Israeli-Palestinian conflict

[scarm]

Totally different topic:

I find Greta Thunberg taking sides in the middle-east conflict very amusing. Not only does it show that she just does not understand the conflict, she might have also maneuvered herself and the whole FFF-movement into a difficult spot. Sympathizing with the Hamas isn't exactly the smartest move. Though i expect it not to have any impact considering the target demographic of the climate movement mostly doesn't understand the conflict either, or doesn't care about it.

To be clear i am not totally apologetic of Israel. It is unfortunately kinda hard to get reliable info on what happened before the Hamas started firing the rockets, but it seems some families were about to be evicted and no public gatherings were allowed during Ramadan bc, well covid. If that is the case it seems to be more so an excuse used by the Hamas to attack Israel. Either way, while there's rarely black and white and certainly not in this conflict, it is also delusional to criticize Israel for conducting military strikes against a terroristic organization bombarding its 'capital'. As if any nation capable of doing it would do anything else.

Oh and i btw. think that Greta has been an important catalyst for an important issue. It's just that that does not mean she's suddenly generally politically savvy imo.

[princeofcarthage]

Why are you discussing Asian politics in European politics

[scarm]

Because Thunberg is European, because the Middle East is geographically quite near to Europe, because Israel is culturally probably closer to Europe than to Asia and why the hell am i even arguing with you lol.

[princeofcarthage]

So let me get this, if an European comments on Asian politics, then it becomes an European issue? It maybe geographically closer to Europe but it's literally a part of Asia. Maybe we should consider Asia as part of Europe, cuz its western border is geographically closer to Europe. Israeli culture isn't exactly European, its mixture of lot many things. You are arguing because when I pointed out you were wrong you couldn't take it and had the urge to feel better about yourself.

[Dolan]

Gretel is a PR project started by her parents. Sometimes they blew it with their involvement in issues they were clueless about.
Like how they sided with the farmers' protest in India, expecting to win public brownie points from the media and the Tweetosphere for being on "the people's side".
But it turned out those Indian farmers were far from being some kind of poor and oppressed minority, they were doing quite well for themselves. And they wanted to protest against a status-quo from which they profited, they didn't want market liberalisation and competition. And these are the "oppressed people" Greta Thunberg™ was publicly siding with. Just lol.

Supporting the Palestinians has been a traditional position of the left (and the far left). It can get you good press in leftwing outlets like the Guardian or the Independent.
You can't win brownie points on Twitter if you support Israel, because they're seen as the powerful, well-connected side of the conflict.
There's no public sympathy to milk from siding with Israel and boost your public profile as a defender of tear-jerking global causes, since they're not seen as the oppressed minority in the conflict.

[duckzilla]

To be fair, Israel doesn't make it very hard to feel sympathy for Palestinians in general. Not all Palestinians are Hamas. The average Palestinian is in constant misery between Israel and Palestinian authorities who both are heavily influenced by racist fundamentalists. The difference, for the Palestinian, is that Israel is actively taking Palestinian homes and the own authorities do not.

Princeofcarthage might believe that geographic boundaries have to be applied as strict as possible. In my opinion this does not make sense. Israel is a good example, since its very existence is based on the large-scale influx of European immigrants before and after ww2. However, given that it is a strongly racist and authoritarian country, I see that one might confuse it as just another Asian country.

[scarm]

I personally can only recommend Dan Schueftan and some of his presentations and interviews on the middle-eastern conflict. He is cynical to no end, and is obviously influenced heavily by his security policy background and has an Israeli bias, but his view is very significant for the view of Israeli politicians across the political camps, and gives a good insight into the conflict.

I would decidedly disagree that Israel is racist or authoritarian. Israel has a multiparty-system that is relatively prone to producing unstable governments and Netanjahu is incredibly apt at abusing that to stay at power at all costs, but i don't see how that means its an authoritarian regime. That's just typical multiparty democracy. Israel also has a strong media landscape and civil society representing all kinds of ideologies.

Regarding supposed Israeli racism i am also not sure how you come to that conclusion (though i can speculate); could you specify why you consider Israel racist?

[RefluxSemantic]

Just have the discussion you want to have. Dont see why we would give a shit about what princeofcarthage thinks about it.

The Israel - Palestine conflict is beyond complicated, but some of the videos I have seen on reddit and the news make the people wrong Israel look bad. One video had some protestor basically advocate ethnic cleansing of jeruzalem.

[Dolan]

Rumours are that there's an implicit alliance between Netanyahu/Israel and Hamas. They both share one interest: making the Palestinian authority (PLO) lack any credibility whatsoever.
Netanyahu doesn't want the PLO to have any authority because Israel does not want peace, they want gradual occupation. It's not in their interest to legitimise the PLO by negotiating with them. Better ignore them so that Palestinians feel unrepresented. Because if they see the PLO as a weak, ineffective organisation, who will be considered a real power broker in Gaza? Hamas, a clandestine organisation, which means the Palestinians' situation cannot be solved in any official way. Which will perpetuate the conflict, boosting Netanyahu's political position and Hamas' legitimacy as a representative of Palestinians' interests.

On the other hand, lately Netanyahu has been politically under pressure. He barely managed to form a government last year which secured his position in power until October this year. He's also been the subject of criminal investigations related to some corruption scandals involving his family and political associates. What would Netanyahu gain from another period of spiking tensions with Palestinians? His position in power would be strengthened, since Israelis see him as an effective defender of Israel's security. So, if tensions rise again and there's lots of bombing going on, it's more likely for Israelis to want Netanyahu to continue to stay in power, maybe even beyond October 2021, when the current government's mandate ends.

Let's just say that killings and bombings in Israel and a security crisis serve Netanyahu's interests of being seen as the nation's protector who needs to be kept in power and needs to see prosecutors dial down the pressure put on him and his family by ongoing criminal investigations.

And Hamas is more than happy to launch missiles and serve Netanyahu's interests. Makes no sense, right, because neoliberals (aka, every reasonable and decent person) and mainstream media want us to believe they're sworn enemies. But these "enemies" have a stronger interest to continue to be enemies, they don't want peace. Peace is their biggest, common enemy.

[princeofcarthage]

Well I am just picking fight in this one for the sake of it. It really doesn't matter what topic you discuss in what thread, though it helps keep things organized.

[occamslightsaber]

However, given that it is a strongly racist and authoritarian country, I see that one might confuse it as just another Asian country.

Ironic

[duckzilla]

Regarding supposed Israeli racism i am also not sure how you come to that conclusion (though i can speculate); could you specify why you consider Israel racist?

There is a law that comes to my mind, which is only applies Jewish citizens: Jewish citizens can claim real estate in Eastern Jerusalem if they can prove that their family lived there before the arab-israli war of 1948 (source). Since the law only applies to Jewish citizens, Palestinians or muslim Israelis cannot claim property lost during that war. That sounds racist to me.

Another law says that you can lose property rights on your house if you did not live there for a certain time frame. During said war, a large number of Palestinians, fearing for their lives, fled to other areas of Palestine. When they came back, their property was already taken by others, often Jewish Israelis. They cannot claim it back due to the law above not applying to them.

Jewish right-win activists openly state that they want to reclaim the entire Jerusalem for Judaism. For multiple years now, these groups get backing from the government due to Netanyahu going into coalition with nationalist and fundamentalist parties, who drove forward the increase in Jewish settlements on Palestinian soil. This creates precendents which will be very difficult to fight in the future. Palestinians have two options: either becoming second-class citizens in Israel or moving away. This is a combination of authoritarian and racist policies. Is it not?

[Dolan]

I don't get it, what does "racist" mean in this context? Genetically, Israelis are very similar to other peoples from the Middle East, including Palestinians.
If you look at a genetic PCA map, Palestinians cluster close with Jordanians, Syrians, Yemenite Jews, etc.
So, how are Israelite Jews a different race from Palestinians? I think this term is too loosely used and often abused to signal someone's righteous anger at seeing a group being treated differently based on some cultural-political interests.

Are you calling a religious/cultural difference between Israeli Jews and Palestinians race?

[duckzilla]

I don't get it, what does "racist" mean in this context? Genetically, Israelis are very similar to other peoples from the Middle East, including Palestinians.
If you look at a genetic PCA map, Palestinians cluster close with Jordanians, Syrians, Yemenite Jews, etc.
So, how are Israelite Jews a different race from Palestinians? I think this term is too loosely used and often abused to signal someone's righteous anger at seeing a group being treated differently based on some cultural-political interests.

Are you calling a religious/cultural difference between Israeli Jews and Palestinians race?

I think that you already know that the term "race" does not apply for homo sapiens anyway. Biologically speaking, there are no races. Hence, the term "racist" is somewhat arbitrary and controversial in pretty much any application. Here, I apply it to describe the hostile relations between a number of groups as well as the systemic discrimination against some of them.

[Dolan]

Well, then, isn't discrimination a more precise term? I never know what people mean when they say "racism".
And when you ask them, they're not very sure either.

[lejend]

Only Europeans can be racist though, and since most Israeli Jews aren't European, they can't be racist.

[princeofcarthage]

Israel should just annex and bring peace to the region finally.

[scarm]

There is a law that comes to my mind, which is only applies Jewish citizens: Jewish citizens can claim real estate in Eastern Jerusalem if they can prove that their family lived there before the arab-israli war of 1948 (source). Since the law only applies to Jewish citizens, Palestinians or muslim Israelis cannot claim property lost during that war. That sounds racist to me.

Another law says that you can lose property rights on your house if you did not live there for a certain time frame. During said war, a large number of Palestinians, fearing for their lives, fled to other areas of Palestine. When they came back, their property was already taken by others, often Jewish Israelis. They cannot claim it back due to the law above not applying to them.

Jewish right-win activists openly state that they want to reclaim the entire Jerusalem for Judaism. For multiple years now, these groups get backing from the government due to Netanyahu going into coalition with nationalist and fundamentalist parties, who drove forward the increase in Jewish settlements on Palestinian soil. This creates precendents which will be very difficult to fight in the future. Palestinians have two options: either becoming second-class citizens in Israel or moving away. This is a combination of authoritarian and racist policies. Is it not?

Let me start with and say that just as its important to distinguish between ordinary palestinians and the fatah and hamas, its important to distinguish between the Likud and ordinary Israelis. The settlement policy, and esp. its progress under Netanjahu can definitely be criticized - and is critized widly in Israel.

Secondly, the Palestinians that fled during the Israeli Independence war mostly fled because of anti-jew propaganda spread by the arab league. Its true that a small portion also fled because of fear or because the IDF dispelled them forcefully, which is recogized and criticized in Israel. The returnal of these refugees however hinges less on some housing laws and more on the fact that its a central demand of the fatah and the hamas. The issue here is that they consider the refugee status inheritable, which means there are about 5 million people the fatah demands a right of returnal for. Now, that might seem sensible, until you realize that if Israel were to accept these, that would mean a population growth of about 80% (in relation to the 7 million jewish citizens) or 50% in relation to the total 10 million citizens. Not only is that an impossible challenge in and of itself, considering most of these are uneducated and poor, it would also mean the end of the Israeli state. Within a matter of years palestinians would by far outnumber Israelis, resulting in a defacto one state solution, where the Israelis end up at the mercy of the fatah. No state ever is going to accept such an attack on its sovereignity, which is why a two-state-solution is not going to happen unless the palestinians ditch that demand (and they know it). You might consider this racist as well, but try to think from an israeli perspective: Its a question of survival, and the israeli people has been threatened by arab states with total and absolute extinction. A similar pattern is visible for other concessions and areas of negotiations, Israel had been open to negotiations in the past, and made concessions, but always without compromising their security. Israel must maintain absolut military dominance in the region to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe, an they know it. The offers made in Camp David in 2000 are the furthest Israel is ever going to go, and everyone in the region knows it.
Furthermore, the arab states that administrate the camps with the Palestinians don't want to integrate them in their society and make these refugees suffer because they know it works as a way to make Israel seem bad n the international stage. In general the Fatah is using a strategy of trying to make Israel seem bad in order to make the EU intervene, because they know they have no other way to achieve their demands.
Israels solution to the problem since then has been to "administer the misery", and try and search for unilateral solutions, because the Fatah and Hamas don't care for real solutions, they only want Israel purged of the map, and they openly say it.

Other powers in the region also know this and stopped caring and instead focus on more important threats like the Iranian Nuke, which is why they are thankfully making peace with Israel, such as the VAE, and hopefully/probably the Saudis in the future.

The Trump Plan is another example that actually was quite a good offer - not from a territorial perspective obviously, but the economic stimulus it would have given to the region would have been huge.

[duckzilla]

Let me start with and say that just as its important to distinguish between ordinary palestinians and the fatah and hamas, its important to distinguish between the Likud and ordinary Israelis. The settlement policy, and esp. its progress under Netanjahu can definitely be criticized - and is critized widly in Israel.

I don't say that all Israelis are racist. On a societal level, this does not change the fact that Israel, as a country, implements racist policies and supports racist initiatives by radical extremists.

[Hmmm]

Secondly, the Palestinians that fled during the Israeli Independence war mostly fled because of anti-jew propaganda spread by the arab league. Its true that a small portion also fled because of fear or because the IDF dispelled them forcefully, which is recogized and criticized in Israel. The returnal of these refugees however hinges less on some housing laws and more on the fact that its a central demand of the fatah and the hamas. The issue here is that they consider the refugee status inheritable, which means there are about 5 million people the fatah demands a right of returnal for. Now, that might seem sensible, until you realize that if Israel were to accept these, that would mean a population growth of about 80% (in relation to the 7 million jewish citizens) or 50% in relation to the total 10 million citizens. Not only is that an impossible challenge in and of itself, considering most of these are uneducated and poor, it would also mean the end of the Israeli state. Within a matter of years palestinians would by far outnumber Israelis, resulting in a defacto one state solution, where the Israelis end up at the mercy of the fatah. No state ever is going to accept such an attack on its sovereignity, which is why a two-state-solution is not going to happen unless the palestinians ditch that demand (and they know it).

We are looking at a problem that has not been solved over the course of 80 years and that, if I understand it correctly, is a direct consequence of the controversial declaration of the state of Israel and the subsequent war. We could have a lengthy discussion on the history of zionism with the goal of founding a jewish nation state for european Jews on palestinian soil, but I'm not sure whether this is fruitful here. Taking a palestinian perspective, I can certainly understand that this undertaking looks like a quasi-colonial endeavor. In my opinion, this history gives Israel a much higher responsibility to solve this conflict that its counterparties.

You might consider this racist as well, but try to think from an israeli perspective: Its a question of survival, and the israeli people has been threatened by arab states with total and absolute extinction. A similar pattern is visible for other concessions and areas of negotiations, Israel had been open to negotiations in the past, and made concessions, but always without compromising their security. Israel must maintain absolut military dominance in the region to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe, an they know it. The offers made in Camp David in 2000 are the furthest Israel is ever going to go, and everyone in the region knows it.
Furthermore, the arab states that administrate the camps with the Palestinians don't want to integrate them in their society and make these refugees suffer because they know it works as a way to make Israel seem bad n the international stage. In general the Fatah is using a strategy of trying to make Israel seem bad in order to make the EU intervene, because they know they have no other way to achieve their demands.
Israels solution to the problem since then has been to "administer the misery", and try and search for unilateral solutions, because the Fatah and Hamas don't care for real solutions, they only want Israel purged of the map, and they openly say it.

I see that. Still I think that it is in Israel's responsibility to, e.g., improve the conditions in Gaza or stop its own people from settling on palestinian territory.

[Dolan]

It's not a solvable conflict, neither side is really interested in making any real concession.
If Israel did what you suggested, ie improved conditions in Gaza, it doesn't mean that Hamas would have softened their demands.
Each side is actually interested in perpetuating the conflict, because the more Israelis trigger Hamas to launch terror attacks, the more this justifies their current policy of gradually pushing Palestinians out.
And Hamas doesn't want peace either, because their existence is only justified by a perpetual clandestine fight against Israeli authorities.
When they "agreed" on any concessions, it was just a temporary stalemate that served some immediate objective (like securing more funds).
And then, after a while, they launched an attack again and the previous stalemate was gone.

[scarm]

We are looking at a problem that has not been solved over the course of 80 years and that, if I understand it correctly, is a direct consequence of the controversial declaration of the state of Israel and the subsequent war. We could have a lengthy discussion on the history of zionism with the goal of founding a jewish nation state for european Jews on palestinian soil, but I'm not sure whether this is fruitful here. Taking a palestinian perspective, I can certainly understand that this undertaking looks like a quasi-colonial endeavor. In my opinion, this history gives Israel a much higher responsibility to solve this conflict that its counterparties.

I wanna address this because its based on a common misconception: palestinian antisemitism and the arab league are often portrayed as a reaction to the declaration of Israel. While the declaration certainly didn't exaclty help, antisemitism and jewish life in the Middle east is much older than that. Antisemitism in islam is essentially as old as the religion itself, but opposed to christian antijudaism they didn't view jews as some superior lifeform that is scary and instead as very weak, comparing them to animals, esp. cowardly ones. Muslim leaders also were quite fond of the Nazis and the idea of eradicating jewish life, decades before Israel was factually declared. During the period of zionism, the amount of jews in the middle east obviously surged, i am not denying that. But, and thats important - these jews didn't impose themselves on some poor Palestinians, but instead bought land from large arab landowners, completely legally. These jewish communities often had to endure antisemitism, discrimination and pogroms, and that reached a new high after the Brits retreated and left the region a mess. The declaration of statehood, i.e. the step from informal settlements to a true entity was during that period, and was itself a reaction to the fact that the region was chaos, with militias everywhere (of both sides). Point being, jewish settlement in the middle east started because of capitalism (which you might criticize). Then, in the early 20th century, Arab nationalism was created, partially subsidized by the brits and France, to fight against the ottomans. These Arab nationalists radicalized, esp. under the influence of the muslim brothers, and adored racism as an ideology and the nazis in particular, and vowed to finish what hitler had started. Under these conditions then the state of Israel was founded, because loose settlements didn't seem to cut it anymore, since the Brits didn't give a fuck and just left the region instead of trying to pacify it.

Its also important to mention that the often brought up argument that the settlement is illegal per se ( i would agree its immoral and fuels the conflict), isn't correct. The Land claimed as Palestine never belonged to any kind of Palestinian entity, but to to Jordan, which conceded it to Israel. Furthermore, its kinda obvious that Israel does not acknowledge UN-Resolutions on the issue, considering those are by and large driven by its sworn enemies, members of the arab league.

Dolans point is also important. While i wouldn't go so far to say that these rumours he cited are correct, the Hamas and the PLO aren't democratic organizations, they are interested in maintaining their power at all costs, and their power stems from Palestinian suffering. Abbas for example hasn't been subjected to election in like 10 years or so, and the Hamas came to power through violence, so it's kinda impossible to know what the Palestinian people truly wants.
Regarding your point that its for example Israels duty to improve conditions in Gaza: i mean they tried. In the Gaza war (referring to Operation cast lead so the 2008 one) they tried to defeat the Hamas, for one because it would have been better for strategic reason, and also because they came to power through a coup. After a bloody war that was portrayed as Israel invading the poor Palestinians (that were at least partially oppressed by the Hamas, that didn't care about civilian casualties) Israel retreated and left the strip to itself, hence "administering the misery".

[scarm]

I am gonna end this paragraph with another punchline: If Israel truely was racist and authoritarian and imperialist on top of that, they would just annex the entire fucking area and declare it Israel. They have the miliatry power to do so and the arab league largely wouldn't care anymore, they don't give a fuck about the palestinians. And even if they did, Israels miliatry supremacy is still enough to just ignore that.

(and btw. authoritarianism refers to systems not policies, so what you are saying by calling Israel authoritarian is that its democracy is malfunctioning, which is factually untrue, though it obviously has shortcomings, as do all democracies).

[princeofcarthage]

If you truly want peace, Israel should annex and be done with it while still it has time. Its military supremacy isn't going to last for long.

[princeofcarthage]

How long before Israel goes to war? Iron dome can only protect for so long that if this continues, eventual ground attack to take source becomes necessary.

[Dolan]

The situation will probably revert to calm once Netanyahu is reconfirmed in power tbh.