the price you pay for prolonging and losing a conflict.

Realistically the only viable solution is:
All parties respect Israel's right to exist, with new borders.
All parties respect Palestine's right to exist, with new borders.
No "right of return".
Compensation for any "right of return" claims.
Gaza (which Israel has already disengaged from and dismantled settlements from) is Palestinian.
New West Bank borders to match with the Israeli/West Bank border wall. So Israel is recognised to have annexed East Jerusalem and the settlements to the west of the wall.
Palestinian authority to be granted over Al-Aqsa Mosque/Temple Mount.
Possibly Palestine to have the quarters of East Jerusalem that are Arab and not Jewish.
Probably cash paid to Palestine to aid with development. May or may not be part of the formal settlement but would definitely happen either way.
Other Israeli Settlements not within the border wall to be demolished.
All parties declare the conflict is over.

[Being]

Well, that's the other thing - if you want to talk about historical roots and go back far enough it just ends up being our fault

WHAT ? I thought it was the Babylonians?

[Being]

Realistically now the outlines of any eventual peace accords are pretty clear and the Israelis would probably accept it if the Palestinians did. The irony is that from the Palestinian perspective now the eventually accords would probably be worse than what Arafat rejected at the turn of the century, but that's the price you pay for prolonging and losing a conflict.

Realistically the only viable solution is:
All parties respect Israel's right to exist, with new borders.
All parties respect Palestine's right to exist, with new borders.
No "right of return".
Compensation for any "right of return" claims.
Gaza (which Israel has already disengaged from and dismantled settlements from) is Palestinian.
New West Bank borders to match with the Israeli/West Bank border wall. So Israel is recognised to have annexed East Jerusalem and the settlements to the west of the wall.
Palestinian authority to be granted over Al-Aqsa Mosque/Temple Mount.
Possibly Palestine to have the quarters of East Jerusalem that are Arab and not Jewish.
Probably cash paid to Palestine to aid with development. May or may not be part of the formal settlement but would definitely happen either way.
Other Israeli Settlements not within the border wall to be demolished.
All parties declare the conflict is over.

Wow, have you thought of a career in international relations? You could be the next Jared Kushner.

[RandBlade]

Sadly it's hardly original. Basically the Oslo Accords proposal updated to recognise the on the ground reality of the border wall.

Peace will come when people want peace. For as long as people would rather fight a futile conflict instead it won't happen.

[Steely Glint]

WHAT ? I thought it was the Babylonians?

Ultimately, I think the real blame here lies with early tool using hominids. They should have been able to see where all that nonsense was leading.

[Being]

Ultimately, I think the real blame here lies with early tool using hominids. They should have been able to see where all that nonsense was leading.

They probably knew, just didn't leave any viable evidence.

[LittleFuzzy]

I thought this debate couldn't possibly get any more stupid and gross but here you went and proved me wrong. "They all deserve to suffer" is literally the worst and most wrong position on this issue. You would have a better case for arguing that the Palestinians' representatives are more culpable than the Israelis', than to support the position that they all deserve to suffer.

I didn't say they deserved to suffer. I said they'd abandoned any right to sympathy. The general public on both sides could be making substantial strides to improve things for them all. They don't want to. Really working to stop the excesses on their side is too much effort. But they manage to muster up the time to support actions taken against their real opponents on the other side. No, Aimless, there is no sympathy nor is there any reason there should be.

Great news.

Twitter Link

Difference between Israel and Gaza (and Egypt, Jordan and the rest) is that Israel is a functional democracy. Good riddance to Netanyahu.

Calling the formation of governments in the Knesset functional democracy is a serious stretch. The only way you can get away with it is by making the comparison to entities which aren't even superficially democratic, like Gaza or the Chinese Politburo. Using Netenyahu being out as your example is even more laughable. Bibi has been out before. The fact that they brought him back in the first place. . .

This is not true of Palestinians living in the Levant. Sympathy is warranted.

They can have sympathy after they stop making things worse and start making real efforts to make things better for both sides.

[wiggin]

Sadly it's hardly original. Basically the Oslo Accords proposal updated to recognise the on the ground reality of the border wall.

Peace will come when people want peace. For as long as people would rather fight a futile conflict instead it won't happen.

There's no particular reason the separation barrier needs to delineate the border of a Palestinian state. In many cases it follows a fairly logical route (incorporating major settlement blocs we all know aren't moving) and would make sense, but in other cases it can and should be moved. Israel has the wherewithal and has demonstrated the willingness to do this in the past, I haven't a clue why we should consider that a 'reality' that determines the final borders.

It's always depressing to see how normalized the settlements are in Israel. Just saw a story about the presidential "election." Not much written about the losing candidate except that she won a prestigious lifetime achievement prize. I google her. She spent her whole adult life living in settlements, first in the Sinai and then in the West Bank. You'd think that would be newsworthy, but I guess not anymore.

Loki, it's not like she's lived in Hebron or an outpost. She has lived in three settlements in her life:

1. Ofira, a legal settlement built on no one's private property near the southern tip of the Sinai desert. Her husband was the local Health Ministry inspector. This settlement was peacefully evacuated after the Camp David Accords, and Egyptian citizens now live in the intact neighborhood (rather distinct from what happened following the disengagement).

2. Givon Hahadasha, a suburb immediately north of Jerusalem. It was founded in 1895 by Yemenite Jews, was depopulated by Arab violence in 1929 riots. It was refounded in the 70s and is now part of the Jerusalem metropolitan area.

3. Giv'at Zeev, a suburb adjacent to #2 above, built on a Jordanian military base. Notably a suburb that literally everyone (including, I should note, known settlement lover Saeb Erekat) acknowledges will become part of Israel in a final status agreement.

The Israeli public does not tar all settlements with the same brush. Miriam Peretz's choice of homes is largely uncontroversial because these settlements have always been uncontroversial in Israel. I have family who absolutely refuse to visit any settlement in the West Bank (or formerly Gaza), but think nothing of hiking in the Golan or visiting Jerusalem and its environs. I have family who have visited Hebron and got in arguments with me about the legality and wisdom of families living in the disputed 'Beit Hashalom', but these opinions are in the minority. Most of the Israelis I know (including the so-called National Religious camp) are somewhere in between - they distinguish between major settlement blocs near the Green Line, often built on former Jewish towns in pre-'48 Israel, and isolated settlements deep inside the West Bank. Almost all of them disdain the outposts which are illegal by Israeli law, on both practical and ethical levels. (In my neighborhood, a hybrid Israeli-American family moved in a few years ago. I was chatting with a different center-right religious Israeli friend of mine about their pending arrival, and the first thing she said - the first! - with a great deal of disapproval - was that they had lived in an illegal outpost in the West Bank prior to moving to the US. This is someone who wouldn't bat an eyelash at living in a place like Givat Ze'ev.)

Peretz is not an advocate for settlements, and is a fairly apolitical figure. The Israeli press did note her ties to the National Religious community as a reason for her lower prospects in the race. But we all know what this race was really about: it was between a well connected Ashkenazi political scion of impeccable pedigree and a Moroccan immigrant with no particular political heft, who is mostly known for her lectures on loss following the deaths of her two eldest sons in battle.

[Loki]

That's precisely my point. If someone doesn't live in a hilltop settlement where they shout insults at nearby Palestinians, it's a non-story. This person made the conscious decision to only live in settlements. Each of those decisions should be criticized, even if there might be some justification for it. But no one bothers because the behavior had been so thoroughly normalized. What the vast majority of Israel society considers perfectly acceptable is a gross violation of international law and grossly offensive to Palestinians and their supporters (rightfully so). The Israeli median voter today is an extremist (same for the Palestinians, but that's not exactly new). Peace is inconceivable because neither side even understands how offensive their actions are to the other side.

[wiggin]

That's precisely my point. If someone doesn't live in a hilltop settlement where they shout insults at nearby Palestinians, it's a non-story. This person made the conscious decision to only live in settlements. Each of those decisions should be criticized, even if there might be some justification for it. But no one bothers because the behavior had been so thoroughly normalized. What the vast majority of Israel society considers perfectly acceptable is a gross violation of international law and grossly offensive to Palestinians and their supporters (rightfully so). The Israeli median voter today is an extremist (same for the Palestinians, but that's not exactly new). Peace is inconceivable because neither side even understands how offensive their actions are to the other side.

Loki, I think you mischaracterize the Israeli public's attitude. It's not that they are comfortable with 'gross violations of international law', it's that they don't believe that it is a violation of international law. I'm well aware that the preponderance of int'l legal experts disagree with the Israeli position (with the obvious caveat that the status of the West Bank and Gaza is pretty unique wrt int'l law), but Israeli citizens generally subscribe to and trust the position of their own government. The Israeli government has certainly had some internal deliberations on this question that called into question their basic logic, but the official line - supported by both Israeli law and the Israeli Supreme Court - allows settlements in principle, though not all settlements in practice.

I will agree, though, that the Israeli public has little interest in whether settlements piss off Palestinians. There is a much greater degree of concern about expropriation of privately held lands than developing towns on 'state' held lands in the West Bank. This is based on several logics: first, Israelis don't see the Green Line as some magical and immutable border, it was merely an armistice line in 1949 and a substantial number of depopulated Jewish towns and neighborhoods were on the 'wrong' side of the line. They see no problems with coming back to those towns and building/expanding them. This is most relevant for the highest concentration/size settlements in the ring around Jerusalem.

I have a close friend whose grandfather was killed in the failed defense of Kfar Etzion and subsequent massacre. His father (the murdered man's son) was part of the group that refounded Kfar Etzion after the Six Day War. Israelis couldn't care less if Palestinians are offended by this; frankly, I can't blame them.

On the scale of extremism, however, I don't think this qualifies all that much. Israelis are offended by all sorts of things that Palestinians do, but what has derailed Israeli public support for concessions to the Palestinians hasn't been offense (even, say, widespread incitement to violence by Palestinian schools and leaders), but rather two waves of suicide bombings: first, during the height of the Oslo process, and second in the 2nd intifada. Palestinians can cope with the offense of settlement blocs near the Green Line - Palestinian negotiators have repeatedly said as much.

[Flixy]

It's not that they are comfortable with 'gross violations of international law', it's that they don't believe that it is a violation of international law. I'm well aware that the preponderance of int'l legal experts disagree with the Israeli position (with the obvious caveat that the status of the West Bank and Gaza is pretty unique wrt int'l law), but Israeli citizens generally subscribe to and trust the position of their own government.

I think this is Loki's point..

[Loki]

Loki, I think you mischaracterize the Israeli public's attitude. It's not that they are comfortable with 'gross violations of international law', it's that they don't believe that it is a violation of international law. I'm well aware that the preponderance of int'l legal experts disagree with the Israeli position (with the obvious caveat that the status of the West Bank and Gaza is pretty unique wrt int'l law), but Israeli citizens generally subscribe to and trust the position of their own government. The Israeli government has certainly had some internal deliberations on this question that called into question their basic logic, but the official line - supported by both Israeli law and the Israeli Supreme Court - allows settlements in principle, though not all settlements in practice.

Most Israelis are smart enough to know that the position of their government is contrary to that of just about everyone else. You'll be surprised to know that according to Hamas, suicide bombings are consistent with international law.

I have a close friend whose grandfather was killed in the failed defense of Kfar Etzion and subsequent massacre. His father (the murdered man's son) was part of the group that refounded Kfar Etzion after the Six Day War. Israelis couldn't care less if Palestinians are offended by this; frankly, I can't blame them.

Kind of how Palestinians who lost multiple family members to Israeli attacks think it's acceptable to kill Israeli civilians. It isn't. In the Middle East, everyone has good reasons to hate just about everyone else.

On the scale of extremism, however, I don't think this qualifies all that much. Israelis are offended by all sorts of things that Palestinians do, but what has derailed Israeli public support for concessions to the Palestinians hasn't been offense (even, say, widespread incitement to violence by Palestinian schools and leaders), but rather two waves of suicide bombings: first, during the height of the Oslo process, and second in the 2nd intifada. Palestinians can cope with the offense of settlement blocs near the Green Line - Palestinian negotiators have repeatedly said as much.

And what did Israel do before those waves of suicide bombings? Not have settlements? Not take Palestinian private land? Not use the legal system to systematically discriminate against non-Jews? All those suicide bombing waves did was change Israel's de facto opposition to a Palestinian state to a de jure opposition. When you don't give a damn about the interests of the other side and are willing to royally piss off the other side for minimal gains, you're an extremist. There's no chance for peace not because compromise is hard (it is), but because there is absolutely no will to stop being assholes. Even when the cost for not being assholes is really low. A majority of the Israeli public basically subscribes to the Israeli version of doing something just to make the libs cry.

[wiggin]

I think this is Loki's point..

There's a crucial distinction here, similar to my arguments a few years ago when people were concluding that Alabamans were so hopelessly extreme that they'd vote for a pedophile over a Democrat (which, remember, they didn't end up doing). That wasn't true at all; polls consistently showed that most Alabamans supporting Roy Moore simply didn't believe the allegations were true. It wasn't that they would choose a pedophile over a Democrat, it was that the media they consumed told them he wasn't a pedophile, and that Democrats were out to get him so had concocted a story.

While I'm not suggesting that Israeli settlement blocs are akin to pedophilia, the same basic logic applies here. Most Israelis aren't so extreme that they'll break laws willy-nilly in the pursuit of Greater Israel; they simply don't believe that 'legal' settlement blocs near the Green Line are a violation of either Israeli or international law - frankly, most of them don't believe it's a major obstacle to peace, either. That's what their government and media tell them, and that's what most of them believe.

They're certainly aware that the rest of the world disagrees, but Israelis have an extremely jaundiced view of the international community given said community's obviously skewed perspective on this issue (cf UNHRC, UNRWA, Durban I, etc, etc, etc.), the outsized scrutiny they receive (perceived as egregious double standards), and the repeated comprehensive failure of the world to take steps that would ensure the basic existence of Israel and the safety of Jews around the world (cf pretty much every LoN, British Empire, and UN action since WWI, utter global apathy in the leadup and execution of the Holocaust, the one-sided French arms embargo, etc). Israel may have secured a certain measure of security for itself, augmented by its most recent patron, but Israelis are well aware that it didn't come about through the concern or largesse of the international community. They believe that the international consensus that settlements are illegal under international law is not motivated by an honest evaluation of the evidence, but rather a persistent and pervasive antipathy to Israel and a desire to magnify its flaws to justify such antipathy.

My point isn't that Israelis are right or wrong - I think their skepticism of the uneven application of international law and condemnation is spot-on, but that doesn't mean that their legal analysis is in the right. My point is that taken in this context, believing the jurists and politicians of your own government across decades is not an 'extreme' position of flouting the law, but a mainstream one.

Kind of how Palestinians who lost multiple family members to Israeli attacks think it's acceptable to kill Israeli civilians. It isn't. In the Middle East, everyone has good reasons to hate just about everyone else.

You're equating rebuilding a depopulated Jewish town with murdering civilians?

In some ways Israel is just asserting a 'right of return' of their own. It's just that they have the power to actually make it happen.

And what did Israel do before those waves of suicide bombings? Not have settlements? Not take Palestinian private land? Not use the legal system to systematically discriminate against non-Jews? All those suicide bombing waves did was change Israel's de facto opposition to a Palestinian state to a de jure opposition. When you don't give a damn about the interests of the other side and are willing to royally piss off the other side for minimal gains, you're an extremist. There's no chance for peace not because compromise is hard (it is), but because there is absolutely no will to stop being assholes. Even when the cost for not being assholes is really low. A majority of the Israeli public basically subscribes to the Israeli version of doing something just to make the libs cry.

Loki, I think you are wrong on this one. The Israeli public was riven with divisions over the Oslo process (as they were over the Camp David Accords 2 decades prior) but were, haltingly and cautiously, moving towards greater Palestinian autonomy in more and more of the West Bank and Gaza. It didn't make settlements disappear or freeze, but Palestinians could see movement towards some level of statehood, especially in Gaza, Jericho, and Area A. In fact, Rabin had inaugurated his '92 term with a semi-freeze of settlements in the run-up to Oslo, and dramatically slowed the rate of growth. But suicide bombings started ramping up in 1994 and were pretty bad for several years; it's not shocking that Israelis voted in Netanyahu to provide what they perceived to be a realistic bulwark against giving the Palestinians too much autonomy (or weapons) too quickly.

Then, Ehud Barak was voted in with an explicit mandate to figure out a solution. He pulled out of Lebanon and made a pretty good faith effort to move along the Oslo process. He got nowhere and here we are.

Israelis recognize that some settlements and most outposts are going to have to go in a final status agreement. Israel has demonstrated a willingness to dismantle settlements in the past, even though it has been politically fraught. There is not widespread support for building in or living in the outposts or isolated legal settlements. But they also recognize that big blocs aren't going anywhere and that has always been the plan. Why call someone extremist for a realistic perspective on how much a given behavior is actually going to change the shape of a final status agreement?

[Aimless]

That's precisely my point. If someone doesn't live in a hilltop settlement where they shout insults at nearby Palestinians, it's a non-story. This person made the conscious decision to only live in settlements. Each of those decisions should be criticized, even if there might be some justification for it. But no one bothers because the behavior had been so thoroughly normalized. What the vast majority of Israel society considers perfectly acceptable is a gross violation of international law and grossly offensive to Palestinians and their supporters (rightfully so). The Israeli median voter today is an extremist (same for the Palestinians, but that's not exactly new). Peace is inconceivable because neither side even understands how offensive their actions are to the other side.

Less than a year ago, 2 out of 5 Palestinians and Israeli Jews alike said they supported a two state solution, at least in principle. The settlements remain the most important sticking point, undermining public acceptance of a two state solution—as well as faith in its viability. Israeli views on the settlements are only extremist from a principled & international perspective; domestically—and among the diaspora—the established settlements are a fait accompli that only extremists care about. Which has, of course, always been the motivation for pursuing the toxic "facts on the ground" strategy with such zealous fervor.

[Loki]

Less than a year ago, 2 out of 5 Palestinians and Israeli Jews alike said they supported a two state solution, at least in principle. The settlements remain the most important sticking point, undermining public acceptance of a two state solution—as well as faith in its viability. Israeli views on the settlements are only extremist from a principled & international perspective; domestically—and among the diaspora—the established settlements are a fait accompli that only extremists care about. Which has, of course, always been the motivation for pursuing the toxic "facts on the ground" strategy with such zealous fervor.

This is like a majority of Americans saying they want bipartisanship, but then not only opposing any compromise with the other party but actively punishing anyone from their own side who actually pursues compromise.

[Loki]

You're equating rebuilding a depopulated Jewish town with murdering civilians?

I'm equating gross violations of international law with gross violations of international law. Both are inflammatory.

In some ways Israel is just asserting a 'right of return' of their own. It's just that they have the power to actually make it happen.

The state of Israel consented to its current internationally recognized borders. You can't just ignore those borders when it suits you. Israel does not claim a right of return. Which makes these actions no better than theft of property, sanctioned by the state.

Loki, I think you are wrong on this one. The Israeli public was riven with divisions over the Oslo process (as they were over the Camp David Accords 2 decades prior) but were, haltingly and cautiously, moving towards greater Palestinian autonomy in more and more of the West Bank and Gaza. It didn't make settlements disappear or freeze, but Palestinians could see movement towards some level of statehood, especially in Gaza, Jericho, and Area A. In fact, Rabin had inaugurated his '92 term with a semi-freeze of settlements in the run-up to Oslo, and dramatically slowed the rate of growth. But suicide bombings started ramping up in 1994 and were pretty bad for several years; it's not shocking that Israelis voted in Netanyahu to provide what they perceived to be a realistic bulwark against giving the Palestinians too much autonomy (or weapons) too quickly.

Have you considered the possibility that taking decades to get to Oslo was too slow? Anyway, I don't want to relitigate the past. The reality is that present-day Israelis support numerous policies that provide a minimal benefit to Israel but do a great job of inflaming public opinion in the Palestinian territories. And they simply don't care (not counting those who do these things with the express goal of pissing off the Palestinians).

Israelis recognize that some settlements and most outposts are going to have to go in a final status agreement. Israel has demonstrated a willingness to dismantle settlements in the past, even though it has been politically fraught. There is not widespread support for building in or living in the outposts or isolated legal settlements. But they also recognize that big blocs aren't going anywhere and that has always been the plan. Why call someone extremist for a realistic perspective on how much a given behavior is actually going to change the shape of a final status agreement?

Starting negotiations with "we're going to keep 90% of what we want, now give us everything for the other 10%" is not how negotiations work. Dismantling the larger settlements is impractical only because virtually every Israeli government intentionally screwed the Palestinians out of more and more land. If this happened decades ago, we can blame this on the past. But it's still happening as we speak. The fact this position is the mainstream position in Israel just proves how extremist Israeli public opinion is (not to mention that there's now a majority or something approaching it that is actively hostile toward Arab citizens of Israel).

[RandBlade]

I'm equating gross violations of international law with gross violations of international law. Both are inflammatory.



The state of Israel consented to its current internationally recognized borders. You can't just ignore those borders when it suits you. Israel does not claim a right of return. Which makes these actions no better than theft of property, sanctioned by the state.



Have you considered the possibility that taking decades to get to Oslo was too slow? Anyway, I don't want to relitigate the past. The reality is that present-day Israelis support numerous policies that provide a minimal benefit to Israel but do a great job of inflaming public opinion in the Palestinian territories. And they simply don't care (not counting those who do these things with the express goal of pissing off the Palestinians).



Starting negotiations with "we're going to keep 90% of what we want, now give us everything for the other 10%" is not how negotiations work. Dismantling the larger settlements is impractical only because virtually every Israeli government intentionally screwed the Palestinians out of more and more land. If this happened decades ago, we can blame this on the past. But it's still happening as we speak. The fact this position is the mainstream position in Israel just proves how extremist Israeli public opinion is (not to mention that there's now a majority or something approaching it that is actively hostile toward Arab citizens of Israel).

Why shouldn't it happen now? Considering their enemy is not laying down its arms and is committed to Israel's destruction it seems entirely fair enough to do that.

If Hamas laid down their arms and sued for peace and Israel continued to do that, then it'd be a different matter. But they've not.

Until the conflict is over, Israel should keep ratchetting its victory until Hamas concedes defeat. Even Steely here reckons Israel have won the war, but their enemies won't recognise the fact, so what else is Israel supposed to do?

[wiggin]

I'm equating gross violations of international law with gross violations of international law. Both are inflammatory.

Yeah, okay, I don't think we're going to see eye to eye on this. There are many violations of international law; not all of them are or should be equally inflammatory. If you want to suggest that Israelis should be concerned about inflaming Palestinians when living in/building in settlement blocs built on the ruins of Jewish towns that were destroyed by Arab armies and Palestinian militias - because it is equally inflammatory as terrorist attacks that murder civilians - then we are not going to be able to have a productive conversation. I will respond to your points below but think that further back and forth is unlikely to provide for a meaningful exchange.

The state of Israel consented to its current internationally recognized borders. You can't just ignore those borders when it suits you. Israel does not claim a right of return. Which makes these actions no better than theft of property, sanctioned by the state.

I'm not sure that anyone considered the Green Line an 'internationally recognized border' in any way, shape or form. Certainly the Arab world didn't. Israel does have internationally recognized borders - the Blue Line with Lebanon (though Hezbollah certainly disputes parts of it), the Sinai frontier with Egypt, the border with Jordan. But Israel's borders with Syria and internal borders with the WB and Gaza have never been internationally delineated or recognized; the best we've got is the 1949 armistice agreements which didn't recognize squat.

As for 'theft of property', I agree 1000% percent that settlements built on private Palestinian land are not okay. Israeli law acknowledges this. Now, obviously the reality is a lot more complicated because Ottoman era documents are notoriously awful and the legal situation of a lot of the land is murky (as in the case of the Sheikh Jarrah homes). Israeli courts have generally been quite sympathetic to settler arguments here, mostly because of a few Israeli laws that tend to favor the state's ability to take control of lands with iffy titles. It's not a great situation.

But I challenge you to explain to me why living in, say, the Jewish Quarter of the Old City, or Kfar Etzion constitutes 'theft of property'.

Have you considered the possibility that taking decades to get to Oslo was too slow? Anyway, I don't want to relitigate the past. The reality is that present-day Israelis support numerous policies that provide a minimal benefit to Israel but do a great job of inflaming public opinion in the Palestinian territories. And they simply don't care (not counting those who do these things with the express goal of pissing off the Palestinians).

When was a good time to start the Oslo process? After the Khartoum Resolution? The Yom Kippur War? How about during the wave of Palestinian led attacks on Israeli targets during the 70s and 80s (i.e. hijackings, embassy bombings, Munich, etc.), or the destabilization of Lebanon leading to a decades-long civil war that created Hezbollah? The PLO only came around to nonviolent resistance (in theory) in the late 80s in the first intifada, and that did lead directly to negotiations with Arafat. And frankly Israel's Arab neighbors were way too much of a threat to give up defense in depth until after the fall of the USSR and the conclusion of peace treaties with two of them.

Regardless I think you underestimate the 'minimal benefit' Israel sees from settlements. Aside from ideological reasons that only speak to a small minority, Israel has serious housing pressures in the center of the country and settlements offer a cheap option for expanding housing close to major Israeli cities. Most settlers in e.g. Ariel, Modiin area, and Jerusalem suburbs get a whole lot of benefit out of living there rather than being shoehorned into the narrow coastal strip and the tightly packed developments west of Jerusalem proper. There's also the security arguments for why certain settlements were established (esp. Ariel and a few in the Jordan Valley) but those aren't as strong as they used to be.

You're right about one thing: building in densely populated settlement blocs near the Green Line may have little effect on aspirations for Palestinian statehood and self-determination, but they sure as hell piss Palestinians off - and Israelis don't get it. But they don't get it because it doesn't make sense, not because they don't care. This has been a major sticking point for Israelis and Palestinians in previous building 'freezes' that the Americans have negotiated. Israel and Israelis are flabbergasted that Palestinians will reject freezes on construction in by far the biggest problem areas because they don't include freezes in areas that don't matter at all but which provide the biggest benefit to Israelis.

Starting negotiations with "we're going to keep 90% of what we want, now give us everything for the other 10%" is not how negotiations work. Dismantling the larger settlements is impractical only because virtually every Israeli government intentionally screwed the Palestinians out of more and more land. If this happened decades ago, we can blame this on the past. But it's still happening as we speak. The fact this position is the mainstream position in Israel just proves how extremist Israeli public opinion is (not to mention that there's now a majority or something approaching it that is actively hostile toward Arab citizens of Israel).

90% of what they want is the entire West Bank, buddy. Israel has made no secret of the fact that they view the West Bank as incredibly significant from an economic, military, and historical perspective. But the reality is that people live there, and they're not going anywhere. Oslo was a major concession in that no one thinks any of Areas A, B, and Gaza were ever going to be part of Israel proper. In response the Palestinians have conceded... nothing. I'm pretty sure that's not how negotiations work, either.

[LittleFuzzy]

I think this is Loki's point..

I'm very much in agreement with Loki there. And it's one reason why I'm so disgusted with the Israeli's. Steely and others will howl and scream but I just can't care overmuch about heavy-handed Israeli military responses because the violence for both sides has been so extensive. I do care about how the Israeli's simply aren't willing to make any reasonable concessions (from the Palestinian perspective) or sacrifices to achieve peace. The way I see it, if the Israeli's expect the Palestinians to abandon the "right of return," they're gonna have to pony up something on a similar scale. Abandoning the settlements (with perhaps some wiggle room in Jerusalem) is just about the only thing I can see like that.

[RandBlade]

Sure Fuzzy but abandoning settlements (besides those that get kept permanently as per negotiations) will be part of the final status negotiations when they actually happen.

Why should Israel abandon them now while giving the Palestinians a free slate to do whatever they want and whatever they feel like demanding without Israel having anything to offer up in negotiations in the future because they've done it already now?

Worth noting that at Oslo the dismantling of settlements was proposed, but Arafat of course rejected that. Also the dismantling of settlements occured in Gaza too.

[GGT]

Says the guy who defended Brexit and wanted to cancel all previous EU negotiations?

[Flixy]

Sure Fuzzy but abandoning settlements (besides those that get kept permanently as per negotiations) will be part of the final status negotiations when they actually happen.

Why should Israel abandon them now while giving the Palestinians a free slate to do whatever they want and whatever they feel like demanding without Israel having anything to offer up in negotiations in the future because they've done it already now?

Worth noting that at Oslo the dismantling of settlements was proposed, but Arafat of course rejected that. Also the dismantling of settlements occured in Gaza too.

They could stop building more

[RandBlade]

They could stop building more

Sure and the Palestinians could stop terrorist attacks. It takes two to tango.

Israel have negotiated halts in settlement construction during ceasefires before.

Says the guy who defended Brexit and wanted to cancel all previous EU negotiations?

What's that got to do with the price of fish?