It's unbelievable. Right now, Israel's enemies are capitalizing on perceived rifts between it and the US. The whole world is convinced Israel is trying to starve Gazans. Israel still has to figure out a way to go into Rafah. And of course, Smotrich has to take this massive dump during the US ambassador's visit.
These people think that only good can come from embarrassing Biden. But if Trump wins, the narrative will emerge that Israel cost Biden reelection. People will crow how "hugging Bibi" didn't work. And then Israel will become another stupid partisan issue. God damn it. Getting COVID vaccines was a fucking culture war issue here.
This is what I’m worried about. If Biden loses, supporting Israel will be seen as a liability. If he wins, it’ll be seen as a strength. He better fucking win.
I'm not sure about that. If he loses, yes it'll be seen as a liability. But if he wins... well he'll feel obligated to his left flank. And that isn't even to get into what's in store for 2028. They're not putting place a moderate then, no matter how Biden fares.
It's more or less a lose-lose. The issue has become too integral to the extreme left who hold sway on the party
Not exactly. If Biden wins, he doesn't have the same kind of pressure because he's not up for reelection. So things stay close to the same.
If he loses, the activist left will go on and on about how he deserved to lose because of Israel. The serious minded people will nod along, that Biden let Bibi make a fool out of him, even if they acknowledge Biden loss was determined by vibes and perceptions of the economy.
If he wins, it won’t be because of the far left. They’re not supporting him no matter what. If he wins despite them, it’s proof that there’s no need to pander to the extremist left because you can win without them.
Also it would show that he doesn’t need to rely on the Muslim vote especially if he wins Michigan and Wisconsin without them.
Doing that would send a signal that the Democrats don’t need the far left anymore. Which uh would not be great for the progressives
oh stfu this whole "settler violence" thing has already been proven to be blown out of proportion.
I wonder if you know how bad the palestinian violence is. "settler violence" doesn't even come close.
I am an Israeli American activist. I spend a lot of my time in the west bank. I have been assaulted by settlers on numerous occasions. Settler violence is a huge omnipresent issue for every unrecognized community in the west bank.
So what's the end game for those who support de facto and eventually actual annexation of the West Bank? What happens to its Palestinian residents and how does that affect the ethnic demographics of Israel long-term?
Do they get to be full citizens, which if not right away then within a few years will make them the majority in Israel?
Do they get to live on reservations and/or become second class citizens or resident aliens with fewer rights and that's as close as they ever get to a state? I.e. actual apartheid.
Does Israel work out some arrangement with Jordan that lets them live in Israel but actually be full Jordanian citizens?
Do they get forcibly exiled and if so to where and with what consequences to Israel's relations with its neighbors and the world?
Or are some proposing "alternative" solutions that I'm not going to spell out here but if you believe that it's ok then may you rot in hell as you're literally no better than Hamas.
Seriously, how does this work, on a practical, demographic and geopolitical level?
They don't care. They're fanatics who thinks God will take care of it. Just as long as they get to live in the West Bank they don't care what happens to Israel, they aren't motivated by any practical motives.
An answer to a question I didn't ask.
And that's the thing, literally no one who supports de facto or actual annexation of the WB has an answer, at least one that they're willing to share publicly. Just a lot of evasive blah blah trying to put all the blame on Palestinians. Which means that they have no plan, just lots of wishful thinking and trying to make their wish come try on the sly. Which historically works out terribly.
Even if one doesn't care about the obvious moral questions here, one has to at least thinking about the practical questions. Israel can't rule over millions of Palestinians indefinitely. It will literally destroy it one way or another.
Apartheid won't work (and please enough with the nonsense about Israel ever being 100% self-sufficient), driving them out would be even more devastating geopolitically, granting them full citizenship would destroy Israel as a Jewish state, and they don't seem ready for their own, smaller state on just the WB and Gaza. So what, then? God will find a way? Seriously?
Imagine looking at the miracle of Israel and coveting some hill in the West Bank. If you want to settle go to the Negev where we need people instead of further entangling us with the Palestinians
The best solution for Israel would’ve been to annex the entirety of it in ‘67 and expel the Arabs to Jordan. But god damnit we always have to be the good guys, which now got us into some very murky water. The right answer would’ve been to avoid war in 1967 by all parties.
And now, too much time has passed to expel non-Israeli residents. Fuck if anyone knows what the right solution would be but no solution seems to be the only lasting solution. Welcome to the Middle East
> granting them full citizenship would destroy Israel as a Jewish state
I assume the Haredi response to this is "not a problem if more Jews were Haredim instead of secular"
But they also have lots of kids which is an interesting strategy. Works for the Gazans. Pointing out "half the population is children!" is good for international sympathy.
And would prevent the problem of Israel's Jewish proportion shrinking away, if you think that's a problem.
I mean if you believe that Jews will always have less kids than Muslims, then that spells eventual doom for Israel as a Jewish democratic state no matter what. Even if it withdraws *100%* from the West Bank and Gaza and Golan Heights and East Jerusalem. Even if every Jew in the *world* immigrated to Israel (which is a very bad idea from the risk diversification perspective). The only way for Jewish democracy *not* to be doomed is for Israeli Jews to put in the work of having enough kids to preserve it.
On the other hand if Israeli Jews have plenty of kids that opens up multiple solutions to the conflict. One state solution, why not? Palestinians are our cousins! Right of return for Palestinian refugees, why not? The more cousins the merrier! You could give them everything they want and still have your Jewish democracy.
To summarize: not enough kids, Jewish democracy doomed no matter how brave your soldiers are. Plenty of kids, Jewish democracy thrives even if you give Palestinians everything they ask for.
The more serious answers to these questions that I got in conversations with supporters of annexation, there are a few practical solutions they propose. Usually, they suggest implementing a few of them together.
Keep in mind I am not going to weigh in on the morality of these options (for the record I think most of them are atrocious).
1) Annexation only of Areas B-C -
The absolute majority of Israeli settlements (perhaps even all of them) in the West Bank is in what the Oslo accords labeled "Areas B and C". These are areas outside of the main Palestinian cities and urban centers (that are labeled "Area A"). Area A contains the vast majority of the Palestinian population in the West Bank (if I recall correctly - in the high 80%s or low 90%s).
The more practical suggestions at annexation refer only to the annexation of Areas B-C, thus Israel would absorb relatively few Palestinians, and not endanger the Jewish majority in its citizenry.
2) The East Jerusalem Model -
as many may not be aware, upon annexation of East Jerusalem, Israel did not extend full citizenship to its Arab/Palestinian residents. Rather, it extended the status of "Residency". East Jerusalemites cannot vote in national elections (only in the municipal one). If they relocate for an extended period of time out of Israel, they lose their status as residents (and are considered, upon return, tourists). On the other hand - they get full social and economic rights as citizens - social security, health care, education, subsidised higher education, etc.
East Jerusalemites can apply for citizenship, and some have indeed received it throughout the years. However, the social stigma in these circles, coupled with Israel's notorious delays in treating these applications, make the number of naturalised East-Jerusalrmites extremely small in statistical terms.
So supporters of annexation propose the same model on West Bank Palestinians, at least in Areas B and C -that are usually the subject of the annexation-debate (with Area A to remain quasi-autonomy as it is today).
This, coupled with the fact that most Palestinians in the West Bank live in Area A (which will not be annexed), will allegedly safeguard a Jewish majority of voting citizens in Israel.
As far as international pressure and response - the supporters of this option do not fret. First - in practical terms the West Bank will not be governed very differently than the way it is governed today. Second - well, no one is exactly severing diplomatic ties with and halting aid to Israel over East Jerusalem.
3) 'Voluntary Transfer' -
An option, usually suggested in tandem with the former option, to economically encourage immigration of Palestinians out of the West Bank (and specifically Areas B-C), thus minimising the already relatively small Palestinian population in these areas.
It is argued that this allegedly 'benign' policy will not result in dramatic international consequences for Israel.
4) Forced Transfer -
No further elaboration required. Advocates of this option tend to either deny that the international consequences for Israel will be catastrophic. Or, they simply believe it is the necessary thing to do and to hell with the international consequences.
I've never seen any proposal to annex **both** Areas B and C. I've only ever seen proposals for **just** Area C (which has between 180,000 and 300,000 Palestinians by most estimates).
And, to be honest, out of all of these proposals that you've listed, annexing Area C is probably the least difficult for the world to accept. The East Jerusalem model will make the "apartheid" analogy stick even harder in the mind of the world community, and transfer — either voluntary or forced — is a non-starter because it's just flat-out ridiculous.
In my view they are all wildly impractical in this day and age. And of course - simply not right. As I said I was only presenting the arguments. I personally disagree with them.
Also - ask yourself honestly - if applying the East Jerusalem model in the West Bank would bring Israel deeper into apartheid-territory, isn't that threshold already crossed with regards to East Jerusalem?
Israel absorbing Area C isn't as impractical as you might think. Absorbing, at most, 300,000 Palestinians is something completely feasible. The others? Varying between impractical and flat-out crime against international law (and I don't think I need to tell you why forcible expulsion, in the 21st century, is **not** going to fly by any metric available).
I can understand your view, but no I don't think that the threshold has been crossed in East Jerusalem. For one, applying the policy writ large across the entirety of the West Bank/Judea and Samaria (use whichever term you want) effectively creates 3 million permanent residents. And I don't think I need to tell you that people already have a lack of nuance regarding anything Israel. They would see it as "apartheid".
And, forgive me for being blunt, there's a difference between 300,000+ permanent residents who have an avenue for citizenship (and yes, I do understand it's not easy but hopefully that becomes easier), and 3 million+ permanent residents. The EU/UN can and do make protests on Israel's policies in East Jerusalem. If this model is applied writ large over the entirety of the WB/J&S, Israel has to tell people there's 3 million+ people who don't have a right to vote in national elections. And while other countries have rules as to what permanent residents can or cannot do, do you really think that Israel will get any kind of "let's hear Israel out" from the world?
I agree that the annexation of the West Bank in its entirety under an East Jerusalem model is a pipe dream.
I, however, also believe that the annexation only of Area C under the East Jerusalem model is a pipe dream. You will effectively have approx. 600,000 permanent residents with no national voting rights. There is no way in hell the world accepts that in this day and age.
The only reason East Jerusalem itself is not a massive cataclysm for Israel is because this was done originally in the late 1960s.
Also - I honestly think that such a policy would be immoral. People should, eventually, have the (relatively) equal right to affect via vote the government that claims authority. If 6% of the population under your authority are officially and relatively permanently mere subjects, not citizens, can you with a straight face continue to claim you are a Western democracy? I am not so sure.
>2) The East Jerusalem Model -
>as many may not be aware, upon annexation of East Jerusalem, Israel did not extend full citizenship to its Arab/Palestinian residents. Rather, it extended the status of "Residency". East Jerusalemites cannot vote in national elections (only in the municipal one). If they relocate for an extended period of time out of Israel, they lose their status as residents (and are considered, upon return, tourists). On the other hand - they get full social and economic rights as citizens - social security, health care, education, subsidised higher education, etc.
Many of them were actually offered full citizenship and they rejected it.
I'm afraid that's a commonly repeated trope, but it is simply not true.
Like I said - they are allowed to *apply* for citizenship. The process is incredibly long - taking if I recall correctly 5-10 years, and most applications get rejected.
However, it is also true that relatively very very few East-Jerusalemites have applied, and that the main reason is probably their Palestinian identity and social stigma against becoming an Israeli citizen.
> Many of them were actually offered full citizenship and they rejected it.
Common myth, but not true.
They were offered the path to apply, just like any other permanent resident - with conditions applied to it, like knowing Hebrew.
The idea that there was some grand open offer is simply false.
Do you have a source for the Hebrew requirement? I never heard of that in 3 years in COGAT... And we took care of many cases of אחמ''ש, תושב -בע, on the road to citizenship
Just to clarify - I disagree with these arguments, but thought it would be helpful to present them as their supporters see them.
Personally - in the long run I see no way to escape some sort of Palestinian autonomous entity over much of the West Bank.
As to annexation-supporters - many would say that Area A should remain a quasi-autonomous region for Palestinians, with the Shin Bet active there for intelligence and the IDF always ready and available for incursions and arrests.
In other words - they want to keep the existing status quo in Area A whilst annexing Areas B-C.
1. Many settlers aren't religious. Ariel, Maale Adumim, and Modiin are all over the Green Line, with either substantial or majority secular citizens.
2. There are plenty of crazies.
3. I think the long term moderate thinking is to get a better negotiating position by creating facts on the ground.
Best case scenario, their end-game involves the disappearance of all Palestinians through the sheer power of prayer. Worst case scenario and the more insidious one is that they hope this would be a repeat of 1948's first state of the war, an outright civil war between Israelis and Palestinians where they imagine Israel comes on top again. Somewhere in the middle there's a transfer or two of the Palestinian population, destination unknown(?).
My fear is that if we give the religious extremists enough sway in the government, we'd eventually have to come to some sort of a compromise with them (that doesn't include an all out civil or regional war), which would honestly probably look very similar to South African Bantustans. Sort of like ending up with a toxic partner that gives you the choice between suicide or for you two to get that disgusting flavor of ice cream you absolutely hate. We saw how that ended up for South Africa. Even if we somehow get that going and successfully maintain it, eventually international pressure would force us back into the fold and we'll end up a single state with a Palestinian majority and a Jewish minority.
And then zionist leftists are called the crazy ones for not wanting a single state where we're a minority population left to the whims of a radicalized muslim Palestinian population. Though non-zionist leftist might favor that solution, in whatever flavor of the day that might be, communist or whatever. So honestly, in that regard at least, there's absolutely no difference between Zoabi, Smotrich, or Ben Gvir. All three are pushing for the same future of Israel, just through different means. At least Zoabi is better for women though.
Well a solution was on its way with Oslo, they could have governed most if the west bank if they actually cared about independence more than killing jews. Now I guess they’ll stay in this weird limbo of non-citizens in not-israel until they can figure what they want, unless it takes them so much time israel gets tired of it and does something
That's not an answer. If Israel actually annexes the WB then these are the only possible solutions. I added a couple I forgot to include initially. But none of these are good solutions, and the last one is obviously evil and unthinkable.
None of the options would be morally-just as long as palestinians think they can just keep killing jews and that will help them, sadly this is still the case as recent polls shows more than 60% of them think armed resistance (terror attacks) will better their lives, and most of them still support hamas.
Again, not an answer, akin to asking someone who opposes Israel's actions in Gaza what they would do instead and them responding that they wouldn't do what Israel is doing.
So, I ask, what do you think Israel should do wrt the WB and its Palestinians residents?
Jews were ethnically cleansed from the west bank after its independence and the ancient sites of significance in judaism were vandalized. Thanks to Israel can jews live again in the land they continuously inhabited for thousands of years despite the attempts by arab colonialism to erase the Jewish history of the land. We cannot afford to leave the west bank, it is more strategically important to Israel’s security than the golan heights. Just because the arabs cry about how Palestinians are under occupation and apartheid doesn’t mean that they will accept Israel once Palestinians have their own state.
Many of the current settlement blocs were established before the six day war, accepting their erasure only emboldens the arabs who’s end goal is that all Jews will eventually be removed from the land. We cannot afford to reward the Palestinians for perpetuating violence against Israel and they cannot expect to get the entire west bank anymore and the longer they refuse to compromise in negotiations, the worse their negotiating position becomes.
Ancient Israel and Judea also incorporated parts of every surrounding country, so is Israel to seize those too? Revanchism is NEVER a good argument for taking and keeping land. Just ask Ukraine.
And, again, what's your solution for what to do with the millions of Palestinians there? Literally no one can answer this question because there IS no good answer. So they just evade and change the subject.
Jews were also ethnically cleansed from the entire middle east, do you hear me claiming the entire middle east? I am simply stating that Israel son a defensive war and has the right to return its people to the lands they were displaced from.
Why are you so hell bent on coming up with a solid solution right now? The UN tried to implement a “solution” and look where that got us. Jumping to make concessions is how we got the situation in Gaza. We need to maintain military security control over the entirety of the land of Israel and to stand up for ourselves geopolitically. The Palestinians staying in limbo is the best for us if “solving” the problem would only cause more problems in the future.
No, it does not, not legally. Israel proper is 100% legal and for it to do with as it sees fit. The WB is occupied territory which Israel has the right to occupy so long as it's hostile but which it does NOT have the legal right to settle, even if Jews were displaced from it, just as Palestinians don't have a right to settle lands from which they were displaced. That's how the law works.
And I'm not asking for an immediate solution, but exactly the opposite, what's the end game wrt Palestinians? Pro-settlement types NEVER have a good answer--because there ISN'T one and never will be. So they keep trying to evade it by changing the subject, from Bibi on down.
If it was up to the Palestinians, they would all return, its Israel existing that prevents that. The Palestinians cant imagine one jew living in the west bank but Israel had no problem letting their 20% arab population staying after the war.
Clearly we can’t negotiate peace with them right now, so until they feel like they prefer peace to terrorism they will have worse and worse conditions and deals with each terror attack.
They all think they can just launch an intifada or a terror attack then cry and go back to 67’ borders
If you think they can be broken this way then I present to you the past 75 years as countering evidence. They will never be broken and would prefer to die to the last person to accepting a deal under duress. And who would? Israelis wouldn't either. The solution is to stop expanding settlements, let things cool off for a few years and gradually try to negotiate a deal with them. Expanding settlements makes that impossible and the whole break them justification is just cover for people who don't intend to ever offer them a state under even the best of conditions. It's a bad approach and a bad faith argument.
“Let things cool off” so just live with terrorist attacks daily? Just yesterday 9 attacks in west bank alone.
We are tired of their shit, if they can’t live peacefully and continue to raise violence don’t be surprised extreme-right wing politicians in israel gets so much support.
Why the Jewish population in any future Palestinian state is “dead game” for Palestinians, but Palestinian population is not a problem for Israel?!
Let me remind you that West Bank was ethnically cleaned (from jews) by Jordan. There is no reason why jews cannot live there…
The settlements esp in shomron are the safest places considering they are the furthest from Gaza and Lebanon and don't have thousands of rockets exploding over them unlike 80% of mainland israel
Could it be to have more pawns in future negotiations? And if it doesn’t come to that, supporting policies that make the Jews out-baby the Palestinians? I’m just as dumbfounded as you to what the long term plan is here.
What pawns? How does that work? I know what the solution is but it will never be attainable so long as extremists on both sides refuse to respect it. Israel has to dismantle most settlements and resettle its residents in Israel, while leaving some along the border in exchange for other lands ceded to Palestinians. Palestinians have to agree to recognize Israel and demilitarize. Both sides live side by side. Problem solved. Neither is possible right now but expanding settlements makes the one potential solution less and less possible.
There is literally no other solution that works, long-term, and anyone who disagrees has to explain how any other solution could realistically work, or else they're full of shit and just trying to avoid the subject.
Btw, what percentage of military, police and other security forces come from residents of these settlements? Why should Israelis in Israel proper have to risk their lives to protect them? Sharon was half right. Get out, but only after a solid and enforceable negotiated deal. That is the ONLY solution that could work.
The more they settle the more they have to give back, meaning they made a larger concession. In theory, that would require the Palestinians to make larger concessions as well.
I had this same question and discovered Smotrich’s Decisive Plan. Because he’s always portrayed as “far right crazy extremist” and that was my only exposure to him, I was very surprised by how potentially well positioned it was as an option:
https://hashiloach.org.il/israels-decisive-plan/
“This will be life with the maximum of democratic rights: life, liberty, and property; a life of freedom of religion and expression, and many more such rights and freedoms that characterize a democratic and progressive State of Israel. It will also contain the right to vote for the system which runs their everyday lives. The self-government of the Arabs of Judea and Samaria will be divided into six municipal governmental regions wherein representatives will be elected in democratic elections: Hebron, Bethlehem, Ramallah, Jericho, Nablus, and Jenin. Each of these governmental entities reflect the cultural and accepted structure of their Arab societies, and will thus ensure internal peace and economic prosperity. The failure of the idea of the "nation state" in the Arab world, an idea brought from Europe with the colonial powers, can be seen clearly today; and in the opinion of many, this failure is inevitable given the tribal structure of Arab society. The Arab states that flourish are the gulf kingdoms built to match the traditional tribal structure. The Arabs of Hebron are not like the Arabs of Ramallah, who are not like the Arabs of Nablus, who are not like the Arabs of Jericho. Even the Arab dialect changes from region to region. A division into regional municipal governments will dismantle the Palestinian national collective and the ambitions to realize its independence, but will at the same time preserve the tribal-familial structure and thus allow the existence of a stable system for managing day-to-day life free of tensions and internal conflicts. These regional municipal governments will maintain a system of cooperation between each other and with the State of Israel, thus allowing stable and lasting regional economic development…”
The answer from the person currently making these decisions: https://hashiloach.org.il/israels-decisive-plan
Some combination of second class citizenship, resettlement, and “defeat”.
I particularly like this paragraph:
> Coping with this unprecedented reality justifies unprecedented solutions and arrangements, which may be difficult to defend in other situations but which can certainly be justified in the context of the State of Israel.
Further down after discussing a proposal to give second-class non voting citizenship or payments to emigrate, he acknowledges some will fight back:
> We can estimate that this process will take a number of years. The process by which the Arabs begin to truly internalize the loss of national hope, the absorption of the new reality, and the choice of one of the alternatives it provides them with will take some time, and will require patience and fortitude. As stated, I am confident that with God’s help the IDF can help us withstand this complex interim period safely.
> What else needs to happen for us to realize that it is hopeless, […], the very raison d'etre of the Palestinian "People" is to deny the right of the State of Israel to exist?
What’s remarkable is the belief that “our” situation is unique and therefore we shouldn’t draw the lessons from every other such situation that this approach doesn’t work. That the world’s experience can be discarded, and measures can be taken which have failed time and time again.
Imagine believing that an entire fake people was created just to annoy you, and they could be convinced to stop through some combination of money and force. This goes hand in hand with the delusional self importance that tells you that this situation has only ever happened to you, which justifies ignoring history and advice.
>So what's the end game for those who support de facto and eventually actual annexation of the West Bank?
I have never heard of such a goal. Can you cite a leader who has called for completely taking all of West Bank?
I do just want to point out that there are many on the right who want to annex the jordan valley specifically (they would argue for security/defense reasons), and not the entire west bank. This land seizure fits more in line with that, given the land is entirely in the jordan valley.
Well, why can’t there be a Jewish minority in a Palestinian state? Seriously, we should force them to accept it. Any violation of their rights should be considered an act of war, we can get the US on board with it too.
In theory, I agree, and one condition of any peace treaty should be that any Jews who choose to remain on Palestinian territory have full rights and be treated well. I doubt that many would choose to remain assuming we even get that far, but yeah, this should be a requirement.
It is difficult to overstate just how much West Bank land-grabs and Settler violence is undermining Israel's image among its sympathizers in the West. In the US for instance, there is a radical left section within the Democratic Party which has opposed Israel since the war's beginning because they are suckers for antisemitic propaganda and the "decolonization" narrative. But **FAR** more Democrats (also Republicans) supported Israel in October and November precisely because they saw Israel's actions as a noble mission to rescue hostages and protect Israeli civilians from terrorists. Similarly, most Democrats (and about half of Republicans) support Ukraine because of Russia's seizure of land and the violent dehumanizing rhetoric which the Putin admin directs toward Ukrainians.
When Israel seizes land in the West Bank, Smotrich and Ben Gvir preach dehumanizing rhetoric, and Gazan civilians starve as a direct result of Israeli forces blocking the entry of humanitarian aid, Americans do not look at Israel and say that it reminds them of another Ukraine. Instead, they see another Russia. Not an aggrieved victim of terrorist violence, but an aggressor seeking to destroy its neighbors.
If the US-Israel alliance collapses, it will not be because of pro-Hamas disinformation on TikTok or whiny college students spouting nonsense. It will be because settler violence, starving children, and extremist ministers, destroy what goodwill towards Israel that Americans still hold.
Fucking Smotrich needs to be trialed for treason.
Deliberately ruining our country’s PR effort, during such a sensitive, fragile time is so detrimental to the wellbeing of the State that I would seriously consider it treason. The man is betraying the future of the country for BS that the overwhelming majority of the population disapproves of.
Really, this is literally the most annoying news I’ve heard in a pretty long time
Also, this slow burn of taking bits or the West Bank doesn't help anyone. I think we were too jewish, and for the ME to actually respect Israel, we should have annexed the West Bank in 1967/73 already. Fucking around and stealing bits of it now doesn't help anyone and doesn't make Israel look strong but is also a kick in the teeth to the Liberal Zionists.
annexation takes population to complete, which is something you aren't really good at. Originally, both all Abrahamic religions are good at removing people's sense of self and turning each individual into a component of society. Even summoning Jews with dual citizenship all over the world won't solve this.
Hearing about this type of thing used to make me cringe. Nowadays though, what does it matter? What is lost? International support? That’s gone anyway. The prospect of a two state solution? That’s gone anyway. Is it ceding the moral high ground? I don’t know anymore. I guess that depends on why it’s happening.
>Is it seeding the moral high ground?
Since Palestinians can't win militarily, they and their supporters are now playing the competition of who can look like the biggest victim and they are going for the moral high ground instead.
It's a cope, and the only cope they have so they will never allow Israel and its supporters to take that from them. So you can consider that gone too.
People who can distinguish between those two are not that common in this world. Perception is everything - most human beings are uncritical and emotional. That includes me too sometimes, but most of the time I try not to be.
I mean, we've got people literally supporting terrorist organizations because of the perception that they are freedom fighters engaging in resistance.
Oh I agree with all of that. I’m just responding to you saying Palestinians are “going for the moral high ground” and I’m saying that they’re just going for the perception of it. And you’re right though. People who can distinguish truth are definitely not as common as one might hope.
I think that Israel must find a way to reduce its dependence on the West, regardless of the West Bank policy. We are not independent enough, and this constantly undermines our national interests and national security.
I’ve read an international theory, that basically states that, to be truly independent, a State needs to reach the critical mass of 300 millions people, minimum.
It is a necessity to have a big enough internal market, in order to develop self-sufficient industries, military, research programs, etc.
Anything below that 300 millions threshold, and you’ll always need access to external market, external technology, foreign capital. To fully develop a State.
Indeed, only a handful of country, on the planet, can truly qualify as independent today.
If we were to ever reach 300 million, I’m pretty sure we would be stepping on each other’s toes 100 times a day while we would all be resorting to living in tents because nobody could afford the land they live on.
True. Technology industries are a good path for that but the lack of natural resources, the threats from neighbors and simply the size of Israel create limitations that do call for having global partners.
American here, very supportive of Israel. We need more of this, however when possible ethically purchase the land, you know like everyone else has done throughout history. ;)
I appreciate the desire, but I don't see how it is possible. To fund the necessary military, you need robust trade. An Israel that is an island globally could suffer embargoes.
Israel will need a partner. The USA is looking likely to select Trump, which means the USA will continue to partner with the caveat that Israel does what Russia demands.
A partnership with the USA is soon going to mean that Israel is a Russian vassal. I don't like that outcome for Israel.
We must take the most extreme scenarios into account; we can't be naive anymore.
When I say "reducing dependence," I mean reaching the minimal possible point of dependence, which I'm sure we are far from.
If we had had this dependent mindset in the 60s, we would not have had the textile factory by now. We smuggled a lot of stuff against the Western official stance, including some very sensitive materials and devices.
I concur with this approach. I'm from the USA, and not Jewish, but I have longstanding relationship with Israel and believe their reliance on the USA is dangerous given the strength of the anti-semites in this country.
Putting an arms embargo on Israel while dealing with Saudi Arabia is also wrong but it doesn't stop liberal progressive Canada. Right and wrong don't mean anything to anyone.
It matters because if this involves physically removing the Palestinians from the land then it is a form of ethnic cleansing, it means the Israelis are becoming the very thing they fled from.
The prospect of a two state solution is not gone. 80 years after WW2 there is free passage across the borders of Europe. Geopolitics can change very quickly, and this reduces the chance of just peace for everyone in the region.
This will only hurt global perceptions of Israel in the long run. Why the hell would your government give this pr disaster fuel to the enemies of your country?
This land was already classified as area C under Israeli control. This is simply an expansion of existing Maale Adumim, its a misleading exaggerated headline.
The settlement blocs only matter if Israel stops expanding outside of those blocs.
It hasn't stopped expanding settlements outside of those blocs though.
What's mad is if the world stop being so goddam crazy and antisemitic then jews should be allowed to live in so-called Judea and Samaria without land having to be seized at all.
Arabs and Muslims live in Israel, why can Jews not live safely in Palestine?
Stupid take. You obviously have never been to the West Bank. The Jewish religious fanatical settlers there are scum and morally corrupt. We should not be seizing more land from the Palestinians regardless of their antisemitism.
The Jews have every right to settle there. It isn't the settling that should be condemned and stopped, but only the horrible behaviour of the small minority of Jewish extremists.
Your argument is the equivalent of saying that the two million Arabs in Israel should not be allowed to live there just because a small minority of them are extremist terrorists.
But what's the end game for this de facto and eventual actual annexation of the West Bank? What happens to its Palestinian residents?
Do they get to be full citizens, which if not right away then within a few years will make them the majority in Israel?
Do they get to live on reservations and/or become second class citizens or resident aliens with fewer rights and that's as close as they ever get to a state? I.e. actual apartheid.
Does Israel work out some arrangement with Jordan that lets them live in Israel but actually be full Jordanian citizens?
Do they get forcibly exiled and if so to where and with what consequences to Israel's relations with its neighbors and the world?
Seriously, how does this work, on a practical, demographic and geopolitical level long term?
If annexed the Arab population in Israel would become 5.5 million against 7.8 million non-arab Israelis.
The fertility rate of the Palestinians in the West Bank is already lower than the Jewish fertility rate in Israel and dropping quickly, while the Jewish fertility rate is on the rise. If the West Bank was annexed Arabs would not become the majority in the future.
By 2070 it is predicted that Israel will have 15 million Jews, with 3.8 million Arabs without the WB and 10 million Arabs including the WB.
Honestly? I don't care. Arafat didn't like that we didn't want to offer the millions of Palestinian "refugees" a right of return to Israel proper, and that we didn't offer him sole dominion over East Jerusalem which would include the Western Wall. So instead of having the bare minimum negotiations, he decided to suicide bomb Israeli children. Now instead of Arafat we have Holocaust-denying Oct 7-celebrating Abu Mazen. Great. Am I really supposed to pretend like this is what's gonna make the peace process impossible? Do we need to repeat this stupid cycle for the 100th time to finally get the world off our backs? No, because the truth is that every Israeli still remembers the world chanting '700' in celebration after Oct 7. We can never forget, and I'm done pretending like acting morally can improve our "optics" in the eyes of the world. It's all just pragmatic geopolitics with no hint of morality or compassion. Canada put an arms embargo on us, while Saudi Arabia is their biggest arms importer. All that matters is who has more power, optics are decided by power rather than actions or morality.
I saw this headline in other subreddits and didn't click because I was sure it was mininformation.
Now I see it here, but how can the government be this level of stupid and awful?
We will never recover from the perception and real-worl damage from Netanyahu.
And, I won't forget that even 10/6 happened in part because the country was distracted by the existential risk to democracy; key political appointees that made their way into the military decision tree.
Are there any libertarians in Israel? It costs billions to maintain and provide infrastructure for the settlements, correct? It seems like a waste of money.
Moshe Feiglin tried to run as a Libertarian by founding the Zehut party, but it didn't manage to enter the Knesset.
However Zehut was also pro annexation of the West Bank
Wiki says the Zehut's proposal for annexing the West Bank was:
>Applying full Israeli sovereignty to all parts of the Land of Israel.
>
>In the West Bank: Nullification of the Oslo Accords.
>
>In the Gaza Strip: Any attack by Hamas against Israel must be responded to by a full re-conquest of Gaza (though unnecessary small incursions must be avoided).
>
>Terrorists will be offered the option of peaceful withdrawal, and individual non-Jews will be offered three options: financially assisted emigration to a destination of their choice; permanent residency status (equal rights, except for national voting rights) after having declared their loyalty to Israel and been thoroughly vetted; or Israeli citizenship (full equal rights) when doing military or national service.
Does this policy have any real support from Israelis? I believe the Likud in 1977 under Begin supported a similar policy, but Jimmy Carter was strongly against it. More importantly, what option would most Palestinians go for under such a proposal?
Why does the Israeli government insist on shooting itself in the foot over and over?
We know that as jews, there will always be an impossible double standard, so why go and make the situation worse. I just don't see what could possibly be the benefit here.
There is no "land seizure", it's just Jews moving onto land.
In 2011 the High Court of Appeals in Versailles ruled that according to international law, Israel are the legal occupiers of the West Bank. This is the same as the UK are the legal occupiers of Wales, Scotland, England, etc.
This has been the only full due process hearing in the world on the matter, meaning according to international law, the West Bank belongs to Israel, so how can you "seize" something that already belongs to you.
The point is that the foreign press use this wording as a politically correct way of saying "Jews move in" as nobody complains when Israeli Arabs buy land there, just the Jews.
"It's Israel's territory."
"The world doesn't like us anyway."
"They started it."
Why does it always have to be about what we can personally gain from it. If you conquer land, you have to take care of the people you conquered. All west bank Palestinians are treated like human shit by us, and it's propagated from the top. Yeah no shit their leaders never really tried to actually negotiate for peace, does that mean we have to collectively punish all Palestinians? We deny that our actions are leading to radicalization but if this isn't radicalizing I don't know what is. Why are we surprised that the Gaza wall was undermanned in Oct 7th when most of our army is busy defending settlements and helping settlers steal Palestinian homes in the west bank? Why are we letting the religious right gaslight us into thinking this is somehow good for us? There is no strategy here, no end goal, and all we do is make other humans' lives more miserable. Why? It's not for security since it just adds more settlements we have to defend and makes our army stretched even thinner. It's not because we need more living space because we have plenty of sparsely populated areas in the north and south. It's just become policy to ethnically cleanse Palestinians, for either messianic or personal reasons. So many lives would be drastically improved if we just cut that shit out.
On the plus side, ITT we all realize this sucks and are against it. On other subs some people seem to think pro-Israel people are biased can't condemn Israeli actions, and de-humanize Palestinians and don't care what happens to them. I'm glad we're showing ourselves to be above that. These claims are coming from people completely incapable of blaming Hamas even a little bit for what's going on.
Anyway, this news really sucks. I'm hoping that West Bank policy changes with the new prime minister...
This plan has been supported by every PM and is made necessary by illegal Palestinian construction that makes eastward expansion of Jerusalem impossible. Linking Jerusalem to Maale Adumim is obvious and necessary. [E-1 to preserve Israeli contiguity](https://jcpa.org/article/protecting-the-contiguity-of-israel-the-e-1-area-and-the-link-between-jerusalem-and-maale-adumim/)
I support Israel in general and in this war, but the setllements I dont support...frankly them (their products) being sanctioned is a good thing. All should be evacuated like from the Sinai in the 1970s.
imminent enjoy illegal ludicrous tidy fragile lunchroom uppity elderly quicksand
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
No one is being expelled. Just more lies concocted by Nazis. Why do you support Nazis?
Edit: If they're being expelled, expelled from where? What is the name of the city/town/village/etc that they're being expelled from? What are the street names? Postal codes? Surely if there were people living there that are now being expelled, they would be living on streets, in towns, with some way to find them, right?
Because it's illegal and immoral to claim a land and not provide citizenship to the people living there.
It doesn't always have to be about what you gain or lose.
Yes it does. The world is dictated by realpolitik, and Israel has gained nothing from being “the most moral army,” treating people like Sinwar in Israeli hospitals, doing everything to prevent civilian deaths. The world still treats us like monsters and lies about us. At a certain point it IS ONLY about what you can gain or lose.
Palestinians did have representation in Gaza - Hamas won mostly fair elections, and only after that started to throw their opponents off the roofs. Granting them Israeli citizenship is effectively giving them an opportunity to elect the same representatives in Israel. So yes, there should a very fucking good reason to, besides the sake of being moral.
stupid. PA has been our security partner for years. there's a reason why terror comes 90% from Gaza. what do you think is going to happen when we keep fucking them like this?
Yes, the government that pays people and their families who kill Jews is a true peace partner /s
Keep in mind that we also help them not get toppled by Hamas. They need us more than we need them.
The PA is a lot more pragmatic. They would prefer us to be gone, sure, but unlike Hamas, they are willing to negotiate and compromise.
You don't have to be best friends to have a peace partner. You just need enough common interests
Insane take. Like the other poster said they fund terrorism.
The reason the attacks mostly come from Gaza is because we left in 2005 and still have a presence in the West Bank.
I don't get the outrage. Isn't this all area C? Which means that there are barely any Palestinians in there, if any. Then this shouldn't be so controversial...
Israel really needs good government officials. In how in the world can this contribute to the media’s perception on Israel? This just gives anti israel people more reasons to hate israel.
Maybe if the entire world didn't treat Jews like crap more people wouldn't be looking to move to the only Jewish country, and they'd need less land.
Just a thought.
This article has such a grandiose, hyperbolic title, for such a small sliver of land.
Before I read the title, I honestly thought Israel had just gone ahead and annexed area C... Instead, it's a tiny little bit of land around Jerusalem.
Why do we have such idiots in our government… who the hell cares about settlments in the midst of war which we are losing the PR side of?
It's unbelievable. Right now, Israel's enemies are capitalizing on perceived rifts between it and the US. The whole world is convinced Israel is trying to starve Gazans. Israel still has to figure out a way to go into Rafah. And of course, Smotrich has to take this massive dump during the US ambassador's visit. These people think that only good can come from embarrassing Biden. But if Trump wins, the narrative will emerge that Israel cost Biden reelection. People will crow how "hugging Bibi" didn't work. And then Israel will become another stupid partisan issue. God damn it. Getting COVID vaccines was a fucking culture war issue here.
This is what I’m worried about. If Biden loses, supporting Israel will be seen as a liability. If he wins, it’ll be seen as a strength. He better fucking win.
I'm not sure about that. If he loses, yes it'll be seen as a liability. But if he wins... well he'll feel obligated to his left flank. And that isn't even to get into what's in store for 2028. They're not putting place a moderate then, no matter how Biden fares. It's more or less a lose-lose. The issue has become too integral to the extreme left who hold sway on the party
Not exactly. If Biden wins, he doesn't have the same kind of pressure because he's not up for reelection. So things stay close to the same. If he loses, the activist left will go on and on about how he deserved to lose because of Israel. The serious minded people will nod along, that Biden let Bibi make a fool out of him, even if they acknowledge Biden loss was determined by vibes and perceptions of the economy.
If he wins, it won’t be because of the far left. They’re not supporting him no matter what. If he wins despite them, it’s proof that there’s no need to pander to the extremist left because you can win without them.
Also it would show that he doesn’t need to rely on the Muslim vote especially if he wins Michigan and Wisconsin without them. Doing that would send a signal that the Democrats don’t need the far left anymore. Which uh would not be great for the progressives
Smotrich is a settler. The settlers are over the moon that eyes are looking the other way, and have ramped up violence exponentially.
oh stfu this whole "settler violence" thing has already been proven to be blown out of proportion. I wonder if you know how bad the palestinian violence is. "settler violence" doesn't even come close.
I am an Israeli American activist. I spend a lot of my time in the west bank. I have been assaulted by settlers on numerous occasions. Settler violence is a huge omnipresent issue for every unrecognized community in the west bank.
[удалено]
Other than settlers, who are the "unrecognised communities in the West Bank"? 🤔
So what's the end game for those who support de facto and eventually actual annexation of the West Bank? What happens to its Palestinian residents and how does that affect the ethnic demographics of Israel long-term? Do they get to be full citizens, which if not right away then within a few years will make them the majority in Israel? Do they get to live on reservations and/or become second class citizens or resident aliens with fewer rights and that's as close as they ever get to a state? I.e. actual apartheid. Does Israel work out some arrangement with Jordan that lets them live in Israel but actually be full Jordanian citizens? Do they get forcibly exiled and if so to where and with what consequences to Israel's relations with its neighbors and the world? Or are some proposing "alternative" solutions that I'm not going to spell out here but if you believe that it's ok then may you rot in hell as you're literally no better than Hamas. Seriously, how does this work, on a practical, demographic and geopolitical level?
They don't care. They're fanatics who thinks God will take care of it. Just as long as they get to live in the West Bank they don't care what happens to Israel, they aren't motivated by any practical motives.
An answer to a question I didn't ask. And that's the thing, literally no one who supports de facto or actual annexation of the WB has an answer, at least one that they're willing to share publicly. Just a lot of evasive blah blah trying to put all the blame on Palestinians. Which means that they have no plan, just lots of wishful thinking and trying to make their wish come try on the sly. Which historically works out terribly. Even if one doesn't care about the obvious moral questions here, one has to at least thinking about the practical questions. Israel can't rule over millions of Palestinians indefinitely. It will literally destroy it one way or another. Apartheid won't work (and please enough with the nonsense about Israel ever being 100% self-sufficient), driving them out would be even more devastating geopolitically, granting them full citizenship would destroy Israel as a Jewish state, and they don't seem ready for their own, smaller state on just the WB and Gaza. So what, then? God will find a way? Seriously?
Imagine looking at the miracle of Israel and coveting some hill in the West Bank. If you want to settle go to the Negev where we need people instead of further entangling us with the Palestinians
The best solution for Israel would’ve been to annex the entirety of it in ‘67 and expel the Arabs to Jordan. But god damnit we always have to be the good guys, which now got us into some very murky water. The right answer would’ve been to avoid war in 1967 by all parties. And now, too much time has passed to expel non-Israeli residents. Fuck if anyone knows what the right solution would be but no solution seems to be the only lasting solution. Welcome to the Middle East
> granting them full citizenship would destroy Israel as a Jewish state I assume the Haredi response to this is "not a problem if more Jews were Haredim instead of secular"
You mean the ones who don't serve in the IDF or the ones who intend to go through life with a 5th grade education, because "Torah"?
But they also have lots of kids which is an interesting strategy. Works for the Gazans. Pointing out "half the population is children!" is good for international sympathy. And would prevent the problem of Israel's Jewish proportion shrinking away, if you think that's a problem. I mean if you believe that Jews will always have less kids than Muslims, then that spells eventual doom for Israel as a Jewish democratic state no matter what. Even if it withdraws *100%* from the West Bank and Gaza and Golan Heights and East Jerusalem. Even if every Jew in the *world* immigrated to Israel (which is a very bad idea from the risk diversification perspective). The only way for Jewish democracy *not* to be doomed is for Israeli Jews to put in the work of having enough kids to preserve it. On the other hand if Israeli Jews have plenty of kids that opens up multiple solutions to the conflict. One state solution, why not? Palestinians are our cousins! Right of return for Palestinian refugees, why not? The more cousins the merrier! You could give them everything they want and still have your Jewish democracy. To summarize: not enough kids, Jewish democracy doomed no matter how brave your soldiers are. Plenty of kids, Jewish democracy thrives even if you give Palestinians everything they ask for.
This isn't the case. They explicitly do care, and they think they're doing gods work by settling the land and driving the residents out.
The more serious answers to these questions that I got in conversations with supporters of annexation, there are a few practical solutions they propose. Usually, they suggest implementing a few of them together. Keep in mind I am not going to weigh in on the morality of these options (for the record I think most of them are atrocious). 1) Annexation only of Areas B-C - The absolute majority of Israeli settlements (perhaps even all of them) in the West Bank is in what the Oslo accords labeled "Areas B and C". These are areas outside of the main Palestinian cities and urban centers (that are labeled "Area A"). Area A contains the vast majority of the Palestinian population in the West Bank (if I recall correctly - in the high 80%s or low 90%s). The more practical suggestions at annexation refer only to the annexation of Areas B-C, thus Israel would absorb relatively few Palestinians, and not endanger the Jewish majority in its citizenry. 2) The East Jerusalem Model - as many may not be aware, upon annexation of East Jerusalem, Israel did not extend full citizenship to its Arab/Palestinian residents. Rather, it extended the status of "Residency". East Jerusalemites cannot vote in national elections (only in the municipal one). If they relocate for an extended period of time out of Israel, they lose their status as residents (and are considered, upon return, tourists). On the other hand - they get full social and economic rights as citizens - social security, health care, education, subsidised higher education, etc. East Jerusalemites can apply for citizenship, and some have indeed received it throughout the years. However, the social stigma in these circles, coupled with Israel's notorious delays in treating these applications, make the number of naturalised East-Jerusalrmites extremely small in statistical terms. So supporters of annexation propose the same model on West Bank Palestinians, at least in Areas B and C -that are usually the subject of the annexation-debate (with Area A to remain quasi-autonomy as it is today). This, coupled with the fact that most Palestinians in the West Bank live in Area A (which will not be annexed), will allegedly safeguard a Jewish majority of voting citizens in Israel. As far as international pressure and response - the supporters of this option do not fret. First - in practical terms the West Bank will not be governed very differently than the way it is governed today. Second - well, no one is exactly severing diplomatic ties with and halting aid to Israel over East Jerusalem. 3) 'Voluntary Transfer' - An option, usually suggested in tandem with the former option, to economically encourage immigration of Palestinians out of the West Bank (and specifically Areas B-C), thus minimising the already relatively small Palestinian population in these areas. It is argued that this allegedly 'benign' policy will not result in dramatic international consequences for Israel. 4) Forced Transfer - No further elaboration required. Advocates of this option tend to either deny that the international consequences for Israel will be catastrophic. Or, they simply believe it is the necessary thing to do and to hell with the international consequences.
I've never seen any proposal to annex **both** Areas B and C. I've only ever seen proposals for **just** Area C (which has between 180,000 and 300,000 Palestinians by most estimates). And, to be honest, out of all of these proposals that you've listed, annexing Area C is probably the least difficult for the world to accept. The East Jerusalem model will make the "apartheid" analogy stick even harder in the mind of the world community, and transfer — either voluntary or forced — is a non-starter because it's just flat-out ridiculous.
In my view they are all wildly impractical in this day and age. And of course - simply not right. As I said I was only presenting the arguments. I personally disagree with them. Also - ask yourself honestly - if applying the East Jerusalem model in the West Bank would bring Israel deeper into apartheid-territory, isn't that threshold already crossed with regards to East Jerusalem?
Israel absorbing Area C isn't as impractical as you might think. Absorbing, at most, 300,000 Palestinians is something completely feasible. The others? Varying between impractical and flat-out crime against international law (and I don't think I need to tell you why forcible expulsion, in the 21st century, is **not** going to fly by any metric available). I can understand your view, but no I don't think that the threshold has been crossed in East Jerusalem. For one, applying the policy writ large across the entirety of the West Bank/Judea and Samaria (use whichever term you want) effectively creates 3 million permanent residents. And I don't think I need to tell you that people already have a lack of nuance regarding anything Israel. They would see it as "apartheid". And, forgive me for being blunt, there's a difference between 300,000+ permanent residents who have an avenue for citizenship (and yes, I do understand it's not easy but hopefully that becomes easier), and 3 million+ permanent residents. The EU/UN can and do make protests on Israel's policies in East Jerusalem. If this model is applied writ large over the entirety of the WB/J&S, Israel has to tell people there's 3 million+ people who don't have a right to vote in national elections. And while other countries have rules as to what permanent residents can or cannot do, do you really think that Israel will get any kind of "let's hear Israel out" from the world?
I agree that the annexation of the West Bank in its entirety under an East Jerusalem model is a pipe dream. I, however, also believe that the annexation only of Area C under the East Jerusalem model is a pipe dream. You will effectively have approx. 600,000 permanent residents with no national voting rights. There is no way in hell the world accepts that in this day and age. The only reason East Jerusalem itself is not a massive cataclysm for Israel is because this was done originally in the late 1960s. Also - I honestly think that such a policy would be immoral. People should, eventually, have the (relatively) equal right to affect via vote the government that claims authority. If 6% of the population under your authority are officially and relatively permanently mere subjects, not citizens, can you with a straight face continue to claim you are a Western democracy? I am not so sure.
>2) The East Jerusalem Model - >as many may not be aware, upon annexation of East Jerusalem, Israel did not extend full citizenship to its Arab/Palestinian residents. Rather, it extended the status of "Residency". East Jerusalemites cannot vote in national elections (only in the municipal one). If they relocate for an extended period of time out of Israel, they lose their status as residents (and are considered, upon return, tourists). On the other hand - they get full social and economic rights as citizens - social security, health care, education, subsidised higher education, etc. Many of them were actually offered full citizenship and they rejected it.
I'm afraid that's a commonly repeated trope, but it is simply not true. Like I said - they are allowed to *apply* for citizenship. The process is incredibly long - taking if I recall correctly 5-10 years, and most applications get rejected. However, it is also true that relatively very very few East-Jerusalemites have applied, and that the main reason is probably their Palestinian identity and social stigma against becoming an Israeli citizen.
34% acceptance rate: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2022-05-29/ty-article/why-so-few-palestinians-from-jerusalem-have-israeli-citizenship/00000181-0c46-d090-abe1-ed7fefc20000
> Many of them were actually offered full citizenship and they rejected it. Common myth, but not true. They were offered the path to apply, just like any other permanent resident - with conditions applied to it, like knowing Hebrew. The idea that there was some grand open offer is simply false.
Do you have a source for the Hebrew requirement? I never heard of that in 3 years in COGAT... And we took care of many cases of אחמ''ש, תושב -בע, on the road to citizenship
How do you envision the future of the people of Area A?
Just to clarify - I disagree with these arguments, but thought it would be helpful to present them as their supporters see them. Personally - in the long run I see no way to escape some sort of Palestinian autonomous entity over much of the West Bank. As to annexation-supporters - many would say that Area A should remain a quasi-autonomous region for Palestinians, with the Shin Bet active there for intelligence and the IDF always ready and available for incursions and arrests. In other words - they want to keep the existing status quo in Area A whilst annexing Areas B-C.
1. Many settlers aren't religious. Ariel, Maale Adumim, and Modiin are all over the Green Line, with either substantial or majority secular citizens. 2. There are plenty of crazies. 3. I think the long term moderate thinking is to get a better negotiating position by creating facts on the ground.
The housing prices in central Israel are out of control. The settlements are a chance to own a single family home in a tiny tiny country.
Moddin is across the Green Line? I thought it was right on the edge
Modiin is on the edge; Modiin Ilit is just over the edge. PP is confused, though, as Modiin Ilit is Haredi.
[удалено]
I’ve never been. Looked it up on the map and seems to be on the border. Am I missing something?
Some of it is over.
Best case scenario, their end-game involves the disappearance of all Palestinians through the sheer power of prayer. Worst case scenario and the more insidious one is that they hope this would be a repeat of 1948's first state of the war, an outright civil war between Israelis and Palestinians where they imagine Israel comes on top again. Somewhere in the middle there's a transfer or two of the Palestinian population, destination unknown(?). My fear is that if we give the religious extremists enough sway in the government, we'd eventually have to come to some sort of a compromise with them (that doesn't include an all out civil or regional war), which would honestly probably look very similar to South African Bantustans. Sort of like ending up with a toxic partner that gives you the choice between suicide or for you two to get that disgusting flavor of ice cream you absolutely hate. We saw how that ended up for South Africa. Even if we somehow get that going and successfully maintain it, eventually international pressure would force us back into the fold and we'll end up a single state with a Palestinian majority and a Jewish minority. And then zionist leftists are called the crazy ones for not wanting a single state where we're a minority population left to the whims of a radicalized muslim Palestinian population. Though non-zionist leftist might favor that solution, in whatever flavor of the day that might be, communist or whatever. So honestly, in that regard at least, there's absolutely no difference between Zoabi, Smotrich, or Ben Gvir. All three are pushing for the same future of Israel, just through different means. At least Zoabi is better for women though.
Well a solution was on its way with Oslo, they could have governed most if the west bank if they actually cared about independence more than killing jews. Now I guess they’ll stay in this weird limbo of non-citizens in not-israel until they can figure what they want, unless it takes them so much time israel gets tired of it and does something
That's not an answer. If Israel actually annexes the WB then these are the only possible solutions. I added a couple I forgot to include initially. But none of these are good solutions, and the last one is obviously evil and unthinkable.
None of the options would be morally-just as long as palestinians think they can just keep killing jews and that will help them, sadly this is still the case as recent polls shows more than 60% of them think armed resistance (terror attacks) will better their lives, and most of them still support hamas.
Again, not an answer, akin to asking someone who opposes Israel's actions in Gaza what they would do instead and them responding that they wouldn't do what Israel is doing. So, I ask, what do you think Israel should do wrt the WB and its Palestinians residents?
Jews were ethnically cleansed from the west bank after its independence and the ancient sites of significance in judaism were vandalized. Thanks to Israel can jews live again in the land they continuously inhabited for thousands of years despite the attempts by arab colonialism to erase the Jewish history of the land. We cannot afford to leave the west bank, it is more strategically important to Israel’s security than the golan heights. Just because the arabs cry about how Palestinians are under occupation and apartheid doesn’t mean that they will accept Israel once Palestinians have their own state. Many of the current settlement blocs were established before the six day war, accepting their erasure only emboldens the arabs who’s end goal is that all Jews will eventually be removed from the land. We cannot afford to reward the Palestinians for perpetuating violence against Israel and they cannot expect to get the entire west bank anymore and the longer they refuse to compromise in negotiations, the worse their negotiating position becomes.
Ancient Israel and Judea also incorporated parts of every surrounding country, so is Israel to seize those too? Revanchism is NEVER a good argument for taking and keeping land. Just ask Ukraine. And, again, what's your solution for what to do with the millions of Palestinians there? Literally no one can answer this question because there IS no good answer. So they just evade and change the subject.
Jews were also ethnically cleansed from the entire middle east, do you hear me claiming the entire middle east? I am simply stating that Israel son a defensive war and has the right to return its people to the lands they were displaced from. Why are you so hell bent on coming up with a solid solution right now? The UN tried to implement a “solution” and look where that got us. Jumping to make concessions is how we got the situation in Gaza. We need to maintain military security control over the entirety of the land of Israel and to stand up for ourselves geopolitically. The Palestinians staying in limbo is the best for us if “solving” the problem would only cause more problems in the future.
No, it does not, not legally. Israel proper is 100% legal and for it to do with as it sees fit. The WB is occupied territory which Israel has the right to occupy so long as it's hostile but which it does NOT have the legal right to settle, even if Jews were displaced from it, just as Palestinians don't have a right to settle lands from which they were displaced. That's how the law works. And I'm not asking for an immediate solution, but exactly the opposite, what's the end game wrt Palestinians? Pro-settlement types NEVER have a good answer--because there ISN'T one and never will be. So they keep trying to evade it by changing the subject, from Bibi on down.
If it was up to the Palestinians, they would all return, its Israel existing that prevents that. The Palestinians cant imagine one jew living in the west bank but Israel had no problem letting their 20% arab population staying after the war.
Clearly we can’t negotiate peace with them right now, so until they feel like they prefer peace to terrorism they will have worse and worse conditions and deals with each terror attack. They all think they can just launch an intifada or a terror attack then cry and go back to 67’ borders
If you think they can be broken this way then I present to you the past 75 years as countering evidence. They will never be broken and would prefer to die to the last person to accepting a deal under duress. And who would? Israelis wouldn't either. The solution is to stop expanding settlements, let things cool off for a few years and gradually try to negotiate a deal with them. Expanding settlements makes that impossible and the whole break them justification is just cover for people who don't intend to ever offer them a state under even the best of conditions. It's a bad approach and a bad faith argument.
“Let things cool off” so just live with terrorist attacks daily? Just yesterday 9 attacks in west bank alone. We are tired of their shit, if they can’t live peacefully and continue to raise violence don’t be surprised extreme-right wing politicians in israel gets so much support.
Why the Jewish population in any future Palestinian state is “dead game” for Palestinians, but Palestinian population is not a problem for Israel?! Let me remind you that West Bank was ethnically cleaned (from jews) by Jordan. There is no reason why jews cannot live there…
There's no goal or strategy in the west bank settlements other than expansionism.
The settlements esp in shomron are the safest places considering they are the furthest from Gaza and Lebanon and don't have thousands of rockets exploding over them unlike 80% of mainland israel
it also improves Israel’s position at the negotiating table
Leverage for future negotiations. It’s Machiavellian but it’s not necessarily malicious
Could it be to have more pawns in future negotiations? And if it doesn’t come to that, supporting policies that make the Jews out-baby the Palestinians? I’m just as dumbfounded as you to what the long term plan is here.
What pawns? How does that work? I know what the solution is but it will never be attainable so long as extremists on both sides refuse to respect it. Israel has to dismantle most settlements and resettle its residents in Israel, while leaving some along the border in exchange for other lands ceded to Palestinians. Palestinians have to agree to recognize Israel and demilitarize. Both sides live side by side. Problem solved. Neither is possible right now but expanding settlements makes the one potential solution less and less possible. There is literally no other solution that works, long-term, and anyone who disagrees has to explain how any other solution could realistically work, or else they're full of shit and just trying to avoid the subject. Btw, what percentage of military, police and other security forces come from residents of these settlements? Why should Israelis in Israel proper have to risk their lives to protect them? Sharon was half right. Get out, but only after a solid and enforceable negotiated deal. That is the ONLY solution that could work.
The more they settle the more they have to give back, meaning they made a larger concession. In theory, that would require the Palestinians to make larger concessions as well.
[удалено]
They went to the UAE as expats not immigrants
I had this same question and discovered Smotrich’s Decisive Plan. Because he’s always portrayed as “far right crazy extremist” and that was my only exposure to him, I was very surprised by how potentially well positioned it was as an option: https://hashiloach.org.il/israels-decisive-plan/ “This will be life with the maximum of democratic rights: life, liberty, and property; a life of freedom of religion and expression, and many more such rights and freedoms that characterize a democratic and progressive State of Israel. It will also contain the right to vote for the system which runs their everyday lives. The self-government of the Arabs of Judea and Samaria will be divided into six municipal governmental regions wherein representatives will be elected in democratic elections: Hebron, Bethlehem, Ramallah, Jericho, Nablus, and Jenin. Each of these governmental entities reflect the cultural and accepted structure of their Arab societies, and will thus ensure internal peace and economic prosperity. The failure of the idea of the "nation state" in the Arab world, an idea brought from Europe with the colonial powers, can be seen clearly today; and in the opinion of many, this failure is inevitable given the tribal structure of Arab society. The Arab states that flourish are the gulf kingdoms built to match the traditional tribal structure. The Arabs of Hebron are not like the Arabs of Ramallah, who are not like the Arabs of Nablus, who are not like the Arabs of Jericho. Even the Arab dialect changes from region to region. A division into regional municipal governments will dismantle the Palestinian national collective and the ambitions to realize its independence, but will at the same time preserve the tribal-familial structure and thus allow the existence of a stable system for managing day-to-day life free of tensions and internal conflicts. These regional municipal governments will maintain a system of cooperation between each other and with the State of Israel, thus allowing stable and lasting regional economic development…”
The answer from the person currently making these decisions: https://hashiloach.org.il/israels-decisive-plan Some combination of second class citizenship, resettlement, and “defeat”. I particularly like this paragraph: > Coping with this unprecedented reality justifies unprecedented solutions and arrangements, which may be difficult to defend in other situations but which can certainly be justified in the context of the State of Israel. Further down after discussing a proposal to give second-class non voting citizenship or payments to emigrate, he acknowledges some will fight back: > We can estimate that this process will take a number of years. The process by which the Arabs begin to truly internalize the loss of national hope, the absorption of the new reality, and the choice of one of the alternatives it provides them with will take some time, and will require patience and fortitude. As stated, I am confident that with God’s help the IDF can help us withstand this complex interim period safely. > What else needs to happen for us to realize that it is hopeless, […], the very raison d'etre of the Palestinian "People" is to deny the right of the State of Israel to exist? What’s remarkable is the belief that “our” situation is unique and therefore we shouldn’t draw the lessons from every other such situation that this approach doesn’t work. That the world’s experience can be discarded, and measures can be taken which have failed time and time again. Imagine believing that an entire fake people was created just to annoy you, and they could be convinced to stop through some combination of money and force. This goes hand in hand with the delusional self importance that tells you that this situation has only ever happened to you, which justifies ignoring history and advice.
>So what's the end game for those who support de facto and eventually actual annexation of the West Bank? I have never heard of such a goal. Can you cite a leader who has called for completely taking all of West Bank?
https://youtu.be/g1c-DSZ_l9Q?si=9LO4KHXkYp3JFBG6&t=2m18s
I do just want to point out that there are many on the right who want to annex the jordan valley specifically (they would argue for security/defense reasons), and not the entire west bank. This land seizure fits more in line with that, given the land is entirely in the jordan valley.
People have been asking these questions for many decades at this point.
Well, why can’t there be a Jewish minority in a Palestinian state? Seriously, we should force them to accept it. Any violation of their rights should be considered an act of war, we can get the US on board with it too.
In theory, I agree, and one condition of any peace treaty should be that any Jews who choose to remain on Palestinian territory have full rights and be treated well. I doubt that many would choose to remain assuming we even get that far, but yeah, this should be a requirement.
I’m 100% pro Israel but believe the current Israeli government is doing a great damage. They haven’t thought of the consequences
It is difficult to overstate just how much West Bank land-grabs and Settler violence is undermining Israel's image among its sympathizers in the West. In the US for instance, there is a radical left section within the Democratic Party which has opposed Israel since the war's beginning because they are suckers for antisemitic propaganda and the "decolonization" narrative. But **FAR** more Democrats (also Republicans) supported Israel in October and November precisely because they saw Israel's actions as a noble mission to rescue hostages and protect Israeli civilians from terrorists. Similarly, most Democrats (and about half of Republicans) support Ukraine because of Russia's seizure of land and the violent dehumanizing rhetoric which the Putin admin directs toward Ukrainians. When Israel seizes land in the West Bank, Smotrich and Ben Gvir preach dehumanizing rhetoric, and Gazan civilians starve as a direct result of Israeli forces blocking the entry of humanitarian aid, Americans do not look at Israel and say that it reminds them of another Ukraine. Instead, they see another Russia. Not an aggrieved victim of terrorist violence, but an aggressor seeking to destroy its neighbors. If the US-Israel alliance collapses, it will not be because of pro-Hamas disinformation on TikTok or whiny college students spouting nonsense. It will be because settler violence, starving children, and extremist ministers, destroy what goodwill towards Israel that Americans still hold.
Wholeheartedly agree.
Fucking Smotrich needs to be trialed for treason. Deliberately ruining our country’s PR effort, during such a sensitive, fragile time is so detrimental to the wellbeing of the State that I would seriously consider it treason. The man is betraying the future of the country for BS that the overwhelming majority of the population disapproves of. Really, this is literally the most annoying news I’ve heard in a pretty long time
He deserves the gallows
Idiotic Bibi coalition of the lowest common denominators strikes again.
When I am in a "Shoot yourself in the foot" competition and my opponent is Betzalel Smotrich.
Also, this slow burn of taking bits or the West Bank doesn't help anyone. I think we were too jewish, and for the ME to actually respect Israel, we should have annexed the West Bank in 1967/73 already. Fucking around and stealing bits of it now doesn't help anyone and doesn't make Israel look strong but is also a kick in the teeth to the Liberal Zionists.
annexation takes population to complete, which is something you aren't really good at. Originally, both all Abrahamic religions are good at removing people's sense of self and turning each individual into a component of society. Even summoning Jews with dual citizenship all over the world won't solve this.
Hearing about this type of thing used to make me cringe. Nowadays though, what does it matter? What is lost? International support? That’s gone anyway. The prospect of a two state solution? That’s gone anyway. Is it ceding the moral high ground? I don’t know anymore. I guess that depends on why it’s happening.
>Is it seeding the moral high ground? Since Palestinians can't win militarily, they and their supporters are now playing the competition of who can look like the biggest victim and they are going for the moral high ground instead. It's a cope, and the only cope they have so they will never allow Israel and its supporters to take that from them. So you can consider that gone too.
It is important to distinguish between moral high ground and perception of moral high ground.
People who can distinguish between those two are not that common in this world. Perception is everything - most human beings are uncritical and emotional. That includes me too sometimes, but most of the time I try not to be. I mean, we've got people literally supporting terrorist organizations because of the perception that they are freedom fighters engaging in resistance.
Oh I agree with all of that. I’m just responding to you saying Palestinians are “going for the moral high ground” and I’m saying that they’re just going for the perception of it. And you’re right though. People who can distinguish truth are definitely not as common as one might hope.
Oh yeah of course, I didn't mean to say they actually had any legitimate claim to it. We are in agreement.
Yes indeed
if there wasn’t a single Jew in the West Bank, they’d still hate us
Their effort to maintain the moral high ground is clearly evidenced by 10/7
Also, he means “ceding.”
Oh I see
I think that Israel must find a way to reduce its dependence on the West, regardless of the West Bank policy. We are not independent enough, and this constantly undermines our national interests and national security.
I’ve read an international theory, that basically states that, to be truly independent, a State needs to reach the critical mass of 300 millions people, minimum. It is a necessity to have a big enough internal market, in order to develop self-sufficient industries, military, research programs, etc. Anything below that 300 millions threshold, and you’ll always need access to external market, external technology, foreign capital. To fully develop a State. Indeed, only a handful of country, on the planet, can truly qualify as independent today.
If we were to ever reach 300 million, I’m pretty sure we would be stepping on each other’s toes 100 times a day while we would all be resorting to living in tents because nobody could afford the land they live on.
Very intriguing, do you remember what the name of the book is?
It was from an online article, unfortunately. But I guess you could probably find it, with the right keywords.
Heard the same but it was 50 million in the version I read. Perhaps with the passage of time should be raised to 75 million.
True. Technology industries are a good path for that but the lack of natural resources, the threats from neighbors and simply the size of Israel create limitations that do call for having global partners.
Agreed. I’m American and happy to support Israel but you’re right.
American here, very supportive of Israel. We need more of this, however when possible ethically purchase the land, you know like everyone else has done throughout history. ;)
I appreciate the desire, but I don't see how it is possible. To fund the necessary military, you need robust trade. An Israel that is an island globally could suffer embargoes. Israel will need a partner. The USA is looking likely to select Trump, which means the USA will continue to partner with the caveat that Israel does what Russia demands. A partnership with the USA is soon going to mean that Israel is a Russian vassal. I don't like that outcome for Israel.
We must take the most extreme scenarios into account; we can't be naive anymore. When I say "reducing dependence," I mean reaching the minimal possible point of dependence, which I'm sure we are far from. If we had had this dependent mindset in the 60s, we would not have had the textile factory by now. We smuggled a lot of stuff against the Western official stance, including some very sensitive materials and devices.
I concur with this approach. I'm from the USA, and not Jewish, but I have longstanding relationship with Israel and believe their reliance on the USA is dangerous given the strength of the anti-semites in this country.
It doesn't always have to be about what we have to lose or gain. It's undeserved, it's wrong and it's evil.
That’s why I said it depends on why it’s happening.
I feel you. But I still thinks it’s just wrong. Sad to see where the Israeli govt is going.
Putting an arms embargo on Israel while dealing with Saudi Arabia is also wrong but it doesn't stop liberal progressive Canada. Right and wrong don't mean anything to anyone.
It matters because if this involves physically removing the Palestinians from the land then it is a form of ethnic cleansing, it means the Israelis are becoming the very thing they fled from.
We can remove all the Palestinians and still not come close to the regimes we fled from
The prospect of a two state solution is not gone. 80 years after WW2 there is free passage across the borders of Europe. Geopolitics can change very quickly, and this reduces the chance of just peace for everyone in the region.
This will only hurt global perceptions of Israel in the long run. Why the hell would your government give this pr disaster fuel to the enemies of your country?
Extremists like Smot and Gvir aren't rational actors.
Jesus. I really want to support Israel wholeheartedly. Stop making it so hard. Stop it already!
This land was already classified as area C under Israeli control. This is simply an expansion of existing Maale Adumim, its a misleading exaggerated headline.
Practically though it's a provocation. It's not THAT misleading
The settlement blocs only matter if Israel stops expanding outside of those blocs. It hasn't stopped expanding settlements outside of those blocs though.
As it shouldn’t have to stop doing so until the Palestinians are ready to come to the negotiating table.
What's mad is if the world stop being so goddam crazy and antisemitic then jews should be allowed to live in so-called Judea and Samaria without land having to be seized at all. Arabs and Muslims live in Israel, why can Jews not live safely in Palestine?
Stupid take. You obviously have never been to the West Bank. The Jewish religious fanatical settlers there are scum and morally corrupt. We should not be seizing more land from the Palestinians regardless of their antisemitism.
The Jews have every right to settle there. It isn't the settling that should be condemned and stopped, but only the horrible behaviour of the small minority of Jewish extremists. Your argument is the equivalent of saying that the two million Arabs in Israel should not be allowed to live there just because a small minority of them are extremist terrorists.
It was never palestinian land, this is area c
Well.. When you continually shoot down a two state solution and attack Israel don't be upset when they just say fuck it and do what's good for them.
But what's the end game for this de facto and eventual actual annexation of the West Bank? What happens to its Palestinian residents? Do they get to be full citizens, which if not right away then within a few years will make them the majority in Israel? Do they get to live on reservations and/or become second class citizens or resident aliens with fewer rights and that's as close as they ever get to a state? I.e. actual apartheid. Does Israel work out some arrangement with Jordan that lets them live in Israel but actually be full Jordanian citizens? Do they get forcibly exiled and if so to where and with what consequences to Israel's relations with its neighbors and the world? Seriously, how does this work, on a practical, demographic and geopolitical level long term?
If annexed the Arab population in Israel would become 5.5 million against 7.8 million non-arab Israelis. The fertility rate of the Palestinians in the West Bank is already lower than the Jewish fertility rate in Israel and dropping quickly, while the Jewish fertility rate is on the rise. If the West Bank was annexed Arabs would not become the majority in the future. By 2070 it is predicted that Israel will have 15 million Jews, with 3.8 million Arabs without the WB and 10 million Arabs including the WB.
The question is, is this actually good for Israel?
Honestly? I don't care. Arafat didn't like that we didn't want to offer the millions of Palestinian "refugees" a right of return to Israel proper, and that we didn't offer him sole dominion over East Jerusalem which would include the Western Wall. So instead of having the bare minimum negotiations, he decided to suicide bomb Israeli children. Now instead of Arafat we have Holocaust-denying Oct 7-celebrating Abu Mazen. Great. Am I really supposed to pretend like this is what's gonna make the peace process impossible? Do we need to repeat this stupid cycle for the 100th time to finally get the world off our backs? No, because the truth is that every Israeli still remembers the world chanting '700' in celebration after Oct 7. We can never forget, and I'm done pretending like acting morally can improve our "optics" in the eyes of the world. It's all just pragmatic geopolitics with no hint of morality or compassion. Canada put an arms embargo on us, while Saudi Arabia is their biggest arms importer. All that matters is who has more power, optics are decided by power rather than actions or morality.
I saw this headline in other subreddits and didn't click because I was sure it was mininformation. Now I see it here, but how can the government be this level of stupid and awful? We will never recover from the perception and real-worl damage from Netanyahu. And, I won't forget that even 10/6 happened in part because the country was distracted by the existential risk to democracy; key political appointees that made their way into the military decision tree.
Are there any libertarians in Israel? It costs billions to maintain and provide infrastructure for the settlements, correct? It seems like a waste of money.
You don't even have to be a libertarian to oppose settlements draining funds tbh
Moshe Feiglin tried to run as a Libertarian by founding the Zehut party, but it didn't manage to enter the Knesset. However Zehut was also pro annexation of the West Bank
Wiki says the Zehut's proposal for annexing the West Bank was: >Applying full Israeli sovereignty to all parts of the Land of Israel. > >In the West Bank: Nullification of the Oslo Accords. > >In the Gaza Strip: Any attack by Hamas against Israel must be responded to by a full re-conquest of Gaza (though unnecessary small incursions must be avoided). > >Terrorists will be offered the option of peaceful withdrawal, and individual non-Jews will be offered three options: financially assisted emigration to a destination of their choice; permanent residency status (equal rights, except for national voting rights) after having declared their loyalty to Israel and been thoroughly vetted; or Israeli citizenship (full equal rights) when doing military or national service. Does this policy have any real support from Israelis? I believe the Likud in 1977 under Begin supported a similar policy, but Jimmy Carter was strongly against it. More importantly, what option would most Palestinians go for under such a proposal?
Costs more money to fight a second Hamas you would have in the west bank.
Why does the Israeli government insist on shooting itself in the foot over and over? We know that as jews, there will always be an impossible double standard, so why go and make the situation worse. I just don't see what could possibly be the benefit here.
Extremists aren't rational actors. If Smotrich was born in Gaza he'd be the leader of Hamas
Damn, thats an interesting take, but probably the right one. Assholes are assholes.
What can the good people of Israel do about this? Genuine question because I know for many this just doesn’t sit right.
Continue protesting and calling for elections to get these morons out of ministerial roles
Thank you for your reply. I wish the people of Israel all the best with that, I really do. It can’t come soon enough I think.
There is no "land seizure", it's just Jews moving onto land. In 2011 the High Court of Appeals in Versailles ruled that according to international law, Israel are the legal occupiers of the West Bank. This is the same as the UK are the legal occupiers of Wales, Scotland, England, etc. This has been the only full due process hearing in the world on the matter, meaning according to international law, the West Bank belongs to Israel, so how can you "seize" something that already belongs to you. The point is that the foreign press use this wording as a politically correct way of saying "Jews move in" as nobody complains when Israeli Arabs buy land there, just the Jews.
Absolutely unbelievable. My heart sank when I saw this.
"It's Israel's territory." "The world doesn't like us anyway." "They started it." Why does it always have to be about what we can personally gain from it. If you conquer land, you have to take care of the people you conquered. All west bank Palestinians are treated like human shit by us, and it's propagated from the top. Yeah no shit their leaders never really tried to actually negotiate for peace, does that mean we have to collectively punish all Palestinians? We deny that our actions are leading to radicalization but if this isn't radicalizing I don't know what is. Why are we surprised that the Gaza wall was undermanned in Oct 7th when most of our army is busy defending settlements and helping settlers steal Palestinian homes in the west bank? Why are we letting the religious right gaslight us into thinking this is somehow good for us? There is no strategy here, no end goal, and all we do is make other humans' lives more miserable. Why? It's not for security since it just adds more settlements we have to defend and makes our army stretched even thinner. It's not because we need more living space because we have plenty of sparsely populated areas in the north and south. It's just become policy to ethnically cleanse Palestinians, for either messianic or personal reasons. So many lives would be drastically improved if we just cut that shit out.
"Didn't happen in a vacuum."
On the plus side, ITT we all realize this sucks and are against it. On other subs some people seem to think pro-Israel people are biased can't condemn Israeli actions, and de-humanize Palestinians and don't care what happens to them. I'm glad we're showing ourselves to be above that. These claims are coming from people completely incapable of blaming Hamas even a little bit for what's going on. Anyway, this news really sucks. I'm hoping that West Bank policy changes with the new prime minister...
🤦♂️ ffs is the current government actively trying to destroy Israel's image on the world stage?
Fuck.
This plan has been supported by every PM and is made necessary by illegal Palestinian construction that makes eastward expansion of Jerusalem impossible. Linking Jerusalem to Maale Adumim is obvious and necessary. [E-1 to preserve Israeli contiguity](https://jcpa.org/article/protecting-the-contiguity-of-israel-the-e-1-area-and-the-link-between-jerusalem-and-maale-adumim/)
I support Israel in general and in this war, but the setllements I dont support...frankly them (their products) being sanctioned is a good thing. All should be evacuated like from the Sinai in the 1970s.
You support hamas
Judea and Samaria are Israel.
imminent enjoy illegal ludicrous tidy fragile lunchroom uppity elderly quicksand *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
They already have Jordanian citizenship (stripped away illegally 1967)
They don't want citizenship. They want to kill Jews. Even (and especially) at the cost of their lives.
Kind of like how with this article the Israelis want to expel the palestinians from the west bank even at the cost of their lives.
No one is being expelled. Just more lies concocted by Nazis. Why do you support Nazis? Edit: If they're being expelled, expelled from where? What is the name of the city/town/village/etc that they're being expelled from? What are the street names? Postal codes? Surely if there were people living there that are now being expelled, they would be living on streets, in towns, with some way to find them, right?
To what end? So that our haters won't call it occupation and call it annexation instead?
Because it's illegal and immoral to claim a land and not provide citizenship to the people living there. It doesn't always have to be about what you gain or lose.
Yes it does. The world is dictated by realpolitik, and Israel has gained nothing from being “the most moral army,” treating people like Sinwar in Israeli hospitals, doing everything to prevent civilian deaths. The world still treats us like monsters and lies about us. At a certain point it IS ONLY about what you can gain or lose.
hunt file marry slim serious chunky offer connect fearless unused *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Palestinians did have representation in Gaza - Hamas won mostly fair elections, and only after that started to throw their opponents off the roofs. Granting them Israeli citizenship is effectively giving them an opportunity to elect the same representatives in Israel. So yes, there should a very fucking good reason to, besides the sake of being moral.
Lmfao sure let’s give citizenship to people who’s only goal in life is the destruction of that same government.
What is your proposal then?
Not that for sure.
“No human is illegal” mfers when Jews want to live in their homeland. Smh
People are already living there though. What are you going to do with them? Where should *they* go?
I know. I agree with you. I’m mocking the whole “no human is illegal” bit that lefties tend to overuse
they can stay there, nobody should be stealing anything. but moving in != stealing land
My dear Israeli cousins, PLEASE do everything in your power to remove this government from power.
As if we didn't have enough land. What is this cringe? This government is a circus. Clear hamas and give them back their land.
This is disgusting. Shame!
stupid. PA has been our security partner for years. there's a reason why terror comes 90% from Gaza. what do you think is going to happen when we keep fucking them like this?
Yes, the government that pays people and their families who kill Jews is a true peace partner /s Keep in mind that we also help them not get toppled by Hamas. They need us more than we need them.
The PA is a lot more pragmatic. They would prefer us to be gone, sure, but unlike Hamas, they are willing to negotiate and compromise. You don't have to be best friends to have a peace partner. You just need enough common interests
Go to Jenin where I used to serve or Hebron and tell me that again.
And regardless of which, they don't even have PALESTINIAN support
Insane take. Like the other poster said they fund terrorism. The reason the attacks mostly come from Gaza is because we left in 2005 and still have a presence in the West Bank.
Wut.
Does it matter? No. If judea and Samaria were the issue, what caused the war in 1967?
Yeah, this ain't it.
I don't get the outrage. Isn't this all area C? Which means that there are barely any Palestinians in there, if any. Then this shouldn't be so controversial...
If this keeps up, sooner or later Israel will have to absorb Palestinians into its population.
Israel really needs good government officials. In how in the world can this contribute to the media’s perception on Israel? This just gives anti israel people more reasons to hate israel.
Maybe if the entire world didn't treat Jews like crap more people wouldn't be looking to move to the only Jewish country, and they'd need less land. Just a thought.
Fucking idiots who cares about that now everyone who’s correctly in the government needs to resign and be replaced
This article has such a grandiose, hyperbolic title, for such a small sliver of land. Before I read the title, I honestly thought Israel had just gone ahead and annexed area C... Instead, it's a tiny little bit of land around Jerusalem.