Israel - Palestine discussion thread

I've never had to worry about whether my house has a "safe room," or incoming rocket attacks, or literally being raped, killed, and then having my corpse paraded around.
Did USA solved poverty and ghetto problem? Last time I checked you have 0,2% homeless, while Israel at 0,02%. Chances to be raped or killed in USA also nowhere near 0.
 
I don't normally get involved much in political discussions these days, but it's really concerning to me and deeply sickens me just how many people in my generation seem to have no issue with representing Hamas as noble freedom fighters rather than the ruthless terrorist organization they deserve to be classified as.

I feel terrible every day when I look at the news and see the civilian death count in Gaza continue to rise. Yes, a swift end to the war and a ceasefire would be great, but then in that case the civilian population in Gaza are still stuck under a brutal theocratic regime that oppresses them as much as Israel does.

Israel needs to stop its attacks and massacring civilians, they have definitely crossed way too many moral boundaries and have taken things way too far, but Palestinians as a people will never be free until Hamas is eradicated. If the war just ended tomorrow with Hamas still in power, the millions of Palestinians in Gaza would simply continue to suffer under their rule.

I know everything I'm saying is most likely super obvious and fence-sitting, but this war is the polar opposite of the Ukraine conflict where there is one clear and easy answer to the conflict. There is no clear or easy answer to this conflict and any one course of action is going to lead to bountiful suffering. If Israel carries on, Palestinians will continue to be massacred while Hamas uses them as meat shields, while simultaneously amassing more and more clout from young people the world over. But if Israel stops and withdraws, Hamas gets time to regroup, rearm and radicalize more people for another attack, while oppressing the rest of the civilian population that don't join their forces.

Really, no matter which solution is chosen to try and end this conflict, there is no positive outcome. The only way a truly win-win solution would occur is if Israel changes governments, withdraws, and Palestine is able to have its own revolution. But the chances of those things happening anytime soon are so miniscule this war is likely to continue carrying on for many more decades on and off as it always has.

I believe it was already mentioned in this thread, but this conflict truly is the perfect example of the cycle of hatred. Both Hamas and the Israeli government are hatred personified. The October 7th attack on Israel was basically their 9/11. So I completely understand why people in Israel would be driven to crave war in Palestine. On the other hand, I can also completely understand why Israeli soldiers crossing the border and mowing down anything that moves in response would drive the Palestinian population to terrorism, and then these issues go back decades, centuries even on both sides. It's one of the most complex geopolitical issues in human history and it's never going to end until one side gives up and truly shows a desire for peace, which is almost entirely an unfathomable idea to both camps (Israel and Hamas) at this point.

So when people chant "Free Palestine" in the streets. I really don't understand what they mean. Free Palestine from who? From Israeli occupation and bombardment? Sure. But if they are freed from Israel and nothing is done about Hamas, they still aren't free, are they? There is no easy or quick way to free Palestine, I don't think, despite what the people protesting around me seem to think.

Also if anyone wants any proof of what I'm talking about, check out this article by Al Jazeera which is "reporting" on the struggle of Gen Z to support the Free Palestine movement, in which it states it has the "full backing of Hamas" and at no point in the article criticizes Hamas, their brutal actions towards their own population, or the fact they are literal terrorists. Nope, they're just your friendly neighborhood government that's of the people and for the people, totally.

 
Last edited:
it's really concerning to me and deeply sickens me just how many people in my generation seem to have no issue with representing Hamas as noble freedom fighters rather than the ruthless terrorist organization they deserve to be classified as
Its aberration of lefties in Western countries. They praising cannibals for decades, mostly because they dont know ****.
 
Its aberration of lefties in Western countries. They praising cannibals for decades, mostly because they dont know ****.
You'd have thought someone carrying the flag of Russia, but presents themselves as being against rape and torture, would be more conscious of political nuance than just blaming lefties.
 
Also if anyone wants any proof of what I'm talking about, check out this article by Al Jazeera which is "reporting" on the struggle of Gen Z to support the Free Palestine movement, in which it states it has the "full backing of Hamas" and at no point in the article criticizes Hamas, their brutal actions towards their own population, or the fact they are literal terrorists. Nope, they're just your friendly neighborhood government that's of the people and for the people, totally.
One rather important point, it's not an article or reporting, it's an opinion piece and clearly labelled as such.
 
One rather important point, it's not an article or reporting, it's an opinion piece and clearly labelled as such.
Ok, maybe I misworded that, but it’s a long post so I’m going to slip up somewhere. In any case, I put it there for expressly the opinion above all else even if I called it an article, if you want to be pedantic.

But the opinion piece, article, whatever, is still very emblematic of the main issue I’m trying to present, of my generation’s reluctance to condemn or in some cases their blatant support of Hamas while simultaneously pushing to “free Palestine” (which from their point of view seems to be solely from Israel and not Hamas).

I've challenged lots people around me at my university who chant "free Palestine" at protests. When I ask them who they should be freed from, they always say Israel. They never mention Hamas as a group they need to be freed from.

I'm not the only one among my friend group who's deeply disturbed by how my peers seem to readily support terrorism, no matter how justified it may be. Well, one thing I know is for certain is terrorism is never justified for any reason.
 
Last edited:
Ok, maybe I misworded that, but it’s a long post so I’m going to slip up somewhere. In any case, I put it there for expressly the opinion above all else even if I called it an article, if you want to be pedantic.
It's not pedantic, it's a rather critical distinction.
But the opinion piece, article, whatever, is still very emblematic of the main issue I’m trying to present, of my generation’s reluctance to condemn or in some cases their blatant support of Hamas while simultaneously pushing to “free Palestine” (which from their point of view seems to be solely from Israel and not Hamas).
I'm not sure that either you or the opinion piece can speak for an entire generation.
I've challenged lots people around me at my university who chant "free Palestine" at protests. When I ask them who they should be freed from, they always say Israel. They never mention Hamas as a group they need to be freed from.
Have you considered that many people consider Israel to be the bigger threat to Palestinians right now? That may be part of the reason, it's also important to point out that Hamas wouldn't be what it is without Israel's funding and attempt to use it as a tool to keep Palestinians divided. Not to mention that the majority of Palestinians live in the West Bank, which is not under Hamas at all.
I'm not the only one among my friend group who's deeply disturbed by how my peers seem to readily support terrorism, no matter how justified it may be. Well, one thing I know is for certain is terrorism is never justified for any reason.
As the saying goes, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", were the (for example) ANC never justified for taking direct action? What about Americans during the War of Independence?
 
It's not pedantic, it's a rather critical distinction.

I'm not sure that either you or the opinion piece can speak for an entire generation.

Have you considered that many people consider Israel to be the bigger threat to Palestinians right now? That may be part of the reason, it's also important to point out that Hamas wouldn't be what it is without Israel's funding and attempt to use it as a tool to keep Palestinians divided. Not to mention that the majority of Palestinians live in the West Bank, which is not under Hamas at all.

As the saying goes, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", were the (for example) ANC never justified for taking direct action? What about Americans during the War of Independence?
Well, I can certainly tell you the Americans during the War of Independence didn't go around British-loyal settlements brutally slaughtering, torturing and raping civilians in the thousands, then taking the survivors back home and holding them at gunpoint in tunnels underneath civilian infrastructure. Pretty easy to distinguish between revolutionaries and terrorists in that regard.

As for Israel being the bigger threat. Maybe in the short term, sure. But let's say Israel withdraws today, or let's say Hamas achieves a sweeping victory and the Jews are destroyed and retreat back to Europe or whatever. Then the Palestinian people living under Hamas' rule are still governed by an oppressive religious dictatorship that is essentially in the same boat as the Taliban ruling Afghanistan.

That's why this conflict is so unbelievably complex and has no clear right or wrong answers. If Israel withdraws today, Hamas will continue to exist. If Israel is defeated, Hamas will no doubt launch a coup against the PLO and attempt to take control of the new country for themselves, which they'd no doubt succeed in due to having a far superior military presence. In either of those cases, the Palestinian people loose because they'd be living under such a totalitarian state.

Honestly no matter what happens in this conflict, whether there's a ceasefire or Israel continues, the Palestinian people in Gaza loose if Hamas is still in power. I will certainly never say Hamas is the lesser of two evils here, they don't even deserve that level of recognition in my opinion.
 
You'd have thought someone carrying the flag of Russia, but presents themselves as being against rape and torture, would be more conscious of political nuance than just blaming lefties.
Do Russians currently rapping and torturing? Yes. Do lefties supporting terrorism and genocide in form of HAMAS? Also, yes. Did I say that all Russians or lefties doing that? No.
That may be part of the reason, it's also important to point out that Hamas wouldn't be what it is without Israel's funding and attempt to use it as a tool to keep Palestinians divided.
Yep, same way as US did with radicals in Afghanistan.
 
Well, I can certainly tell you the Americans during the War of Independence didn't go around British-loyal settlements brutally slaughtering, torturing and raping civilians in the thousands, then taking the survivors back home and holding them at gunpoint in tunnels underneath civilian infrastructure. Pretty easy to distinguish between revolutionaries and terrorists in that regard.
Right! So you honestly believe that British sympathisers were just left alone, do you?
As for Israel being the bigger threat. Maybe in the short term, sure. But let's say Israel withdraws today, or let's say Hamas achieves a sweeping victory and the Jews are destroyed and retreat back to Europe or whatever. Then the Palestinian people living under Hamas' rule are still governed by an oppressive religious dictatorship that is essentially in the same boat as the Taliban ruling Afghanistan.
Short-term is a pretty inaccurate claim to make, enough that it pretty much makes the rest of your statement null. There is nothing short-term about Israel's actions against Palestine, and also ignores the fact that the majority of Palestinians do not live under Hamas. Quite a significant difference also exists between how Hamas treats civilians and how the Taliban do, and that's not me condoning Hamas (which you should never mistake this for).
That's why this conflict is so unbelievably complex and has no clear right or wrong answers. If Israel withdraws today, Hamas will continue to exist. If Israel is defeated, Hamas will no doubt launch a coup against the PLO and attempt to take control of the new country for themselves, which they'd no doubt succeed in due to having a far superior military presence. In either of those cases, the Palestinian people loose because they'd be living under such a totalitarian state.
I note that you've pretty much ignored the fact (and it is) that Hamas would be a minor, fringe player today if it were not for Israel. The Palestinians had pretty much massed behind a single, secular organisation supporting a two-state solution, Israel wanted to divide them, so funded and supported Hamas. That's not a conspiracy, that is documented by evidence from the people in the IDF tasked with doing it.
Honestly no matter what happens in this conflict, whether there's a ceasefire or Israel continues, the Palestinian people in Gaza loose if Hamas is still in power. I will certainly never say Hamas is the lesser of two evils here, they don't even deserve that level of recognition in my opinion.
And in doing so you tacitly allow the further slaughter of innocent people, mainly women and children, as vengeance, because that's what this is. Israel's actions are wildly disproportionate, they are ineffective (unless your end goal is indiscriminate slaughter) and will not finish off Hamas, quite the opposite.

As a closing note, you have utterly ignored two rather important facts in your reply, as such I beginning to think you have little interest in a factual discussion.

Yep, same way as US did with radicals in Afghanistan.
Indeed, and it pretty much never works out well.
 
Last edited:
The Palestinians had pretty much massed behind a single, secular organisation supporting a two-state solution, Israel wanted to divide them, so funded and supported Hamas. That's not a conspiracy, that is documented by evidence from the people in the IDF tasked with doing it
I think the secular organization you are talking about is the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization) which between 1964 (3 years before Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza) to 1988 was a terrorist organization that was the main Palestinian threat to Israel. Between 1988 and 1993 the Israelis and the PLO had negotiated and signed the Oslo accords. But in 1988 the first intifada began, fueled by Hamas and Islamic Jihad who opposed the peace process.
Hamas began in the early 1980s as a series of religious charities that Israel thoughts could replace the secular-nationalist that opposed the two state solution.

Do you have sources to support Israel had used Hamas to split the Palestinians against the two state solution against the PLO during the time the Palestinians were: “massed behind a single, secular organisation supporting a two-state solution”?

EDIT:



2011_May_Sun__08_41_25_plo-2-1024xcenter-c-default.jpg

The logo of the secular organization that supported the two state solution
 
Last edited:
Yep, same way as US did with radicals in Afghanistan.
Indeed, and it pretty much never works out well.
I think the secular organization you are talking about is the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization) which between 1964 (3 years before Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza) to 1988 was a terrorist organization that was the main Palestinian threat to Israel. Between 1988 and 1993 the Israelis and the PLO had negotiated and signed the Oslo accords. But in 1988 the first intifada began, fueled by Hamas and Islamic Jihad who opposed the peace process.
Hamas began in the early 1980s as a series of religious charities that Israel thoughts could replace the secular-nationalist that opposed the two state solution.

Do you have sources to support Israel had used Hamas to split the Palestinians against the two state solution against the PLO during the time the Palestinians were: “massed behind a single, secular organisation supporting a two-state solution”?

EDIT:



2011_May_Sun__08_41_25_plo-2-1024xcenter-c-default.jpg

The logo of the secular organization that supported the two state solution
I've already supplied the source, which links to other sources.

It's also quite possible for an organisation to have a single state as a goal and yet work toward a two-state solution and find lasting peace in doing so. Sinn Fein in the UK/Ireland is one such example, they were an active part of a two-state peace solution, while still (to this day) maintaining that they have a goal of a united Ireland.
 
Last edited:
Indeed, and it pretty much never works out well.
"Wish I would be as smart, as my wife after"
women and children, as vengeance, because that's what this is. Israel's actions are wildly disproportionate, they are ineffective (unless your end goal is indiscriminate slaughter) and will not finish off Hamas, quite the opposite.
No one suggested anything better than physical elimination of as much HAMAS members as possible. Israel and Gaza already in position when there is no other way. There are only horror without end or horrible end.
 
It's also quite possible for an organisation to have a single state as a goal and yet work toward a two-state solution and find lasting peace in doing so. Sinn Fein in the UK/Ireland is one such example, they were an active part of a two-state peace solution, while still (to this day) maintaining that they have a goal of a united Ireland.
I totally agree. I think the PLO after 1993 & 1995 and the Oslo accords was the only possibility of a two state solution. Really sad it was ruined by the extremists from both sides. My point was that the PLO wasn’t the secular organization supporting a two state solution you suggested it was back then.
 
Last edited:
No one suggested anything better than physical elimination of as much HAMAS members as possible.
Israel has literally stated that its goal to the total elimination of Hamas, so that's not correct.

"Gallant, the defence minister, said: "We will wipe this thing called Hamas, ISIS-Gaza, off the face of the earth. It will cease to exist.""
“Every Hamas terrorist is a dead man,” Netanyahu


I totally agree. I think the PLO after 1993 & 1995 and the Oslo accords was the only possibility of a two state solution. Really sad it was ruined by the extremists from both sides. My point was that the PLO wasn’t the secular organization supporting a two state solution you suggested it was back then.
Allow me to quote from the piece I linked to, as it keeps getting ignored.

"Brig. Gen. Yitzhak Segev, who was the Israeli military governor in Gaza in the early 1980s. Segev later told a New York Times reporter that he had helped finance the Palestinian Islamist movement as a “counterweight” to the secularists and leftists of the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Fatah party, led by Yasser Arafat (who himself referred to Hamas as “a creature of Israel.”)."

The PLO has also considered a two-state solution since the 70's.

"The first indication that the PLO would be willing to accept a two-state solution, on at least an interim basis, was articulated by Said Hammami in the mid-1970s"
 
"The first indication that the PLO would be willing to accept a two-state solution, on at least an interim basis, was articulated by Said Hammami in the mid-1970s"
Emphasis in the word interim. Would you give a state that covers large parts of your country to a terrorist organization stating it wants to take it all and use the two state solution as a stepping stone to your annihilation?

The number of Palestinian and specifically PLO terror attacks is very large, even since the mid-70s.

See this wiki page (which is only available in Hebrew) that lists Palestinian terror attacks in the 1980s: https://he.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/פיגועי_טרור_נגד_ישראלים_בישראל_ובשטחים_בשנות_ה-80_של_המאה_ה-20

An example of such terror attack by the PLO in 1978:

38 Israeli civilians, including 13 children, were killed as a result of the attack while 76 more were wounded
 
Last edited:
Emphasis in the word interim. Would you give a state that covers large parts of your country to a terrorist organization stating it wants to take it all and use the two state solution as a stepping stone to your annihilation?
That's the way it was viewed from both sides. At least one side was willing to agree to this anyway, as a better solution than just continuing to kill each other. Everything starts as an interim agreement.
The number of Palestinian and specifically PLO terror attacks is very large, even since the mid-70s.
It is. What's your point?
 
At least one side was willing to agree to this anyway
Do you have examples of Palestinian groups actually stating they are willing for two states as an end goal? And not as part of a plan to annihilate Israel?

There’s the Oslo accords. When both sides agreed. But in 2000 in Camp David, 2008 and 2020 just to name a few recent examples, Israel has agreed to a two state solutions and the Palestinian have refused.
It is. What's your point?
That it makes sense that Israel tried to create an alternative for the PLO even when it was on its “peaceful two state phase”.
 
Last edited:
Do you have examples of Palestinian groups actually stating they are willing for two states as an end goal? And not as part of a plan to annihilate Israel?
I doubt I can prove to your satisfaction what other people were thinking inside their heads. If you're not willing to accept what they said, that's for you to deal with.
There’s the Oslo accords. When both sides agreed.
Oh look, you can do it all by yourself.
That it makes sense that Israel tried to create an alternative for the PLO even when it was on its “peaceful two state phase”.
If you think that you can create a puppet government entirely under your control, sure. But otherwise you're just creating a new entity, one that is still made up of Palestinians who still have the same grievances as the PLO and everyone else.

I can't think of anywhere in the world where that sort of regime creation has actually worked long term, although I feel like there has to be at least one with how ubiquitous a tactic it is.
 
Emphasis in the word interim.
Your emphasis, not the authors.
Would you give a state that covers large parts of your country to a terrorist organization stating it wants to take it all and use the two state solution as a stepping stone to your annihilation?
Are you talking about Palestine or Israel here? As that statement pretty much exists on both sides.
The number of Palestinian and specifically PLO terror attacks is very large, even since the mid-70s.

See this wiki page (which is only available in Hebrew) that lists Palestinian terror attacks in the 1980s: https://he.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/פיגועי_טרור_נגד_ישראלים_בישראל_ובשטחים_בשנות_ה-80_של_המאה_ה-20

An example of such terror attack by the PLO in 1978:
Would you like me to return the favour about Israeli attacks (which Palestinians would very much use the work terror to describe them), or do you believe they are indeed 'the world's most moral army'?

But in 2000 in Camp David, 2008 and 2020 just to name a few recent examples, Israel has agreed to a two state solutions and the Palestinian have refused.
Let's take a look at each of these.

2000: Shlomo Ben-Ami, then Israel's Minister of Foreign Relations said of it "Camp David was not the missed opportunity for the Palestinians, and if I were a Palestinian I would have rejected Camp David, as well. This is something I put in the book. But Taba is the problem. The Clinton parameters are the problem"

2008: Did you really expect it to be agreed when one of the terms was that Israel maintains an armed presence within the future Palestinian state?

2020: This one you must be joking with, Trump's proposed plan would have given Israel vast amounts of the West Bank, fully disarmed all Palestinians (here's a new state - sorry you can't defend yourself), rejected Palestinian refugees’ right of return, and the best bit; recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine, while also impossibly recognizing Jerusalem as the “undivided capital” of Israel (it can't be both).

If proposed agreements significantly favour one side of the other, then the reject by the side getting the ****** stick is not really strange!
 
Last edited:
Sorry about the long comment in advanced

Before I’ll respond to your points I’ll state my actual opinion on the conflict.
I think the two state solution is the only solution to the conflict, I vehemently oppose Netanyahu and his right wing ministers, strongly disagree with a lot of the rhetoric of many Israeli officials who called to “flatten Gaza” and so on. I also vote accordingly. Which is probably more than most people in the internet have done to solve the conflict.
A hostile Palestinian states on the West Bank (even just parts of it) would be an actual risk to my personal security and I still support that solution knowing that a potential risk. I also sympathize with the innocent Palestinians in Gaza. They have been living in bad conditions for years, under the oppressive Hamas government and under the limitations Israel and Eygpt impose on Gaza. Poverty and oppression are ideal conditions for terrorism and I have a lot of criticism to the Israeli policy.


But…
The rhetoric in this thread is mostly about blaming one side, either Israel or the Palestinians. In reality, both sides need to actually want to end it. And right now I see most of the issue in the hands of the Palestinians. But in my opinion, they were never ready to have their own country.

In 1947 the UN gave both nations the plan, the Jewish took it, but the Palestinians wanted it all for them and attacked to try to get it all. They lost it all in war to Israel, Jordan and Egypt. And they are still bitter about it.

They keep asking for justice for their grandparents instead of moving on to more realistic plans. Had they moved on, they could’ve had a state already.

And you may say that’s unjust and unfair, but that’s life. How many nations today were build on injustices, even much worse than those in the Middle East.

And that’s the Palestinian attitude. They prefer being bitter and betting all their chips on an armed conflict instead of taking what’s offered to them. They bet it all on war, and lost it all. What are they mad at? That’s exactly the opposite of Zionism. Herzl, the founder of Zionism, begged the Ottoman, German, British and whoever would hear him for any patch of land to create a Jewish state. He even suggested making the state in Uganda. And the moment the British left Palestine, the Zionist government created Israel, the first proposal without negotiations or complaints. That’s being pragmatic.

The Zionist movement has spent 50 years buying Arab lands in Palestine, building cities, growing crops, being back the Hebrew language from the dead, and changing the entire Jewish attitude towards nationalism. They also created a functioning government, an education system and everything else needed to run a state.

Meanwhile the Palestinians have done very little. And since then, they still don’t have much to show for. The main thing holding Palestinian nationalism is resistance against Israel. With their major national events being the Nakba and the Naksa.

If the Palestinians really want a state, they should get serious and elect a national government that would develop a Palestinian ethos beyond just resistance to Israel. Currently Hamas has been the most popular party by far, both in Gaza and the West Bank. As an Israeli, who speaks to numerous Israelis and feels the attitude here, the issue with the Palestinians is safety. Had the Palestinians demonstrated they preferred their own lives than the dream of having the whole place to themselves, the Israelis would have been much more inclined to a two state solution and Netanyahu wouldn’t be elected for 15 years straight. You may say: “Why should the Israelis decide?”. The answer is that Israel controls the area, and thus is setting the rules. It might not be fair, but if the Palestinians want a state they should play by the rules and not blame the game.

Can Israel solve the conflict? I think yes. By defining borders for the proposed state, with goals like an education and religious systems that do not promote violence, security guarantees and carrots and sticks for moving in the national direction instead of the violent direction (for both sides), a peaceful two states solution could be achieved. The biggest issue on the Israeli side is agreeing to retain the West Bank. A peace based on returning land is something most Israelis are scared of, so Israel refuses to suggest it, so the Palestinians have only one options to get the land which is armed conflict and terrorism. If there was another way, maybe they would’ve chosen it.

what we shouldn’t do is just give the Palestinians Gaza and the West Bank like we gave them Gaza in 2005. They used all the aid money and stuff they smugglers to build a massive terror tunnel network, build and buy 10,000s of rockets and made a general terror state.

I doubt I can prove to your satisfaction what other people were thinking inside their heads. If you're not willing to accept what they said, that's for you to deal with.

Maybe if they actually said it or did any real progress, I would’ve have to imagine it.

Oh look, you can do it all by yourself

Yeah. And that was the only time we made progress. How is it possible that when the Palestinians agree to a process it happens?maybe that’s a clue to how serious all the other peaceful Palestinians attempts have been.

If you think that you can create a puppet government entirely under your control, sure. But otherwise you're just creating a new entity, one that is still made up of Palestinians who still have the same grievances as the PLO and everyone else.

I can't think of anywhere in the world where that sort of regime creation has actually worked long term, although I feel like there has to be at least one with how ubiquitous a tactic it is.


I think the way the US de radicalized Japan after WWII is the way to go.

Your emphasis, not the authors.

Because that’s the difference between a peaceful solution to a non peaceful one. I wanted to point that out.

Are you talking about Palestine or Israel here? As that statement pretty much exists on both sides.

Show me unprompted Israeli aggression. All of Israel’s wars against the Palestinians have started by the Palestinians.

'the world's most moral army'?

I don’t know where you live, but do you think another country would’ve had a better MILITARY policy given the situation? How would you want you military to react to terror attacks and hostile population (as just as their hostility is) to a threat so close to their civilian population.

2000: Shlomo Ben-Ami, then Israel's Minister of Foreign Relations said of it "Camp David was not the missed opportunity for the Palestinians, and if I were a Palestinian I would have rejected Camp David, as well. This is something I put in the book. But Taba is the problem. The Clinton parameters are the problem"

With all of due respect, the suggestion included giving the Palestinians 90% of the West Bank.
Here’s what Clinton had to say: "I regret that in 2000 Arafat missed the opportunity to bring that nation into being and pray for the day when the dreams of the Palestinian people for a state and a better life will be realized in a just and lasting peace." The failure to come to an agreement was widely attributed to Yasser Arafat, as he walked away from the table without making a concrete counter-offer and because Arafat did little to quell the series of Palestinian riots that began shortly after the summit.


Edit: Here’s what Shlomo Ben-Ami had to say about Camp David:
Intellectually I understand their reasoning. I understand that from their point of view they gave up 78% in Oslo, and therefore everything else should be theirs. I understand that for them the process is one of decolonization and therefore they should not compromise, just as the Congolese will not compromise with the Belgians. I even understand that in their opinion they went towards us by accepting the Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem and some of the settlements. But in the end, after eight months of negotiations, I come to the conclusion that we are in conflict with a national movement that has severe pathological elements. This is a very sad movement. Tragic movement. But at the heart of her tragedy is the inability to set positive goals for herself. At the end of the process, one cannot help but get the impression that more than the Palestinians want a solution, they want to put Israel on the dock. More than they want their own country, they want to denounce our country. In the deepest sense their ethos is a negative ethos. This is the reason why, unlike Zionism, they are unable to compromise. Because they don't have an image of their future society for which it's worth compromising. Therefore, for them, the process is not reconciliation but vindication. of righting a wrong. of undermining our existence as a Jewish state.
 
Last edited:

This is just horrifying and desperate.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - while Hamas stick to their hateful doctrine and Israel is run by a regime that flagrantly ignores basic humanitarian needs, then (as has been said above) horror will persist.

Both sides in this disgusting conflict need their heads smashing together - meanwhile the rest of us can only watch and weep.
 
Last edited:
Sorry about the long comment in advanced

Before I’ll respond to your points I’ll state my actual opinion on the conflict.
I think the two state solution is the only solution to the conflict, I vehemently oppose Netanyahu and his right wing ministers, strongly disagree with a lot of the rhetoric of many Israeli officials who called to “flatten Gaza” and so on. I also vote accordingly. Which is probably more than most people in the internet have done to solve the conflict.
A hostile Palestinian states on the West Bank (even just parts of it) would be an actual risk to my personal security and I still support that solution knowing that a potential risk. I also sympathize with the innocent Palestinians in Gaza. They have been living in bad conditions for years, under the oppressive Hamas government and under the limitations Israel and Eygpt impose on Gaza. Poverty and oppression are ideal conditions for terrorism and I have a lot of criticism to the Israeli policy.


But…
The rhetoric in this thread is mostly about blaming one side, either Israel or the Palestinians. In reality, both sides need to actually want to end it. And right now I see most of the issue in the hands of the Palestinians. But in my opinion, they were never ready to have their own country.

In 1947 the UN gave both nations the plan, the Jewish took it, but the Palestinians wanted it all for them and attacked to try to get it all. They lost it all in war to Israel, Jordan and Egypt. And they are still bitter about it.

They keep asking for justice for their grandparents instead of moving on to more realistic plans. Had they moved on, they could’ve had a state already.

And you may say that’s unjust and unfair, but that’s life. How many nations today were build on injustices, even much worse than those in the Middle East.

And that’s the Palestinian attitude. They prefer being bitter and betting all their chips on an armed conflict instead of taking what’s offered to them. They bet it all on war, and lost it all. What are they mad at? That’s exactly the opposite of Zionism. Herzl, the founder of Zionism, begged the Ottoman, German, British and whoever would hear him for any patch of land to create a Jewish state. He even suggested making the state in Uganda. And the moment the British left Palestine, the Zionist government created Israel, the first proposal without negotiations or complaints. That’s being pragmatic.

The Zionist movement has spent 50 years buying Arab lands in Palestine, building cities, growing crops, being back the Hebrew language from the dead, and changing the entire Jewish attitude towards nationalism. They also created a functioning government, an education system and everything else needed to run a state.

Meanwhile the Palestinians have done very little. And since then, they still don’t have much to show for. The main thing holding Palestinian nationalism is resistance against Israel. With their major national events being the Nakba and the Naksa.

If the Palestinians really want a state, they should get serious and elect a national government that would develop a Palestinian ethos beyond just resistance to Israel. Currently Hamas has been the most popular party by far, both in Gaza and the West Bank. As an Israeli, who speaks to numerous Israelis and feels the attitude here, the issue with the Palestinians is safety. Had the Palestinians demonstrated they preferred their own lives than the dream of having the whole place to themselves, the Israelis would have been much more inclined to a two state solution and Netanyahu wouldn’t be elected for 15 years straight. You may say: “Why should the Israelis decide?”. The answer is that Israel controls the area, and thus is setting the rules. It might not be fair, but if the Palestinians want a state they should play by the rules and not blame the game.

Can Israel solve the conflict? I think yes. By defining borders for the proposed state, with goals like an education and religious systems that do not promote violence, security guarantees and carrots and sticks for moving in the national direction instead of the violent direction (for both sides), a peaceful two states solution could be achieved. The biggest issue on the Israeli side is agreeing to retain the West Bank. A peace based on returning land is something most Israelis are scared of, so Israel refuses to suggest it, so the Palestinians have only one options to get the land which is armed conflict and terrorism. If there was another way, maybe they would’ve chosen it.
Palestine wasn't given a plan in '47, it had one forced on it, a rather critical fact.
what we shouldn’t do is just give the Palestinians Gaza and the West Bank like we gave them Gaza in 2005. They used all the aid money and stuff they smugglers to build a massive terror tunnel network, build and buy 10,000s of rockets and made a general terror state.
Israel didn't give anyone Gaza, they turned it into a massive prison.

Because that’s the difference between a peaceful solution to a non peaceful one. I wanted to point that out.
Your emphasis does illustrate that at all.
Show me unprompted Israeli aggression. All of Israel’s wars against the Palestinians have started by the Palestinians.
Settler violence is one example, but this is a tit for tat conflict in which both side claim the other has started. What is clear however is the difference in body count.
I don’t know where you live, but do you think another country would’ve had a better MILITARY policy given the situation? How would you want you military to react to terror attacks and hostile population (as just as their hostility is) to a threat so close to their civilian population.
I live in the UK and grew up during the height of the Troubles. The British army was a long way from perfect, but when the IRA bombed the UK, murdered a member of the royal family,etc, we didn't retaliate by far exceeding there body count or bombing civilians.
With all of due respect, the suggestion included giving the Palestinians 90% of the West Bank.
Here’s what Clinton had to say: "I regret that in 2000 Arafat missed the opportunity to bring that nation into being and pray for the day when the dreams of the Palestinian people for a state and a better life will be realized in a just and lasting peace." The failure to come to an agreement was widely attributed to Yasser Arafat, as he walked away from the table without making a concrete counter-offer and because Arafat did little to quell the series of Palestinian riots that began shortly after the summit.


Edit: Here’s what Shlomo Ben-Ami had to say about Camp David:
Given the repeated incursions of settler communities reducing the size of the West Bank, why should them even accept 10%?

As for Clinton not blaming Israel, you do know how US/Israel relations work I take it? The US was only ever going to blame one side.

On a related side note, I've always found the support of Israel by US evangelicals an odd thing for Israel to support. As the evangelicals only do so because they believe it's required to bring about the end times, which would see Israel replaced by a Christian state with Jesus in a throne in Jerusalem!

 
Last edited:
Palestine wasn't given a plan in '47, it had one forced on it, a rather critical fact.
Forced by a UN vote? Palestine was ruled by the British between WWI and WWII and beforehand by the Ottoman empire since 1518. There was never a Palestinian state on the land. The UN partition plan was voted by the entire world. How more official do you want it to be? What's your alternative?

At the end of the day, when the Palestinians will decide to take what's offered to them and live peacefully, instead of fighting for some historic justice and grudges, they'll have a good life.

Israel didn't give anyone Gaza, they turned it into a massive prison.
AP_0508230901_x5.jpg
AP_05081807233_x5.jpg
ShowImage.ashx


Here are pictures of the IDF forcefully moving the Jewish settlers who refused to leave Gaza during the 2005 Israeli disengagement from Gaza. So yeah, Israel very much gave Gaza to the Palestinians.

When Hamas won the 2007 elections in Gaza, it literally threw the PLO people from the rooftops in Gaza, like a normal democratically elected government does. That's when the blockade started: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_the_Gaza_Strip
A blockade has been imposed on the movement of goods and people in and out of the Gaza Strip following Hamas's takeover in 2007, led by Israel and supported by Egypt. The blockade's current stated aim is to prevent the smuggling of weapons into Gaza, although previously stated motivations have included exerting economic pressure on Hamas
The Palestinians still receive their electricity and water from Israel, even though they are hostile to Israel. They are also receiving aid and smuggle a lot of stuff into Gaza. Palestinians were also allowed to work in Israel until October 7th, when some of them used their work permits to spy on Israel to plan the attacks.
Settler violence is one example, but this is a tit for tat conflict in which both side claim the other has started. What is clear however is the difference in body count.
Settler violence disgust me. But it is met with a prison time in Israel. The Palestinian authority uses some of the Israeli aid to pay salaries to terrorists in Isreali prisons. Can you really blame me for not wanting to pay taxes that go to terrorist?

In contrast to the settler violence, every conflict between Hamas and Israel since 2007 has began with either a kidnapping (2014) or rocket fire from Hamas into Israel. So you are really comparing a bunch of outlaws doing low level crime against Palestinians who are also handled by the police and IDF to a one of the largest terrorist organization in the world.

I live in the UK and grew up during the height of the Troubles. The British army was a long way from perfect, but when the IRA bombed the UK, murdered a member of the royal family,etc, we didn't retaliate by far exceeding there body count or bombing civilians.
I admire the way the UK and Ireland solved their conflict and wish we could do the same. But it's not the same scale of attacks, and if I recall correctly it took a lot longer to solve it than the ~75 years in this conflict. Also the Brits caused the Great Famine which reduced Ireland's populations by 60%.

Given the repeated incursions of settler communities reducing the size of the West Bank, why should them even accept 10%?

As for Clinton not blaming Israel, you do know how US/Israel relations work I take it? The US was only ever going to blame one side.
TBH you keep ignoring the facts and keep quoting people. Why don't you look at the damn plan and judge it by yourself?

_60556957_westbank_old_3new464x510.jpg
_110694790_trump_peace_plan3_map640-nc.png.webp


Here's the comparison between the Oslo accords, widely considered the most serious attempt for peace (that got Israel's PM Rabin to be assassinated by a Jewish extremist), and Trump's plan which is considred a joke by you. The difference isn't that great. the Trump team even mentioned it was supposed to be a starting point. It got f**ing Netanyahu to accept a two state solution. Had the Palestinians agreed to it, Netayahu would've either lost the election (as his voter's greatest fear is a two state solution) or actually implement it. This whole war could've been avoided.
 
Last edited:
Since its inception Israel has always been a colonial state, using colonialist tactics and agendas to justify its existence. As a Syrian with Palestinian friends whose grandparents were expelled from Palestine by the Zionists, I can assure you I and they will never accept the two state resolution and I can't fault the Palestinians because, after all, the land is theirs no matter how many "thousands of years ago" those settlers claim their ancestors (if they were related to them) lived there.

I'm not going to sugarcoat anything but there really is nothing to debate here as colonialism is OBVIOUSLY unacceptable and must be ended whether by militant groups like Hamas or by Arab armies. If people accept the fact Israel is a colonial state then it will cease to exist and those settlers will return to their homelands.
 
I apologize if my honesty was intolerable but that's how the final stronghold of colonialism will end. Is Israel under an existential threat? Yes and it has always been and we can see this clearly with the level of brutality being exercised on the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. To top it all off Israel is escalating the situation by firing missiles at civilian targets just like it did yesterday in Syria. I missed count of the number of times our aerial defenses shot down Israeli missiles fired from the occupied Golan Heights. I haven't even touched on the number of Israel's incursions of Lebanese airspace.

It isn't fun and that's the bitter reality which has been forced on the Levant.
 
Last edited:
Forced by a UN vote? Palestine was ruled by the British between WWI and WWII and beforehand by the Ottoman empire since 1518. There was never a Palestinian state on the land. The UN partition plan was voted by the entire world. How more official do you want it to be? What's your alternative?
So if the whole world (apart from Israel) voted tomorrow that Egypt (or any other country) now had control of Israel you would be cool with it? The people who lived in the land had no say in the land being given away, self-determination is a basic right that was removed from them.
At the end of the day, when the Palestinians will decide to take what's offered to them and live peacefully, instead of fighting for some historic justice and grudges, they'll have a good life.
The irony is so think you could cut it with this one.
AP_0508230901_x5.jpg
AP_05081807233_x5.jpg
ShowImage.ashx


Here are pictures of the IDF forcefully moving the Jewish settlers who refused to leave Gaza during the 2005 Israeli disengagement from Gaza. So yeah, Israel very much gave Gaza to the Palestinians.
Do you mean the illegal settlers who shouldn't have been there in the first place?
When Hamas won the 2007 elections in Gaza, it literally threw the PLO people from the rooftops in Gaza, like a normal democratically elected government does. That's when the blockade started: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_the_Gaza_Strip
Have I condoned that at all, but let's not forget who helped Hamas get to that point? Nor should we forget that leading up to that the US attempted to back Fatah (and arm them) to stage a coup against Hamas, and when that backfired the **** hit the fan. Nor did the blockade start then, your own source states as much.

The Palestinians still receive their electricity and water from Israel, even though they are hostile to Israel.
Why won't the Gaza residents be nice to the jailers who sell them basic needs?
They are also receiving aid and smuggle a lot of stuff into Gaza.
Why would they need to smuggle basic goods into the place?
Palestinians were also allowed to work in Israel until October 7th, when some of them used their work permits to spy on Israel to plan the attacks.
So some of them did, yet all of them were punished for it. That would be collective punishment and illegal under international law.
Settler violence disgust me. But it is met with a prison time in Israel.
Pull the other one it's got bells on it.
Your source says no such thing, and that's the second time you've misquoted a source, a pattern I don't find honest at all.
In contrast to the settler violence, every conflict between Hamas and Israel since 2007 has began with either a kidnapping (2014) or rocket fire from Hamas into Israel. So you are really comparing a bunch of outlaws doing low level crime against Palestinians who are also handled by the police and IDF to a one of the largest terrorist organization in the world.
Shooting unarmed people, taking over their land, and destroying homes and property is low-level crime? And no it's not dealt with by the police or IDF, hell the police and IDF have been complicit in some of it, and the settlers are armed by the government.
I admire the way the UK and Ireland solved their conflict and wish we could do the same. But it's not the same scale of attacks, and if I recall correctly it took a lot longer to solve it than the ~75 years in this conflict. Also the Brits caused the Great Famine which reduced Ireland's populations by 60%.
They blew up the government of the day, killing and injuring MPs and nearly killing the Prime Minister. Tell me how you think Israel would react to the same. Oh and yes historically the UK did engage in the sort of collective punishment that Israel uses, it backfired massively and resulted in the War of Independence, maybe lessons should be learned?
TBH you keep ignoring the facts and keep quoting people. Why don't you look at the damn plan and judge it by yourself?

_60556957_westbank_old_3new464x510.jpg
_110694790_trump_peace_plan3_map640-nc.png.webp


Here's the comparison between the Oslo accords, widely considered the most serious attempt for peace (that got Israel's PM Rabin to be assassinated by a Jewish extremist), and Trump's plan which is considred a joke by you. The difference isn't that great. the Trump team even mentioned it was supposed to be a starting point. It got f**ing Netanyahu to accept a two state solution. Had the Palestinians agreed to it, Netayahu would've either lost the election (as his voter's greatest fear is a two state solution) or actually implement it. This whole war could've been avoided.
I have, you seem to have missed the other two points, including the absurd and impossible Jerusalem idea. Hell Trump and Kushner killed it before it even got to the point you claim, and given the fact that a Palestinian delegation was never involved it was never going to work. Would Israel agree to a solution it played no part in negotiating? I think not.
 
Last edited:
my honesty was intolerable
Instead of cooperation with wealthy, democratic and advanced country you threating it. After it beat **** out of way more powerful alliance of Arabic states and gain nukes. I see some relation between this and horrific state of you country, Lebanon and Palestine.
 
Last edited:
Instead of cooperation with wealthy, democratic and advanced country you threating it. After it beat **** out of way more powerful alliance of Arabic states and gain nukes. I see some relation between this and horrific state of you country, Lebanon and Palestine.
How can we shake hands with occupiers?
I want to clear out some major misconceptions surrounding Arabs. First, Arabs aren't small groups of bedouins with no education or freedoms within their respective nations. Second, the total population of the Arab world is more than 400 million excluding the ones living abroad most of which are with college, masters and doctorate degrees with major contributions to the societies they live in whether economically or technologically. Third, the Arab world isn't an empty desert with a few bedouins keeping their sheep and camels with the Pyramids of Giza standing tall as if the distance between the Empty Quarter in Saudi Arabia and the Pyramids in Egypt is a 10 minute walk.

The Arab world is comprised of 22 countries lead by Kings, Sultans and Presidents who aren't necessarily considered dictators by their population and said populace doesn't really care what foreign nations think of their leaders and regimes.

Each Arab country has a rich history which spans thousands of years and were once a single nation extending from the Arabian peninsula, the Levant and Mesopotamia to Andalusia unified under one religion, Islam, with Christianity being the second largest monotheistic religion and Judaism coming in last and a few other religious minorities.

If Arab leaders aren't on the same page or are hypocrites you best bet the populace has their eyes set on one goal which is the liberation of Palestine from the Zionists.

Israel is a manufactured state. Its wealth comes in the form of US and European aid. Its military is only powerful as long as its being supplied by its allies. It doesn't come close to being a democracy which has been proven by various independent media outlets.
You might think I'm belittling Israel but that's its reality, past and present.

For Syria, you wouldn't want to underestimate the capabilities of our army as they single handedly fought off ISIS and Al-Nusra Front out of Damascus and the Southern Governorates until 2015 when we asked for Russia's aerial support ONLY in Homs and Aleppo.
If this doesn't convince you Arab armies have evolved then look at the Egyptian army which is supposedly the biggest army in the Arab world.
Even Hezbollah has military capabilities that are able to strike deep within Israeli territory according to their leader and the various Arab media outlets.

No one likes wars but if a psychotic maniac living next door wants to achieve some "biblical" nonsense that has no place in our modern world, then he must be shut up in someway.
 

Latest Posts

Back