Agreed on the '67 Green Line.
But negotiated? No. Full return of East Jerusalem & all the WB Israeli occupied lands to the Palestinians.
Golan Heights back to Syria as well.
Without negotiated exchanges you will no longer have free worship at the Western wall. No matter what you are going to have to have some delicate negotiations around the holy sites when Israel finally removes the settlements from the west bank.
Well if you want to play that game, let's say the Canadian government were to strip the first nations people of their citizenship, making them stateless. They then set up checkpoints on their territory, start building white only settlements on their land and arbitrarily throw them out of their homes to build those settlements.
What do you think the indigenous population would do in that case?
You are describing the life a first nations person in Canada in 1950. They couldn't vote until 1960. They couldn't bring about any land claims disputes until 1951. Traditional worship and ceremonies were banned until 1951 (potlach, sundance). It was illegal to have alcohol. They had no jurisdiction over their own child's welfare. There was a pass system where you needed a pass to leave the reserve. Anyone who did leave the reserve lost status if they married a white man or graduated university. Many times reserve land was redrawn to allow development of federal lands, often not getting land back in exchange.
Canada did all what you said above already. That is in our history. It's not a hypothetical. So what did the First Nations people do in the 50's and 60's? Well they ensured they had a spot at the table in the 1951 amendments to the Indian Act. They created their own response to Trudeau's White Paper of 1969. They slowly increased the powers of the bands and finally over the last 3 decades have made great strides in greater governance powers. We still have a long way to go in decolonization in Canada, but progress has been made without the outright violence that you see in the Middle East.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to J epworth For This Useful Post:
You are painting a broad stroke based on an opinion piece that does not reflect the beliefs of all Israelis/Jews.
But sure, use the words of one fanatic to make your point instead of looking at the actions of thousands around the globe.
No, you've misread me. The point is that it is silly to post an opinion piece that essentially states "if you're on this side, you're the same as the worst person" and then turn around and say "on our side, we have nuanced views, including my own."
My point was against the broad strokes of the piece in question, which I assume you would agree with as you've called the writer a fanatic, and certainly not painting a broad stroke of my own outside of illustrating the ridiculousness of that point.
Anyone, at all, who suggests "all Israelis and supporters" or "all Palestinians and supporters" are equal to the worst examples, are idiots, plain and simple. Doesn't matter what side you're on.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
Well if you want to play that game, let's say the Canadian government were to strip the first nations people of their citizenship, making them stateless. They then set up checkpoints on their territory, start building white only settlements on their land and arbitrarily throw them out of their homes to build those settlements.
What do you think the indigenous population would do in that case?
This happened over the last 150 years.
The response was two armed resistances in 1869 and 1885. While 1869 was ended somewhat diplomatically, in 1885 the feds killed and imprisoned anyone to took part, and made an example of the Nations by setting up NWMP stations and restricting their movement for the next 50 years, and started an intense program of trying to convert their language, religion culture to euro Canadian Protestantism. Hell in this same region a young man was killed and his murder was let free in 2016.
while the scale of violence is relatively smaller the systematic structures have many similarities.
Last edited by TheIronMaiden; 05-21-2021 at 10:06 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to TheIronMaiden For This Useful Post:
No, you've misread me. The point is that it is silly to post an opinion piece that essentially states "if you're on this side, you're the same as the worst person" and then turn around and say "on our side, we have nuanced views, including my own."
My point was against the broad strokes of the piece in question, which I assume you would agree with as you've called the writer a fanatic, and certainly not painting a broad stroke of my own outside of illustrating the ridiculousness of that point.
Anyone, at all, who suggests "all Israelis and supporters" or "all Palestinians and supporters" are equal to the worst examples, are idiots, plain and simple. Doesn't matter what side you're on.
Fair enough, thanks for the clarification. I apologize if I came off accusatory.
I'm curious however, if you would agree that there is a lack of "nuanced views" coming out from the Palestinian side regarding Hamas?
From my, admittedly biased point of view, there seems to be a trend of Palestinian supporters following the Hamas agenda (violence, rage, hatred), and very few who are advocating for a reasonable and just solution. Should we not be holding these people accountable? Is their response justified?
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh, as we continue our conversation with Henry Siegman, president of the U.S./Middle East Project, former head of the American Jewish Congress.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: I’d like to turn, Henry Siegman, to Khaled Meshaal, the leader of Hamas, who was speaking to Charlie Rose of PBS. He said Hamas was willing to coexist with Jews but said it would not live, quote, “with a state of occupiers.”
KHALED MESHAAL: [translated] I am ready to coexist with the Jews, with the Christians, and with the Arabs and non-Arabs, and with those who agree with my ideas and also disagree with them; however, I do not coexist with the occupiers, with the settlers and those who put a siege on us.
CHARLIE ROSE: It’s one thing to say you want to coexist with the Jews. It’s another thing you want to coexist with the state of Israel. Do you want to coexist with the state of Israel? Do you want to represent—do you want to recognize Israel as a Jewish state?
KHALED MESHAAL: [translated] No. I said I do not want to live with a state of occupiers.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: That was Khaled Meshaal, the leader of Hamas, speaking to Charlie Rose. Henry Siegman, could you respond to that, and specifically the claim made by Israelis repeatedly that they can’t negotiate with a political organization that refuses the state of Israel’s right to exist in its present form?
HENRY SIEGMAN: Yes. It so happens that in both international custom and international law, political parties, like Hamas, are not required or even ever asked to recognize states, whether they recognize a state or not. The question is whether the government of which they are a part and that makes policy and executes policy, whether that government is prepared to recognize other states. And this is true in the case of Israel, as well, the government of Israel, any government. I, incidentally, discussed this with Meshaal, not once, but several times, face to face, and asked him whether he would be part of a government that recognizes the state of Israel, and he says—and he said, “Yes, provided”—they had a proviso—he said, “provided that the Palestinian public approves that policy.” And he repeated to me the fact that—he said, “You’re absolutely right.” He says, “People ask us will we recognize the state of Israel, and will we affirm that it’s legitimately a Jewish state.” He said, “No, we won’t do that. But we have never said that we will not serve in a government that has public support for that position, that we will not serve in such a government.”
But a more important point to be made here—and this is why these distinctions are so dishonest—the state of Israel does not recognize a Palestinian state, which is to say there are parties in Netanyahu’s government—very important parties, not marginal parties—including his own, the Likud, that to this day has an official platform that does not recognize the right of Palestinians to have a state anywhere in Palestine. And, of course, you have Naftali Bennett’s party, the HaBayit HaYehudi, which says this openly, that there will never be a state, a Palestinian state, anywhere in Palestine. Why hasn’t our government or anyone said, “Like Hamas, if you have parties like that in your government, you are not a peace partner, and you are a terrorist group, if in fact you use violence to implement your policy, as Hamas does”? So the hypocrisy in the discussion that is taking place publicly is just mind-boggling.
Fair enough, thanks for the clarification. I apologize if I came off accusatory.
I'm curious however, if you would agree that there is a lack of "nuanced views" coming out from the Palestinian side regarding Hamas?
From my, admittedly biased point of view, there seems to be a trend of Palestinian supporters following the Hamas agenda (violence, rage, hatred), and very few who are advocating for a reasonable and just solution. Should we not be holding these people accountable? Is their response justified?
We should hold these people accountable, especially those outside of direct danger who are directly supporting Hamas and engaging in anti-semitic, hateful language and actions. It's never ok. They are simply using Palestinians in Gaza as a prop for their own hatred. I also think these people are in the minority, so I would say we should treat them as that while condemning them and their actions, without putting the guilt and responsibility of those actions on the majority.
That said, looking at the situation in Gaza, its definitely more nuanced. You may not see as much resistance against Hamas and I think it's for several reasons: Israel is a greater focus as the aggressors as they're the ones targeting these people (or at least seen as), there is a lack of resources (from basic living resources to the kind of resources that enable true freedom of speech), and Hamas is a terrorist organization that has shown it is ready and willing to crush civilian dissenters. A lot of these people are operating from a place of fear without the means to engage the way someone in Israel would.
The main difference here, is that Israel, unlike Hamas, provides it's citizens a voice and the right to make changes to their government.
There a some very questionable views held in a number of Israeli parties, but these are slowly but surely becoming the minority across Israel, and for Jews globally.
The main difference here, is that Israel, unlike Hamas, provides it's citizens a voice and the right to make changes to their government.
There a some very questionable views held in a number of Israeli parties, but these are slowly but surely becoming the minority across Israel, and for Jews globally.
Perhaps for Jews globally, I think the majority of Jewish people are very against these views and against the actions of Israel.
But most reports suggest it's going the opposite way in Israel. The far right is gaining more votes and thus, more prominence and influence, every single year. Even if it is the minority in Israel, it's a growing one, not a shrinking one.
Perhaps for Jews globally, I think the majority of Jewish people are very against these views and against the actions of Israel.
But most reports suggest it's going the opposite way in Israel. The far right is gaining more votes and thus, more prominence and influence, every single year. Even if it is the minority in Israel, it's a growing one, not a shrinking one.
This isn't correct. The right is actually losing votes to centrist parties:
This is actually what's caused the deadlock in Isreali politics. Netanyahu has lost ground to the Yesh Atid centrist party, which prevents him from forming a clear majority. Labour also gained 5 seats.
The Following User Says Thank You to blankall For This Useful Post:
This is actually what's caused the deadlock in Isreali politics. Netanyahu has lost ground to the Yesh Atid centrist party, which prevents him from forming a clear majority. Labour also gained 5 seats.
Yes, it is. The overall percentage share of votes to right-wing parties increased between 2019 and 2021, and some formerly centrist parties have adopted more anti-Palestinian/two state stances.
Lapid is likely going to fail in his attempts to form a coalition, and Bennett is no better than Netanyahu.
Yes, it is. The overall percentage share of votes to right-wing parties increased between 2019 and 2021, and some formerly centrist parties have adopted more anti-Palestinian/two state stances.
Lapid is likely going to fail in his attempts to form a coalition, and Bennett is no better than Netanyahu.
Not correct again. I should have linked the 2015 results. This was the last stable Israeli government:
In 2015, Nethanyahu was able to form a majority just from right wing parties. That's no longer possible.
The settler/religious parties are gaining seats, but that's a very slow process that changes with demographics.
The overall trend is a strong shift towards centrist politics, with Yesh Atid gaining significant ground. The centrists have now gained enough power that they are looking to form a government with the left. Yesh Atid had formerly backed Netanyahu. Them shifting to the left is what's driving the political deadlock in Israel.
Even the right has seen a split, with the modern right wing "new right" (AKA Yamina) gaining ground after splitting from religious parties.
Yes, it is. The overall percentage share of votes to right-wing parties increased between 2019 and 2021, and some formerly centrist parties have adopted more anti-Palestinian/two state stances.
Lapid is likely going to fail in his attempts to form a coalition, and Bennett is no better than Netanyahu.
Naftali Bennett and his party are frightening.
The Following User Says Thank You to _Q_ For This Useful Post:
In 2015, Nethanyahu was able to form a majority just from right wing parties. That's no longer possible.
The settler/religious parties are gaining seats, but that's a very slow process that changes with demographics.
The overall trend is a strong shift towards centrist politics, with Yesh Atid gaining significant ground. The centrists have now gained enough power that they are looking to form a government with the left. Yesh Atid had formerly backed Netanyahu. Them shifting to the left is what's driving the political deadlock in Israel.
Even the right has seen a split, with the modern right wing "new right" (AKA Yamina) gaining ground after splitting from religious parties.
You can keep saying it's not correct but you're looking at data points that don't tell the story you're trying to tell, or at very least the story you're trying to tell is not opposed to the story I presented. You're being somewhat narrowminded and missing the picture here.
All of "Israelis have become more centrist," "centrists have adopted more right-wing positions specifically regarding Palestine," "centrist parties are willing to form coalitions with left wing parties," and "the far right in Israel has grown" can be true statements, they are not mutually exclusive.
