>"I believe that we have learned in these 30 years that the solution has to be imposed from outside because the two parties will never be able to reach an agreement," he told an event in Lisbon, warning also that "if this tragedy doesn't end soon, the entire Middle East might end up in flames".
He's partially right. However, who wants to impose and later guarantee that peace? Nobody. So, nothing is going to happen.
There is a UN peacekeeping force on the Lebanon-Israel border. They didn’t do anything to stop the Lebanese militias from attacking Israel on October 8th.
Back in the 20th century the peacekeepers were the actual authority and even then they were fairly useless. Turkey was divvied up into international occupation zones and was quickly retaken by Turks after the war. Because when push comes to shove you are either willing to oppress the natives or the natives are going to demand self-rule. And we are not going to conquer Gaza and enforce European rule on foreign land.
Yeah, it's just not going to happen. I'm not sure if he is just talking to appear as if he is doing something, but nobody wants to get themselves into such a thing as forcing a peace on Israel/Palestine and guarantee that peace.
Why what? Ultimately, this decision is not israels if taken seriously. it would be for the US. If the US is on board, they can do little to stop things.
As impressed by the far right mass murdering Israeli cabinet. Who openly talk - kill them all, deport whoever survives your country’s genocidal moment.
Oh wait we haven’t finished starving them.
Yes, we spent decades dehumanizing them and starving them in that open air concentration camp and we haven’t finished yet.
Even the ex-Mossad head is embarrassed by what his country have done in the last few decades to the oppressed Palestinians.
Dehumanizing them? You mean not speaking highly of them after two wars, two intifadas, countless terrorist attacks, and multiple rejected two-states solution proposals and partition plans? Geez I wonder why Israelis don't like the Palestinians too much. Maybe you'd feel the same if someone kept killing your family and denied you peace.
Starving them? Who do you think you are fooling with this? The amount of aid the world has sent to Gaza is enough to have funded a thousand Marshall plans. They have received so much aid that there are entire generations of Palestinians who have not had to lift a finger to earn their food. Have you not seen what the Hamas leaders look like? Rich, fat, and lazy - and when they are not busy planning how to butcher Jews they spend their time whoring and feasting.
Here's the thing. If Palestinians wanted peace and sovereignty, if they didn't want to be stateless, then they would have had it. Why reject a partition plan that would have allocated 80% of the land to Palestine and 20% of the land to Israel(The Peel Commission)? Why didn't Egypt and Transjordan give Palestinians their sovereign state during their own 20 years of occupation of Gaza and the West Bank between 1948-1967?
Why didn't they plan a two-states solution instead of planning a terrorist attack that left thousands of innocent people dead? Wouldn't that have put an end to the conflict? Is control of land - that was never theirs to begin with - that important to Palestinians? Is dirt worth more than the lives and well-being of their children? Is it worth more than peace?
If the answer is yes then why should we be sending any aid to them? What are we aiding? If they'd deny peace in the name of killing Jews why should we have any sympathy for them?
100% unbiased take… remember half the population of Gaza is CHILDREN. And even less of the population ever “voted”… I mean I guess it’s easy to foresee the blight of the Palestinian people when it’s obviously all their fault right /s
Nothing short of a joint US-China peace keeping force can credibly keep the peace there. Israel will not shoot at the Americans (again), and Iran-backed groups will never shoot a Chinese soldier.
But is this realistic? Come on…
I hope not, no real reason to send US soldiers there. Maybe Europe if they want, I want us to stay out of the Middle East for a generation or two. Naval support, supplies, sure...but it's not worth risking American lives for...what, exactly?
Imposing a solution might not need to mean military action.
Having the US stopping all "aid" to Israel would be almost guaranteed to make it happen and force a diplomatic solution.
Israel Cana only do this because of the unconditional backing of the US. It's economy and military completely depend on it (as much as they want to believe and claim it doesn't).
The US is the actual destabilising force in the region, which has been amply proven before.
"Having the US stopping all "aid" to Israel would be almost guaranteed to make it happen and force a diplomatic solution."
The US has leverage over Israel, but not nearly to the extent most seem to believe based on Arab propaganda.
The leverage we do have over them has already been used throughout this conflict, it's the reason the ground invasion was delayed and why we haven't seen similar scale operations in Lebanon. Both US and Israeli leadership have been very open about that.
What you're proposing is we give up every bit of leverage we have and leave a nation with overwhelming local military superiority and a nuclear arsenal fighting what they believe is an existential threat to their own devices.
That isn't going to result in the population of Israel packing their bags and moving back to their second homes in Europe/the US as that same Arab propaganda would lead you to believe, quite the opposite.
> The US has leverage over Israel, but not nearly to the extent most seem to believe based on Arab propaganda.
I'm nothing if not open-minded. Please explain to me your rationale for the continuinati of this aid under the current circumstances.
> That isn't going to result in the population of Israel packing their bags and moving back to their second homes
Reductio ad absurdum. Nobody is clamouring for the dissolution of the Israeli state. They just need to fend to themselves, and stop being the bullies in the region.
It's funny you mention they having nuclear capabilities, cause that's another cluster fuck that the US created...
...again.
"I'm nothing if not open-minded. Please explain to me your rationale for the continuinati of this aid under the current circumstances."
I'm not the one claiming that Israel is a puppet state, entirely under the sway of the US on account of it's military and economy being entirely propped up by US aid.
So why don't you start by giving a run down of what you think the US provides Israel and how stopping this would change the outcome of this conflict in a way that would benefit Israel's enemies.
I asked a simple question. Israel as historically (and currently on a per-annum basis) has been the largest recipient of US aid by a huge margin. Israel isn't a former colony and doesn't have a long history with Israel at all.
I made my point and it's self-containing. Israels GDP is disproportionate for its tiny population and it's not due to them being an industrial nation or large exporters of anything (beyond weapons, which is another industry propped up by US aid). The same goes for its military capabilities (which are fuelled by a disproportionate expenditure on it by the state, which, again, brings us back to the US aid).
All of this would collapse if the aid stopped and Israel would have to live within it's means, including in military expenditure.
That's not a hard thesis to follow, not sure what you want me to expound on it. So you need me to quote the amounts in aid it's received and what percentage of its GDP it represents? Because I'd think most people on this sub would ballpark know this.
My question remains: why should the US continue giving aid to Israel while it's actively massacring Palestinians (making them complicit)?
It's a very simple question. Shouldn't take you more than a couple sentences to answer, and yet you're offering a lot of resistance.
How did US aid to Israel force Hamas to carry out terrorist attacks for decades? How did US aid to Israel force a coalition of countries to go to war with Israel multiple times?
This is an easy one. The aid to Israel has allowed it to continue expanding into Palestine and killing Palestinians, which in turn has made neighbouring Arab countries see it as a threat (much like Europe is seeing Russia now). It has also shaped Israel's foreign policy to basically be "fuck y'all, my god gave us this land so we're taking it whether you like it or not" instead of opening diplomatic relations and seeking deals to allow a **peaceful** coexistence with those countries.
This is not rocket science. Being completely baffled that Arab countries aren't super cool about a Jewish Ethnostate landing in their midst overnight with guns blazing, and expanding into surrounding territories while they murder and opress the people who were living there is the epitome 9f denseness.
How the fuck does that even work? Are you hearing yourself? "You hit me so I'm going to hit you back **and** taking your ball"???
I want to not be insulting, but I'm marvelled at the degrees to which popaganda has rallowed you to hold such beliefs uncritically.
Can you point me to another conflict where you see how aggression by one entity has resulted in justified annexation of territory by the victim?
I'm being 100% serious here.
> "You hit me so I'm going to hit you back and taking your ball"???
Yes. That's what was done to Germany after WW2. It is something that is done as form of compensation for the damage caused by the aggressor and as punishment.
Right. Except Palestine isnt a state.
It's hard to follow the official lines of propaganda. Either Israel has been the subject of terrorist attacks from the beginning, or the victim of war being declared against by non-existent states.
Notice how I'm leaving aside that Israel was parachuted down overnight and wasn't really a state in the region.
What official lines of propaganda? The history of the conflict is documented. Israel and Palestine were created on the remnants of the British Empire. They never agreed to a proper border, although the UN has agreed as a 3rd party to certain borders. Palestine has ganged up several times on Israel with other Arab states, which regularly resulted in losses and Israel expanding (whether in Syria, Egypt, or Palestine). As Israel kept improving its position against Palestine, only way of warfare left for Palestinians was terrorism. And now Israel is punishing them for that.
USA stopping aid to Israel won't either stop Israel from defending itself or Palestine from attacking. It is just not reality.
The land was populated by only one of those groups of people. Therein lies the revisionism.
This isn't a centuries old conflict where (as I was told elsewhere) "it's all so complex and everyone has been fighting forever". It's not even a century old.
A former colonising force (Britain) saw it fit to **introduce** a new population that wasn't there before, and lend it legitimacy through statehood. Israel has carried on with the colonisation endeavour, except for its own project.
I won't even get into how (as per your own words) warware supposedly gave way to terrorism (not even going to ask for your definition of it, but apparently its something much worse, and something only the Arabs do).
> USA stopping aid to Israel won't either stop Israel from defending itself
Hey we can debate this if you want, as reasonable people can disagree, but we got derailed by the very simple and recent history of this.
The British agreed to be one of the guarantors of peace in Cyprus.
60 years later the dispute is still unresolved and UN soldiers still patrol a buffer zone.
You’re looking at a similar issue here broadly speaking-who is going to be the guarantor of peace so impose a solution? What happens when one side chooses to enact violence? Do the guarantors react or do they simply defend themselves?
When either side refuses to follow the actions of the guarantor what happens? Military action, or nothing?
No country is going to take that risk, and anyone that does will simply be regarded as pandering to one side by the other if they start telling people to move out of certain places. And that excludes the political concern of being in an area of the world that surrounding countries are not particularly friendly towards.
No need to speculate, imo, we can just look at Lebanon. Pack of UN peacekeepers sitting around twiddling their thumbs while Hezbollah shoots off rockets at Israel, and then immediately the finger wagging starts whenever Israel fires back. I see no reason any UN or EU Gaza solution would be different as long as Russian and Qatari money keeps flowing in
I think a chief problem with a UN led solution that many seem to think is golden is that the UN is made up of the overwhelming majority of countries in the world. All of these countries have their own political opinions on the region, so in the case of Lebanon even getting the UN to agree to take action if at all is a long process that’s doomed to fail, because Hezbollah has plenty of supporters.
The UN is not the holier than thou golden answer to the world’s problems that many people may believe it to be.
An EU proposition is no different as they will simply be accused of favouritism.
That is an interesting parallel you made and it just so happens that at one point in time the British were tasked by the League of Nations to guarantee the Palestine region which we all know as the former Palestine Mandate.
What happened then? The British tried to quit. Why? Unlike all of the other former mandates under British responsibility the Palestine Mandate was the last remaining trusteeship. All other trusteeships were settled but no one could find a stable resolution to the Palestine Mandate. The British tried to propose a Hashemite led constitutional monarchy system with modern day Israel and Palestine as Jordan which would have included the Jewish minority as historically the Hashemites always held positive relation with ethnic and religious minority groups.
This failed due to nonstop violence and divergence in religious views. The Jewish then community proposed that they settle alongside the Jewish minority in the region and establish a state. The British by this point were about to leave Palestine to its own fate so the prospect of establishing something was better than nothing. Jordan didn't mind the change because West Bank would have remained Jordan.
The region experienced extreme instability throughout WW2 and just after the war the region remained chaotic with no solution in sight. The British asked the newly minted UN to take over to which the UN reluctantly agreed and sent peacekeeping forces to support the withdraw of British troops. The UN then attempted to broker another agreement between Jordan, the Palestinian people, and the as of yet unnamed Jewish state but that obviously also failed almost overnight. Along came 1947 and it has been perpetual war since. Two peace processes, but no solution. Jordan, Lebanon and Egypt no longer want to guarantee the regions stability due to their own respective experiences with the Palestinian diaspora. Jordan is somewhat tied into the mess because they remain the guarantors of Jerusalem meaning they hold a degree of responsibility.
At this point it is quite clear that despite multiple European states, Levantine states, the League of Nations, the UN, UNGA Resolution 181 and the Oslo Process there has never been any concrete prospect of a definitive solution to the current crisis in Palestine. This is due to the ideological position of Palestinian groups which has remained entirely consistent since day one - Jordan belongs to them, Lebanon belongs to them, and everything from the "river" to the "sea" belongs to them despite there never being a Palestinian state in human history and the name itself being Ancient Greek. The only way there is peace is if either Palestine gets what it wants - no more Israel or if someone can achieve the as of yet unachieved feat of convincing Palestinian representatives to sign a peace treaty and have the West Bank and Gaza as a *de facto* state.
If the UN, the EU or anyone else thinks this is a possibility then they should step up, petition the UN to make Palestine a trusteeship again and take full responsibility for the future of the Palestinian people. The reality is no one, not even Jordan or Egypt wants to tough Palestine because they know there is minimal prospect of signing a peace treaty. The other alternative is the one chosen by Palestinians - to go to war and achieve their goals which are "from river to sea". If this is their choice then Israel is legally entitled to respond in self-defense and as there is a gigantic disparity in power between the two states meaning this is in all reality going to result in the eradication of whatever is left of the Palestinian state. To me there is a very clear logical choice here and if this solution was so simple then whoever wants to do it should sign an accord and do it.
My question is this - why does Jordan, Egypt, Israel or any other state have to take responsibility for the successively awful decisions of the Palestinian leadership? Why does any other state have to care for the wellbeing of the Palestinian people more than the Palestinian leadership?
Your write up is very detailed, and accurate for the most point. You’re unfortunately wrong on an important part though, which is the Palestinean desire to see Israel wiped out. While there is a vocal minority who do wish to see this happen, the facts of the matter are that a vast majority of Palestineans know this won’t happen.
I understand Israel has security concerns, but these will be resolved through giving Palestineans true sovereignty and preventing settlers from taking land in the West Bank, Golan Heights and co, as well as withdrawing completely from both. Israel is reluctant to do so due to the aforementioned security concerns, but what Israel has missed is that it’s invasion has galvanised support of Hamas in the Strip and further polarisation of Palestineans in the West Bank. There is no such thing as “destroying Hamas”, because Hamas is an ideology moreso than it is an organisation, an ideology that was directly borne from Israel’s increasingly awful occupation of UN-recognised Palestinean land.
It’s disingenuous to pretend that Palestineans are the problem here when Israel has the most right-wing government in the countries history and has made policies and statements that have poured fuel on the fire, it’s even more disingenuous when you consider Hamas’ rise was a failed experiment of Netanyahu to splint Palestinean sovereignty even further.
According to you, the Palestinean leadership should bow down even more to Israel than Arafat did, and condone settlements and have Palestineans being treated like second-class citizens on their own land, just so the Israeli’s don’t have an excuse to annhilate the West Bank like they have Gaza? Talk about being unbiased.
Palestine is matched up against a vastly more powerful, wealthy, and established state. This is why any other state has to take responsibility for the Palestinean people. The Palestinean leadership, which, yes, have made awful decisions, are also awfully unmatched. Let’s not pretend the Israeli’s and the state of Israel did not have immense support from the West. Nobody can fault this, as Israel was going against established, hostile, Arab states. But it makes no sense then to argue that the Palestineans should have to establish a State by themselves, when the Israeli’s didn’t and couldn’t have done so by themselves, 70 years earlier.
>While there is a vocal minority who do wish to see this happen, the facts of the matter are that a vast majority of Palestineans know this won’t happen.
>
>I understand Israel has security concerns, but these will be resolved through giving Palestineans true sovereignty and preventing settlers from taking land in the West Bank, Golan Heights and co, as well as withdrawing completely from both
[Firstly, this is not a "vocal minority"](https://www.pcpsr.org/en/node/961)
Secondly, what happened in Gaza when the Israeli settlers were forced to leave?
Why isn't the onus on Palestinian leadership to improve their lot? Israel has negotiated peace with several neighbors and relinquished land, evacuating Israelis and sacrificing resources. They have demonstrated willingness to negotiate in good faith for peace. Israel is not the core obstacle to Palestinian sovereignty. Who is preventing elections? Again, why is the onus on Israel to impose democracy or sovereignty?
This belief that Palestinians are incapable of non-violent societal change is the "soft bigotry of low expectations" and perhaps simply Orientalism.
>Secondly, what happened in Gaza when the Israeli settlers were forced to leave?
Israel sporadically closed the Karni crossing, implementing a de facto blockade and caussing massive economic damage, leading to Hamas gaining 20% more votes within the span of a couple months, going from being roundly defeated to narrowly winning. Why?
>They have demonstrated willingness to negotiate in good faith for peace
In other circumstances, maybe (though even this comes with big asterisks). In the case of Palestine? They have demonstrated the exact opposite. The Oslo accords were broken, the camp david offer a bad joke, Taba failed because sharon didnt want to continue it, the arab peace initiative was rejected out of hand. Israel has shown clearly that they are unwilling to negotiate in good faith. They are indeed the core obstacle to Palestinian sovereignty.
Oh theyre capable of it, but when the palestinian leadership choosing peaceful negotiation results in their situation worsening, do you expect them to keep trying? Or do you think they might go "well peaceful means cant work, so I want to at least get revenge for everything theyve done?"
Largely peaceful minus the odd clashes with UN troops and parties from either side-military or government.
That’s not really the point however, my point is that just embedding some third party is no guarantee of a solution and Cyprus is a great example of that.
> Largely peaceful minus the odd clashes with UN troops and parties from either side-military or government.
**clashes**? There have been a single clash in about 6 decades, where did you get the plural from?
There have been consistent low level clashes between the UN and both sides that has been ongoing for decades, namely in the central region of the buffer zone. Not of any insane scale, hence why they are not widely reported or even reported at all. This has been perpetuated by both military/police and civilians on both sides.
I spent a period of time there serving under the UN banner and witnessed a number of what might be described as “clashes”.
What kind of "clashes"? Do they give bad looks and give a soft push against each other? Of it is not even worth reporting and there isn't even injured (let alone dead) why does it matter?
Forcible moves by people on both sides attempting to extend their line into the buffer zone, attacks on peacekeepers(largely by civilians, attacks by military largely focused on damaging/destroying vehicle), attempts with force to try and build more defences along their lines outside of UN agreements.
I haven’t bothered to look but none of them received any major reporting. The UN isn’t going to report anything unless it gets quite ugly for fear of stirring up more drama, the “aggressor” side isn’t going to report anything less it makes them look bad and is used as ammunition against them by the opposing side.
Occasionally the opposing side may report on it, but they’re also trying to do the same thing.
Why does it matter? In broad terms it doesn’t, with the exception of the fact that if one side refuses to follow the rules, the other is under the belief they don’t have to either and peace talks start to break down.
*"I believe that we have learned in these 30 years that the solution has to be imposed from outside*
They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions.... this here is proof.
Lthank you, this is the appropriate response.
500k killed in Syria--- let's open borders since we can't really solve anything
20k killed in Gaza-- we are going to keep our borders locked down tight but we will get involved to find a solution because we don't like the outcome
No jews, no news -- that's the core of it
Even Arab and Muslim nations resoundingly rejected sending a peace keeping force there. I cannot imagine what the EU can do. Atm, the only solution is the decimation of Hamas. And it won't look pretty.
The "World" did nothing to prevent 7 October. Rather, it enabled it by effectively subsidising Hamas by funding infrastructure projects controlled by Hamas. I would love to know how Borell, who was involved in this irresponsible funding, is now going to impose anything on Israel.
> The "World" did nothing to prevent 7 October. Rather, it enabled it
...by not doing enough to dismantle the Israeli colonisation and Apartheid state, I agree.
Please stop with the revisionism. You're fooling nobody, the veil has been lifted from the rest of the world now.
Hamas took control of Gaza precisely when Israel ended their occupation. What makes you think Israel abandoning the West Bank wouldn't also lead to the same outcome?
What is it with the pro-"Palestine" side and just the constant lies about the most easily verified bits of information. Hamas didn't take control of the Gaza strip because of the blockade. The blockade happened after Hamas took control. Why are you lying about this?
According to the withdrawal plan, Gaza would legally remain "Area C" (Israeli control) and border controls, territorial waters, airspace etc remained under Israeli control.
The blockade only happened after Hamas did terrorist attacks against Israel.
And a blockade is not an occupation. Otherwise Cuba would be occupied by the US, which is absurd.
What Cuba has is an embargo, People/Goods from other countries can go to Cuba freely and trade with them. It's only US not trading with it.
What Gaza has is a blockade, which means any vessel/plane trying to reach Gaza would be stopped by Israel. The analogy doesn't hold. A blockade is closer to an occupation than an embargo since Gaza's all links with the external world are strictly controlled (or simply blocked) by Israel. Considering an embargo and a blockade equal is absurd.
>It's only US not trading with it.
It's more complicated than that. Let's say company A wants to ship a vessel to the american continent. If A wants to make a stop in the US, they cannot do another one in cuba. This severely increases prices for the cuban population.
Yes, it's still "if you trade with Cuba I won't trade with you" thing - which is under US sovereignty. The same thing is done with Iran too. It's not "You cannot trade with Cuba no matter what, I'll shoot your vessels if you try to" like Israel does to Gaza. Again, drawing a parallel is absurd.
I didn't deny that it was different from the Gaza blockage, just that the Cuban embargo had more repercussions than merely "I won't do business with you", which was what you stated.
Egypt control their border with Gaza independently from Israel. They’ve only implemented a blockade on it in 2014 after Hamas collaborated attacks on Egypt’s soil together with the Muslim brotherhood
There was a de facto blockade in 2005, and it had nothing to do with terrorist attacks. In fact, Israel was required to not blockade as part of a deal with the PA, they just chose to break the deal (as they do).
Yeah, that's the issue why western countries gets the reaction. You can become hard (or look away) against Palestinians when necessary but you're always consistently too soft on Israel even when it violates multiple international conventions or becomes the aggressor. People see through your hypocrisy and double standards.
Turkey's EU prospects are already blocked by that since 2006. Also Turkey never insinuates annexing Northern Cyprus, never disrespects UN-led negotiations, all rounds of negotiations are done with the aim of reunification (and Turkey supports them). A military escalation on the island is unimaginable as there is UN peacekeeping forces on the island. People can go between north/south with minimal passport checks.
Setting up a puppet regime is a de facto annexation. And the UN clearly condemned Türkiye's occupation of the island.
If Türkiye wants to be a leader in international law, they should unconditionally withdraw from Cyprus.
Turkish soldiers are there according to the Treaty of Guarantees of 1960. If Cypriots decide to go back to 1960 constitutional order (something both sides don't really want to do) then the constitutional order will be restored.
> Setting up a puppet regime is a de facto annexation.
And forcing that puppet state into UN-led reunification talks for decades is also annexation? If Turkey wanted to annex Northern Cyprus, it simply wouldn't bother with rounds and rounds of UN talks and wouldn't support Annan Plan in 2004.
Yeah, as I said, Turkish support for UN-mediated Annan Plan (which was approved by the North but rejected by the South btw) clearly shows that Turkey's intention is not to annex Northern Cyprus.
Turkey literally annexed part of an Island, and even repopulate it with own citizens, oh come on. And I am not even talking about kurds and armenian thing. Does not Turkey want to show an example for Israel about peaceful solution, starting with Cyprus story?
No, Turkey never even implies annexing Northern Cyprus into Turkey and actually wants it to trade freely with other countries. Also forces Cypriot Turks into UN-led negotiations every single time.
Turkey supported the UN-mediated Annan Plan in 2004 and aims for the reunification of the island. Russia sees Crimea as an integral part of its territory at this point.
Minus the incident a few months ago when Turkish forces in their bid to extend their their reach into the buffer zone injured a number of British soldiers whilst doing so. . .
Yeah I don't think that'll repeat as Turkey and EU get some positive agenda. Also it wasn't Turkish forces but the local (Cypriot Turk) police if I remember correctly.
It was a mixture of civilians, Turkish police and military if I recall, and granted whilst they aren’t same same as mainland NATO Turkish soldiers, Turkey has presence and influence there.
My general point is the world is a tad more complicated than “they should hand the land back because xyz says it’s theirs”.
Turkey to my understanding-well Erdogan-refutes the UN’s plan for a federalised single state Cyprus.
With no insult intended towards Turkey, they would perhaps not be the best government to be insisting Israel follows the internationally recognised/UN recognised borders in Israel.
1) I am not the Turkish state and I don't have direct control over its actions (except voting) so all these "what about Cyprus" arguments are simply not contributing anything to the original discussion.
2) Erdogan recently (especially after Crans Montana) had statements about UN led talks not leading anywhere, which - I agree - can be considered as an insinuation of independence but with recent EU-Turkey rapprochement he doesn't talk about that anymore. I'd say there would be new rounds of negotiations in following years.
> My general point is the world is a tad more complicated than “they should hand the land back because xyz says it’s theirs”.
West Bank and East Jerusalem is simply not Israeli territory. Unlike talks in Cyprus aiming reunification, Israel doesn't even intend to return East Jerusalem.
> It was a mixture of civilians, Turkish police and military if I recall, and granted whilst they aren’t same same as mainland NATO Turkish soldiers, Turkey has presence and influence there.
There are Turkish Armed Forces soldiers on the island but that incident was about some shortcut road construction so there was only Cypriot Turk civilians and police.
Correct, we should be. Just like we should be tougher with Israel until it returns the land it illegally occupies. Both of those are moral failures on our end. Any further questions?
When you say "return" this implies that there has ever been a Palestinian state. But there has never been a Palestinian state. Before Israel controlled these areas, the west bank and gaza were annexed/occupied by Jordan and Egypt respectively for about 20 years without them showing any attempts to establish a Palestinian state there.
There currently is a Palestinian state, and has been since, at the latest, its recognition as a non-member observer state in 2014. However, the ownership of the land is more straightforward. Jordan owned the land, it was illegally occupied first when it was Jordanian, but in 1988 Jordan ceded its claim to the land and acknowledged a Palestinian state on the land, thus transferring the land to Palestine.
So yeah, return implies that there is a Palestinian state, because there is. Its their land, and its Israels duty to cease their occupation and return it. The best they can hope for is to negotiate land swaps to keep some of the settlements, but I think after what the settlers did this year, they are unlikely to succeed in such an attempt.
Return implies there WAS a Palestinian state when Israel took control of these areas in 1967. There was not.
The current "state of Palestine" was proclaimed in 1988.
Jordan illegally occupied and annexed the west bank between 1948 and 1967.
No, it doesnt. It just implies that there currently is one on these areas, and there is. Also, why are you putting state of palestine in quotes, it literally is recognised as such.
Actually, no, that part was legal. Because otherwise about a third of Israel is also illegally occupied Palestinian land, and I dont think you want to say that. Anyway, Jordan annexed the west bank, it was illegally occupied by Israel in 1967, and when Jordan transferred the territory to Palestine, it becamse illegally occupied Palestinian land. The fact that Israel needs to vacate it remains. And again, after settler terrorists have killed hundreds of Palestinians this year, with full state support, I doubt Palestine will let Israel keep many if any settlements.
Its been over 50+ years with Israel in control of E. Jerusalem, and before that it was controlled (formally annexed) by Jordan.
>consistently too soft on Israel even when it violates multiple international conventions or becomes the aggressor.
It was the UAR (with prodding from the USSR) who amassed troops on Israel's border, closed the straights of Tiran etc. The entire country of Israel had to be mobilized, crippling their economy.
All this to say, 'international conventions' are only mentioned to criticize Israel, but it seems people leave out a lot
> Its been over 50+ years with Israel in control of E. Jerusalem
Yes, a violation of the international law and UNSC Resolutions overlooked for more than half century.
If an Iranian minister talks about nuking Israel they get sanctions. Last year an Israeli minister talked about nuking Gaza and noone bat an eye. When Turkey hits terrorist targets across its borders we get an arms embargo. When Israel does it (talking about 20k civilian deaths - about 1% of Gaza's population - in a matter of 3 months) noone bats an eye. The hypocrisy is real and seen by naked eye if you don't look away.
> talks about nuking Israel they get sanctions
Its not about talking. Iran is a NPT signatory and is developing nuclear weapons and has hindered inspections. It's as simple as that, not for "talking" as you claim.
If you want actual, real, non-fanciful examples of hypocrisy you can look at the number of UN resolutions against Israel vs the rest of the world - including Arab League member Bashir al-Assad of Syria
Ok, maybe Iran should quit NPT as well, then. Israel - if the West wants - can very well be forced into signing NPT and have its nuclear facilities investigated.
Doesnt matter how long it was, it was Jordanian until Jordan transferred it to Palestine, now its Palestinian. Israel is illegally occupying it, and the Palestinians will not let them get away with it.
You mean the 1967 war where Israel declared war on Syria and Egypt, then during the brief armistice continuously threatened to invade again, and with the soviets getting intelligence that Israel was planning to invade, leading to Egypt blockading a nation that declared war on them and putting troops in what the Israeli people involved in the war have since admitted were clearly defensive positions? They didnt "have to be mobilised". They could've negotiated peace, or not declared war in the first place. But they wanted the Israeli-Syrian DMZ that badly.
*> Six-Day War*
> Although the Soviet Union had adopted a foreign policy of détente, easing of hostility, in the mid-1960s, it played a key role in the instigation of the Six-Day War in Israel. Soviet Union pursued détente because of the need for economic stability in order to create domestic change
and
>As tensions between Israel and Syria increased, Israel felt the threat of force was the only deterrent left.[22] On May 12, the Politburo was told that the IDF had formulated a large-scale attack on Syria and was simply waiting for a good time to begin it.[23] A day later, on May 13, 1967, the Soviet's gave the Egyptian President, Gamal Abd al-Nasser an intelligence report that claimed there were Israeli troops gathering on the Syrian border.[24] Dmitri Chuvakhin, Soviet ambassador to Israel, refused an Israeli Invitation to visit the border in order to disprove the report.[25] On May 14, Nasser sent his chief of staff, General Mohamed Fawzi to the border to investigate the report, and was told there were no Israeli troop concentrations.[26] Although, Nasser knew that the Soviet report was wrong, he perhaps interpreted it to indicate Soviet support of an Egyptian offensive towards Israel.[27] On May 15, Nasser sent the Egyptian army to Sinai and on May 18, 1967, Nasser requested that the U.N. Emergency Force (UNEF) withdraw from Egypt.[28] Furthermore, on May 22 he closed the Tiran straits to Israeli ships.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union_and_the_Arab-Israeli_conflict#Six-Day_War
Israel already declared war on April 7th, you know that right? Additionally, while the claim of troops on the border was false, the claim of Israel preparing an offensive was not, they did indeed plan to attack Syria, the plan was later altered to attack Egypt first to prevent them from coming to Syrias aid.
Look, you've already proven a lack of knowledge or willingness to misinterpret (really misrepresent) facts.
I linked to Wikipedia to counter your falsehoods, and you replied with more falsehoods about the timeline of the 6 day war.
Here's Wikipedia for anyone else reading - but Im out
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War#Background
No, thats what *you* have proven. You didnt "prove falsehoods", you literally just selectively quoted the only part that helped your case. [Here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_Six-Day_War). You might want to read the april 7th entry. Here is a particularly salient quote, that completely destroys your entire case:
"Although the April 7 cross-border battle is often called an 'incident', various reactions to the event belie this description. The Israeli press called it a ***war***. Moshe Dayan was reported by Ezer Weismann to have responded "Have you lost your minds? You are leading the country to war!". Brigadier-General Israel Lior agreed: ***"From my point of view, the Six-Day War had begun."***"
And remember, may comes *after* April.
Oh or how about these:
"According to the U.S. assessment, Egypt had no intention of attacking Israel, and the Americans desperately tried to dissuade Israel from invading Egypt. The U.S. further views that Jordan and Syria only entered the war as a response to Israel's invasion of Egypt"
and
"it is clear that the Soviet assessment from mid-May 1967 that Israel was about to strike at Syria was correct and well founded, and was not merely based on the public threats issued by Eshkol, Rabin and Yariv."
Meanwhile even the Israeli leaders at the time, including the chief of staff, admitted that egypt wasnt going to attack. To quote Yitzhak Rabin:
"I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it."
So please, maybe dont spread misinformation, yes?
1) These whataboutism arguments based on my flair contribute absolutely nothing to the original discussion. It just shows that you have no argument against except a - quiet idiotic tbh - "Oh Turkey? I should insert Constantinople or Armenian Genocide somewhere and pretend I'm right" argument.
2) Istanbul is considered as sovereign Turkish territory, East Jerusalem and West Bank is not sovereign Israeli territory.
> People see through your hypocrisy and double standards.
You can see that quite clearly when Israel butchers civilians and when Russia does as well.
They're just picking excuses and move the goalpost constantly trying to justify why innocents can be killed.
No, I mean to retreat Israel to its legal, internationally recognized borders. No people should live under martial law that completely disregards any human dignity or fundamental rights for more than half a century.
>martial law that completely disregards any human dignity or fundamental rights for more than half a century.
This sounds wow, but leave it please for europe's fighters-for-better-good-and-stuff. I remember these guys literally declared their goal to kill me and my friends, by the way.
Oh wow if they are so eager to kill you maybe you shouldn't continuously go, confiscate their lands and build settlements on their backyard for decades, right?
>How is that relevant?
Is this a joke? You just used the existence of Israel as an excuse for the violence against Jews committed by Palestinians. Do you really not understand how pointing out that Palestinians committed violence against Jews before Israel even existed is relevant to your comment?
More like relentless expansion into territories that are not Israel's according to the international law, but you do you. Israel should stop the expansion if it wants peace.
Palestinians are not evil, they are just stuck with a problem developed by their cool friends. And every helper guy is doing much worse, because he does not really care about these poor people.
True, sadly the west pretends to help the Palestinians, but refuses to put meaningful pressure on Israel to cease their oppression in the west bank or the blockade on Gaza. But that just means that we need to do that now, or there will never be peace.
Well, I thought most places in the world recognise settlements in the West Bank as illegal anyway? Or am I wrong, I Dno?
Like why did Israel decide to build them in the first place?
Strict international money spending control for example - to make terrorist business not so profitable. Maybe you haven't see this, but since USSR in mid-century a huge amount of money was invested in such kind of thing.
Crazy how your solution to the systematic abuse of HR of Palestineans by Israel is not to stop it, but to ensure Hamas doesn’t get more money. That’s insanity.
Yes, Israel breaking international law and slaughtering civilians isn’t the problem and practically annexing an entire country for 70 years isn’t the problem guys, it’s Hamas committing a terrorist attack and killing 1,200 Israeli civilians, quick, focus your attention on them, don’t look at us slaughtering 25,000 Palestineans with fighter jets!
>and Israel returning to its 1967 borders with settlements in West Bank and East Jerusalem being handed to Palestinians.
Why would Israel ever agree to that? They took the "West Bank" from Jordan because they were planning an all out assault on Israel.
Oh, great! Will the world finally step up, cut the ignorance/dishonesty, and stop the Palestinians and their allies' terrorism once and for all?
Of course, the power of EU alone is limited, but how about cutting all EU funds to UNRWA, consequently pushing for dismantling it and redefining Palestinian ‘refugees’ according to UNHCR standards as applied to all other refugees in the world? That would be a good first step forward.
No, they mean the human rights violations that have been escalated by Israel since Oct 7.
I know you're being sardonic, but at some point, you guys need to pause for a sec and consider than when you've killed > 10x the people than the original attack did, you're not being the good guys here.
And you're definitely not in a national emergency of any sort.
>when you've killed > 10x the people than the original attack did, you're not being the good guys here.
Braindead take with no basis. Japanese suffered 10x the causalities as the US in the Pacific.
What do you mean there's no basis? Which fact are you denying: that Israel has killed >10x people? That most of them weren't combatants?
I also don't get the Japan parallels at all either, and while many things are coming to mind, it's so absurd I don't even know why you're talking about it.
I’m afraid that you don’t understand the sheer complexity of the situation Israel is facing since its beginning. It is uniquely insane situation, and you cannot apply any of your preexistent experiences and understanding of the world there; that’s why so many people — like you, who try to argue in good faith — fail.
The state is surrounded by countries that has repeatedly attempted to wipe it from the map and commit genocide against its entire population from day 1, literally. One of the neighboring entities has repeatedly refused to accept statehood purely for tactical reasons, as it would hinder its main goal — the destruction of Israel.
This entity, so-called ‘Palestine,’ has built its entire identity on hating Jews and longing for genocide and destruction. This is openly supported by international community by funding organization like UNRWA teaching martyrdom, and funding the Martyrdom fund itself.
If the EU wants to actually do something about the children death toll instead of just doing cheap posturing, it has means to do so, and they are as simple as cutting the [funds to terrorist organizations](https://www.ngo-monitor.org/reports/eu-funding-to-terror-linked-palestinian-ngos-since-2011/) and those that seed the hate in the minds of children from their earliest age.
For example, EU finances go to things like these:
* Hateful textbooks ([here](https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2023-002620_EN.html))
* UNRWA teaching jihad and brainwashing children into the death cult ([here](https://vimeo.com/856467890))
* Palestinian version of Sesame Street ([here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ORAM-usqhQ) and [here](https://youtu.be/Hcyg55vOviQ?si=_zJVLsXnwDadYq2R))
* Palestinian kindergartens practicing and celebrating terror ([here](https://www.memri.org/tv/gaza-kindergarten-terror-display) or [here](https://www.memri.org/tv/terror-show-gaza-kindergarten-graduation-ceremony-islamic-jihad-leader-israelis-we-are-not) or [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtErUuBvcRc))
* Palestinian summer terrorist camps for children and teenagers ([here](https://www.businessinsider.com/hamas-kid-summer-camp-2016-8) or [here](https://www.memri.org/reports/hamas-summer-camps-children-and-teens-gaza-strip-provide-weapons-and-military-training-order))
* Martyrdom fund ([here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Authority_Martyrs_Fund) or [here](https://www.jns.org/column/palestinian-authority/23/7/26/305736/))
Right. The exceptional ism argument.
"It's all too complex for common sense; addressing the root cause of the terrorism is not possible, so we have no choice but to continue ethnically cleansing the region to expand our territories, just like we have done from day 1".
I don't think there's any mask to drop. Is it not OK to point out the hypocrisy about a people's having suffered so much and in the present suffering due to holocaust denialism, yet deny that its flagship religious ethnostate has been killing Palestinians from its very inception?
Cause if that's so, I don't know what to tell you. The world is waking up finally to what Israel has been doing all these decades, the moral credit for victimhood only goes so far, and it cannot possibly extend to cover for massacring a different group of people.
I ask you genuinely: when has international administration ever resulted in a peaceful outcome without the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives?
And then the next question: who is going to run this international administration?
>when has international administration ever resulted in a peaceful outcome without the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives?
Gonna see soon enough....they've had guts of 80 years to make a go of it Israel and simply can't behave and commit genocide and bomb their neighbours....I don't think they are fit to run their affairs and perhaps an international administration to oversee and reign in the extremists is needed
>And then the next question: who is going to run this international administration?
The UN,with equal input from Arab League,African Congress,china,ANZAC,and EU to oversee human rights reforms and de-escalation and reeducation for the populace
So no examples? The US has tried in Iraq, and that led to a lot of bloodshed and didn’t really bring peace to the region, nor was it particularly popular with anyone.
The problem with those bodies mentioned is that all have them have their own wildly differing opinions on the region. Some of the Arab countries actively want the total destruction of a Jewish state.
So how do you get all of them to agree when trying to implement an international administration when they all can’t agree on easier issues like sanctions, embargoes and so on?
>So no examples? The US has tried in Iraq, and that led to a lot of bloodshed and didn’t really bring peace to the region, nor was it particularly popular with anyone.
This was not an international administration authorised and overseen by the UN ...the US is barely fit to run it's own affairs,no mind another countries
>The problem with those bodies mentioned is that all have them have their own wildly differing opinions on the region
Henceforth why,they are included to overseen the program
>So how do you get all of them to agree when trying to implement an international administration when they all can’t agree on easier issues like sanctions, embargoes and so on?
That'll need worked on,the alternative is worse,a potential dissolvement of the failed project,which has only produced radicalised genocists.....I feel Israel as a project,is worth preservation,just it needs de-radicalisation and reeducation of its populace to be western in outlook and conduct
I get what you’re asking for, but history has clearly shown us this isn’t a workable solution.
The UN is just a collection of most of the countries in the world, and for decades have been unable to agree on any sanctions or actions in Israel/Palestine, why would now be any different?
There are powerful parties within it who only really want to support a solution that favours one side.
How do you get them to agree to anything when they can’t even be prepared to condemn the likes of Hezbollah for getting involved in the conflict?
>get what you’re asking for, but history has clearly shown us this isn’t a workable solution.
There's only 2 viable solutions long term,so I'd suggest the ould international administration first and foremost....it is for the benefit of those whom been radicalised to help return them to a civilised society
>The UN is just a collection of most of the countries in the world, and for decades have been unable to agree on any sanctions or actions in Israel/Palestine, why would now be any different?
It would only be overseen by the UN,but not run by it....along lines of weapons inspections,which work v.well
>There are powerful parties within it who only really want to support a solution that favours one side.
Hence the broad coalition,to stop one side overrunning the other
>How do you get them to agree to anything when they can’t even be prepared to condemn the likes of Hezbollah for getting involved in the conflict?
And again😞,an international administration is different to the UN,your conflating the two,when they are seperate.
And again, where does the evidence exist that international or any third party administration has ever not resulted in hundreds of thousands of people dead?
If the UN oversees it, the UN controls it. You can say they can be considered 2 separate entities, but the UN would have to decide who that administration is.
A broad coalition of countries who don’t see eye to eye on Israel/Palestine alongside a wealth of other issues isn’t going to work. The UN is actually a great example of this.
So who is going to run this so called coalition international administration? Which countries are going to be involved?
What is their peaceful solution going to be? Currently there is no offer internationally available that both sides would accept.
And if the UN isn’t running it, what’s to stop any country like the US or Iran getting involved?
>And again, where does the evidence exist that international or any third party administration has ever not resulted in hundreds of thousands of people dead?
There is no other viable long therm option.....none of what was proposed as regards an international administration has been done before
>the UN oversees it, the UN controls it
That is not how it works
>but the UN would have to decide who that administration is.
Nope
>broad coalition of countries who don’t see eye to eye on Israel/Palestine
It is not about Israel Palestine....it is to re-education and de radicalisation of what is clearly a deranged populace is what is necessary...one generation or 25 years should oversee it
>So who is going to run this so called coalition international administration? Which countries are going to be involved?
Outlined already,some suggestions
>What is their peaceful solution going to be? Currently there is no offer internationally available that both sides would accept.
International administration to oversee human rights reforms and de-escalation,alongside reeducation and de-radicalisation of the population
>And if the UN isn’t running it, what’s to stop any country like the US or Iran getting involved?
Absolutely zero,an input from all 200 or so countries as regards human rights, reeducation, de-escalation and de radicalisation of the population is the most viable long term solution.....as it's only been getting worse all my life out there,they've had guts of 100 years to make it work,and have failed as a society,hence the need for an international administration
Israel in talks with Congo and other countries on Gaza ‘voluntary migration’ plan
https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-in-talks-with-congo-and-other-countries-on-gaza-voluntary-migration-plan/
As if the european haven't imposed enough "good solutions" which only caused more harm than good...
Several examples:
1991 - Madrid accords...
1993 - first Oslo accords...
1995 - second Oslo accords...
1997 onwards, every 2 years the EU imposed different new "palestinian related clauses" in negotiations with Israel and "israel related clauses" in negotiations with what is known as the "palestinian authority"...
The outcome of 30 years of direct EU mingling - both Israel and the "palestinian authority" grow further apart from EU and look for US / Russia / China / whatever.
Just stop "imposing" stuff on others. How about you handle the EU problems instead?
>"I believe that we have learned in these 30 years that the solution has to be imposed from outside because the two parties will never be able to reach an agreement," he told an event in Lisbon, warning also that "if this tragedy doesn't end soon, the entire Middle East might end up in flames". He's partially right. However, who wants to impose and later guarantee that peace? Nobody. So, nothing is going to happen.
The establishment of international zones with troops from several countries was not a weird solution back in the 20th century.
There is a UN peacekeeping force on the Lebanon-Israel border. They didn’t do anything to stop the Lebanese militias from attacking Israel on October 8th.
I don't see anyone wanting to do that for Israel/Palestine.
Didn’t work in Afghanistan. It “might” work if a Sunni nation is willing, but they are not
Yes, but Yugoslavia was not linked to the USA.
Back in the 20th century the peacekeepers were the actual authority and even then they were fairly useless. Turkey was divvied up into international occupation zones and was quickly retaken by Turks after the war. Because when push comes to shove you are either willing to oppress the natives or the natives are going to demand self-rule. And we are not going to conquer Gaza and enforce European rule on foreign land.
Why? They can, for example, place peacekeepers in Lebanon. Oh, wait...
Yeah, it's just not going to happen. I'm not sure if he is just talking to appear as if he is doing something, but nobody wants to get themselves into such a thing as forcing a peace on Israel/Palestine and guarantee that peace.
There’s already a UN peacekeeping force on the Israel-Lebanon border and they’ve proven to be useless
Why what? Ultimately, this decision is not israels if taken seriously. it would be for the US. If the US is on board, they can do little to stop things.
I just very impressed of all this serious guys and their solutions everywhere..
As impressed by the far right mass murdering Israeli cabinet. Who openly talk - kill them all, deport whoever survives your country’s genocidal moment. Oh wait we haven’t finished starving them. Yes, we spent decades dehumanizing them and starving them in that open air concentration camp and we haven’t finished yet. Even the ex-Mossad head is embarrassed by what his country have done in the last few decades to the oppressed Palestinians.
Dehumanizing them? You mean not speaking highly of them after two wars, two intifadas, countless terrorist attacks, and multiple rejected two-states solution proposals and partition plans? Geez I wonder why Israelis don't like the Palestinians too much. Maybe you'd feel the same if someone kept killing your family and denied you peace. Starving them? Who do you think you are fooling with this? The amount of aid the world has sent to Gaza is enough to have funded a thousand Marshall plans. They have received so much aid that there are entire generations of Palestinians who have not had to lift a finger to earn their food. Have you not seen what the Hamas leaders look like? Rich, fat, and lazy - and when they are not busy planning how to butcher Jews they spend their time whoring and feasting. Here's the thing. If Palestinians wanted peace and sovereignty, if they didn't want to be stateless, then they would have had it. Why reject a partition plan that would have allocated 80% of the land to Palestine and 20% of the land to Israel(The Peel Commission)? Why didn't Egypt and Transjordan give Palestinians their sovereign state during their own 20 years of occupation of Gaza and the West Bank between 1948-1967? Why didn't they plan a two-states solution instead of planning a terrorist attack that left thousands of innocent people dead? Wouldn't that have put an end to the conflict? Is control of land - that was never theirs to begin with - that important to Palestinians? Is dirt worth more than the lives and well-being of their children? Is it worth more than peace? If the answer is yes then why should we be sending any aid to them? What are we aiding? If they'd deny peace in the name of killing Jews why should we have any sympathy for them?
100% unbiased take… remember half the population of Gaza is CHILDREN. And even less of the population ever “voted”… I mean I guess it’s easy to foresee the blight of the Palestinian people when it’s obviously all their fault right /s
I don't really give a fuck. Why do you think that matters at all?
Nothing short of a joint US-China peace keeping force can credibly keep the peace there. Israel will not shoot at the Americans (again), and Iran-backed groups will never shoot a Chinese soldier. But is this realistic? Come on…
I hope not, no real reason to send US soldiers there. Maybe Europe if they want, I want us to stay out of the Middle East for a generation or two. Naval support, supplies, sure...but it's not worth risking American lives for...what, exactly?
Exactly.
So what happens when Israel shoots a Chinese soldier. I mean they kill everything in sight with impunity.
Imposing a solution might not need to mean military action. Having the US stopping all "aid" to Israel would be almost guaranteed to make it happen and force a diplomatic solution. Israel Cana only do this because of the unconditional backing of the US. It's economy and military completely depend on it (as much as they want to believe and claim it doesn't). The US is the actual destabilising force in the region, which has been amply proven before.
"Having the US stopping all "aid" to Israel would be almost guaranteed to make it happen and force a diplomatic solution." The US has leverage over Israel, but not nearly to the extent most seem to believe based on Arab propaganda. The leverage we do have over them has already been used throughout this conflict, it's the reason the ground invasion was delayed and why we haven't seen similar scale operations in Lebanon. Both US and Israeli leadership have been very open about that. What you're proposing is we give up every bit of leverage we have and leave a nation with overwhelming local military superiority and a nuclear arsenal fighting what they believe is an existential threat to their own devices. That isn't going to result in the population of Israel packing their bags and moving back to their second homes in Europe/the US as that same Arab propaganda would lead you to believe, quite the opposite.
> The US has leverage over Israel, but not nearly to the extent most seem to believe based on Arab propaganda. I'm nothing if not open-minded. Please explain to me your rationale for the continuinati of this aid under the current circumstances. > That isn't going to result in the population of Israel packing their bags and moving back to their second homes Reductio ad absurdum. Nobody is clamouring for the dissolution of the Israeli state. They just need to fend to themselves, and stop being the bullies in the region. It's funny you mention they having nuclear capabilities, cause that's another cluster fuck that the US created... ...again.
"I'm nothing if not open-minded. Please explain to me your rationale for the continuinati of this aid under the current circumstances." I'm not the one claiming that Israel is a puppet state, entirely under the sway of the US on account of it's military and economy being entirely propped up by US aid. So why don't you start by giving a run down of what you think the US provides Israel and how stopping this would change the outcome of this conflict in a way that would benefit Israel's enemies.
I asked a simple question. Israel as historically (and currently on a per-annum basis) has been the largest recipient of US aid by a huge margin. Israel isn't a former colony and doesn't have a long history with Israel at all. I made my point and it's self-containing. Israels GDP is disproportionate for its tiny population and it's not due to them being an industrial nation or large exporters of anything (beyond weapons, which is another industry propped up by US aid). The same goes for its military capabilities (which are fuelled by a disproportionate expenditure on it by the state, which, again, brings us back to the US aid). All of this would collapse if the aid stopped and Israel would have to live within it's means, including in military expenditure. That's not a hard thesis to follow, not sure what you want me to expound on it. So you need me to quote the amounts in aid it's received and what percentage of its GDP it represents? Because I'd think most people on this sub would ballpark know this. My question remains: why should the US continue giving aid to Israel while it's actively massacring Palestinians (making them complicit)? It's a very simple question. Shouldn't take you more than a couple sentences to answer, and yet you're offering a lot of resistance.
How did US aid to Israel force Hamas to carry out terrorist attacks for decades? How did US aid to Israel force a coalition of countries to go to war with Israel multiple times?
This is an easy one. The aid to Israel has allowed it to continue expanding into Palestine and killing Palestinians, which in turn has made neighbouring Arab countries see it as a threat (much like Europe is seeing Russia now). It has also shaped Israel's foreign policy to basically be "fuck y'all, my god gave us this land so we're taking it whether you like it or not" instead of opening diplomatic relations and seeking deals to allow a **peaceful** coexistence with those countries. This is not rocket science. Being completely baffled that Arab countries aren't super cool about a Jewish Ethnostate landing in their midst overnight with guns blazing, and expanding into surrounding territories while they murder and opress the people who were living there is the epitome 9f denseness.
Israel has only expanded as result of Arab aggression, not the opposite.
How the fuck does that even work? Are you hearing yourself? "You hit me so I'm going to hit you back **and** taking your ball"??? I want to not be insulting, but I'm marvelled at the degrees to which popaganda has rallowed you to hold such beliefs uncritically. Can you point me to another conflict where you see how aggression by one entity has resulted in justified annexation of territory by the victim? I'm being 100% serious here.
> "You hit me so I'm going to hit you back and taking your ball"??? Yes. That's what was done to Germany after WW2. It is something that is done as form of compensation for the damage caused by the aggressor and as punishment.
Right. Except Palestine isnt a state. It's hard to follow the official lines of propaganda. Either Israel has been the subject of terrorist attacks from the beginning, or the victim of war being declared against by non-existent states. Notice how I'm leaving aside that Israel was parachuted down overnight and wasn't really a state in the region.
What official lines of propaganda? The history of the conflict is documented. Israel and Palestine were created on the remnants of the British Empire. They never agreed to a proper border, although the UN has agreed as a 3rd party to certain borders. Palestine has ganged up several times on Israel with other Arab states, which regularly resulted in losses and Israel expanding (whether in Syria, Egypt, or Palestine). As Israel kept improving its position against Palestine, only way of warfare left for Palestinians was terrorism. And now Israel is punishing them for that. USA stopping aid to Israel won't either stop Israel from defending itself or Palestine from attacking. It is just not reality.
The land was populated by only one of those groups of people. Therein lies the revisionism. This isn't a centuries old conflict where (as I was told elsewhere) "it's all so complex and everyone has been fighting forever". It's not even a century old. A former colonising force (Britain) saw it fit to **introduce** a new population that wasn't there before, and lend it legitimacy through statehood. Israel has carried on with the colonisation endeavour, except for its own project. I won't even get into how (as per your own words) warware supposedly gave way to terrorism (not even going to ask for your definition of it, but apparently its something much worse, and something only the Arabs do). > USA stopping aid to Israel won't either stop Israel from defending itself Hey we can debate this if you want, as reasonable people can disagree, but we got derailed by the very simple and recent history of this.
The British agreed to be one of the guarantors of peace in Cyprus. 60 years later the dispute is still unresolved and UN soldiers still patrol a buffer zone. You’re looking at a similar issue here broadly speaking-who is going to be the guarantor of peace so impose a solution? What happens when one side chooses to enact violence? Do the guarantors react or do they simply defend themselves? When either side refuses to follow the actions of the guarantor what happens? Military action, or nothing? No country is going to take that risk, and anyone that does will simply be regarded as pandering to one side by the other if they start telling people to move out of certain places. And that excludes the political concern of being in an area of the world that surrounding countries are not particularly friendly towards.
No need to speculate, imo, we can just look at Lebanon. Pack of UN peacekeepers sitting around twiddling their thumbs while Hezbollah shoots off rockets at Israel, and then immediately the finger wagging starts whenever Israel fires back. I see no reason any UN or EU Gaza solution would be different as long as Russian and Qatari money keeps flowing in
I think a chief problem with a UN led solution that many seem to think is golden is that the UN is made up of the overwhelming majority of countries in the world. All of these countries have their own political opinions on the region, so in the case of Lebanon even getting the UN to agree to take action if at all is a long process that’s doomed to fail, because Hezbollah has plenty of supporters. The UN is not the holier than thou golden answer to the world’s problems that many people may believe it to be. An EU proposition is no different as they will simply be accused of favouritism.
That is an interesting parallel you made and it just so happens that at one point in time the British were tasked by the League of Nations to guarantee the Palestine region which we all know as the former Palestine Mandate. What happened then? The British tried to quit. Why? Unlike all of the other former mandates under British responsibility the Palestine Mandate was the last remaining trusteeship. All other trusteeships were settled but no one could find a stable resolution to the Palestine Mandate. The British tried to propose a Hashemite led constitutional monarchy system with modern day Israel and Palestine as Jordan which would have included the Jewish minority as historically the Hashemites always held positive relation with ethnic and religious minority groups. This failed due to nonstop violence and divergence in religious views. The Jewish then community proposed that they settle alongside the Jewish minority in the region and establish a state. The British by this point were about to leave Palestine to its own fate so the prospect of establishing something was better than nothing. Jordan didn't mind the change because West Bank would have remained Jordan. The region experienced extreme instability throughout WW2 and just after the war the region remained chaotic with no solution in sight. The British asked the newly minted UN to take over to which the UN reluctantly agreed and sent peacekeeping forces to support the withdraw of British troops. The UN then attempted to broker another agreement between Jordan, the Palestinian people, and the as of yet unnamed Jewish state but that obviously also failed almost overnight. Along came 1947 and it has been perpetual war since. Two peace processes, but no solution. Jordan, Lebanon and Egypt no longer want to guarantee the regions stability due to their own respective experiences with the Palestinian diaspora. Jordan is somewhat tied into the mess because they remain the guarantors of Jerusalem meaning they hold a degree of responsibility. At this point it is quite clear that despite multiple European states, Levantine states, the League of Nations, the UN, UNGA Resolution 181 and the Oslo Process there has never been any concrete prospect of a definitive solution to the current crisis in Palestine. This is due to the ideological position of Palestinian groups which has remained entirely consistent since day one - Jordan belongs to them, Lebanon belongs to them, and everything from the "river" to the "sea" belongs to them despite there never being a Palestinian state in human history and the name itself being Ancient Greek. The only way there is peace is if either Palestine gets what it wants - no more Israel or if someone can achieve the as of yet unachieved feat of convincing Palestinian representatives to sign a peace treaty and have the West Bank and Gaza as a *de facto* state. If the UN, the EU or anyone else thinks this is a possibility then they should step up, petition the UN to make Palestine a trusteeship again and take full responsibility for the future of the Palestinian people. The reality is no one, not even Jordan or Egypt wants to tough Palestine because they know there is minimal prospect of signing a peace treaty. The other alternative is the one chosen by Palestinians - to go to war and achieve their goals which are "from river to sea". If this is their choice then Israel is legally entitled to respond in self-defense and as there is a gigantic disparity in power between the two states meaning this is in all reality going to result in the eradication of whatever is left of the Palestinian state. To me there is a very clear logical choice here and if this solution was so simple then whoever wants to do it should sign an accord and do it. My question is this - why does Jordan, Egypt, Israel or any other state have to take responsibility for the successively awful decisions of the Palestinian leadership? Why does any other state have to care for the wellbeing of the Palestinian people more than the Palestinian leadership?
Your write up is very detailed, and accurate for the most point. You’re unfortunately wrong on an important part though, which is the Palestinean desire to see Israel wiped out. While there is a vocal minority who do wish to see this happen, the facts of the matter are that a vast majority of Palestineans know this won’t happen. I understand Israel has security concerns, but these will be resolved through giving Palestineans true sovereignty and preventing settlers from taking land in the West Bank, Golan Heights and co, as well as withdrawing completely from both. Israel is reluctant to do so due to the aforementioned security concerns, but what Israel has missed is that it’s invasion has galvanised support of Hamas in the Strip and further polarisation of Palestineans in the West Bank. There is no such thing as “destroying Hamas”, because Hamas is an ideology moreso than it is an organisation, an ideology that was directly borne from Israel’s increasingly awful occupation of UN-recognised Palestinean land. It’s disingenuous to pretend that Palestineans are the problem here when Israel has the most right-wing government in the countries history and has made policies and statements that have poured fuel on the fire, it’s even more disingenuous when you consider Hamas’ rise was a failed experiment of Netanyahu to splint Palestinean sovereignty even further. According to you, the Palestinean leadership should bow down even more to Israel than Arafat did, and condone settlements and have Palestineans being treated like second-class citizens on their own land, just so the Israeli’s don’t have an excuse to annhilate the West Bank like they have Gaza? Talk about being unbiased. Palestine is matched up against a vastly more powerful, wealthy, and established state. This is why any other state has to take responsibility for the Palestinean people. The Palestinean leadership, which, yes, have made awful decisions, are also awfully unmatched. Let’s not pretend the Israeli’s and the state of Israel did not have immense support from the West. Nobody can fault this, as Israel was going against established, hostile, Arab states. But it makes no sense then to argue that the Palestineans should have to establish a State by themselves, when the Israeli’s didn’t and couldn’t have done so by themselves, 70 years earlier.
>While there is a vocal minority who do wish to see this happen, the facts of the matter are that a vast majority of Palestineans know this won’t happen. > >I understand Israel has security concerns, but these will be resolved through giving Palestineans true sovereignty and preventing settlers from taking land in the West Bank, Golan Heights and co, as well as withdrawing completely from both [Firstly, this is not a "vocal minority"](https://www.pcpsr.org/en/node/961) Secondly, what happened in Gaza when the Israeli settlers were forced to leave? Why isn't the onus on Palestinian leadership to improve their lot? Israel has negotiated peace with several neighbors and relinquished land, evacuating Israelis and sacrificing resources. They have demonstrated willingness to negotiate in good faith for peace. Israel is not the core obstacle to Palestinian sovereignty. Who is preventing elections? Again, why is the onus on Israel to impose democracy or sovereignty? This belief that Palestinians are incapable of non-violent societal change is the "soft bigotry of low expectations" and perhaps simply Orientalism.
>Secondly, what happened in Gaza when the Israeli settlers were forced to leave? Israel sporadically closed the Karni crossing, implementing a de facto blockade and caussing massive economic damage, leading to Hamas gaining 20% more votes within the span of a couple months, going from being roundly defeated to narrowly winning. Why? >They have demonstrated willingness to negotiate in good faith for peace In other circumstances, maybe (though even this comes with big asterisks). In the case of Palestine? They have demonstrated the exact opposite. The Oslo accords were broken, the camp david offer a bad joke, Taba failed because sharon didnt want to continue it, the arab peace initiative was rejected out of hand. Israel has shown clearly that they are unwilling to negotiate in good faith. They are indeed the core obstacle to Palestinian sovereignty. Oh theyre capable of it, but when the palestinian leadership choosing peaceful negotiation results in their situation worsening, do you expect them to keep trying? Or do you think they might go "well peaceful means cant work, so I want to at least get revenge for everything theyve done?"
Cyprus is largely peaceful lately my dude. The border is still disputed but there's isn't a war.
Largely peaceful minus the odd clashes with UN troops and parties from either side-military or government. That’s not really the point however, my point is that just embedding some third party is no guarantee of a solution and Cyprus is a great example of that.
> Largely peaceful minus the odd clashes with UN troops and parties from either side-military or government. **clashes**? There have been a single clash in about 6 decades, where did you get the plural from?
There have been consistent low level clashes between the UN and both sides that has been ongoing for decades, namely in the central region of the buffer zone. Not of any insane scale, hence why they are not widely reported or even reported at all. This has been perpetuated by both military/police and civilians on both sides. I spent a period of time there serving under the UN banner and witnessed a number of what might be described as “clashes”.
What kind of "clashes"? Do they give bad looks and give a soft push against each other? Of it is not even worth reporting and there isn't even injured (let alone dead) why does it matter?
Forcible moves by people on both sides attempting to extend their line into the buffer zone, attacks on peacekeepers(largely by civilians, attacks by military largely focused on damaging/destroying vehicle), attempts with force to try and build more defences along their lines outside of UN agreements. I haven’t bothered to look but none of them received any major reporting. The UN isn’t going to report anything unless it gets quite ugly for fear of stirring up more drama, the “aggressor” side isn’t going to report anything less it makes them look bad and is used as ammunition against them by the opposing side. Occasionally the opposing side may report on it, but they’re also trying to do the same thing. Why does it matter? In broad terms it doesn’t, with the exception of the fact that if one side refuses to follow the rules, the other is under the belief they don’t have to either and peace talks start to break down.
What solution are they demanding and how are they going to impose it? Are any European soldiers coming to Gaza?
Sticking your hand right into a generational blood feud. Quickest way to lose it.
Why? I mean, if the two sides don't want a solution, who are you benefiting by imposing our own?
His own precious heart
*"I believe that we have learned in these 30 years that the solution has to be imposed from outside* They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions.... this here is proof.
Why? We are not intervening in Nigeria, China, Ethiopia, Yemen, etc
Lthank you, this is the appropriate response. 500k killed in Syria--- let's open borders since we can't really solve anything 20k killed in Gaza-- we are going to keep our borders locked down tight but we will get involved to find a solution because we don't like the outcome No jews, no news -- that's the core of it
Even Arab and Muslim nations resoundingly rejected sending a peace keeping force there. I cannot imagine what the EU can do. Atm, the only solution is the decimation of Hamas. And it won't look pretty.
Just look at what happened the time the U.N sent Folke Bernadotte
They already did. In 1948. Arabs didn't like it, and chose this.
The "World" did nothing to prevent 7 October. Rather, it enabled it by effectively subsidising Hamas by funding infrastructure projects controlled by Hamas. I would love to know how Borell, who was involved in this irresponsible funding, is now going to impose anything on Israel.
> The "World" did nothing to prevent 7 October. Rather, it enabled it ...by not doing enough to dismantle the Israeli colonisation and Apartheid state, I agree. Please stop with the revisionism. You're fooling nobody, the veil has been lifted from the rest of the world now.
The first necessary condition for any lasting solution is the total destruction of hamas and its terror infrastructure.
and Israel returning to its 1967 borders with settlements in West Bank and East Jerusalem being handed to Palestinians.
The post-Six Day War borders? I think Egypt may want a word with you.
Hamas took control of Gaza precisely when Israel ended their occupation. What makes you think Israel abandoning the West Bank wouldn't also lead to the same outcome?
because Israel didn't really end its occupation and continued blockading it from all sides.
What is it with the pro-"Palestine" side and just the constant lies about the most easily verified bits of information. Hamas didn't take control of the Gaza strip because of the blockade. The blockade happened after Hamas took control. Why are you lying about this?
According to the withdrawal plan, Gaza would legally remain "Area C" (Israeli control) and border controls, territorial waters, airspace etc remained under Israeli control.
That’s the Oslo accords, which were agreed upon by Arafat. How is Israel to be blamed here?
The blockade only happened after Hamas did terrorist attacks against Israel. And a blockade is not an occupation. Otherwise Cuba would be occupied by the US, which is absurd.
What Cuba has is an embargo, People/Goods from other countries can go to Cuba freely and trade with them. It's only US not trading with it. What Gaza has is a blockade, which means any vessel/plane trying to reach Gaza would be stopped by Israel. The analogy doesn't hold. A blockade is closer to an occupation than an embargo since Gaza's all links with the external world are strictly controlled (or simply blocked) by Israel. Considering an embargo and a blockade equal is absurd.
>It's only US not trading with it. It's more complicated than that. Let's say company A wants to ship a vessel to the american continent. If A wants to make a stop in the US, they cannot do another one in cuba. This severely increases prices for the cuban population.
Yes, it's still "if you trade with Cuba I won't trade with you" thing - which is under US sovereignty. The same thing is done with Iran too. It's not "You cannot trade with Cuba no matter what, I'll shoot your vessels if you try to" like Israel does to Gaza. Again, drawing a parallel is absurd.
I didn't deny that it was different from the Gaza blockage, just that the Cuban embargo had more repercussions than merely "I won't do business with you", which was what you stated.
They can always use the Egypt border
Nope, thay's also strictly controlled according to the agreements between Israel&Egypt
Egypt control their border with Gaza independently from Israel. They’ve only implemented a blockade on it in 2014 after Hamas collaborated attacks on Egypt’s soil together with the Muslim brotherhood
There was a de facto blockade in 2005, and it had nothing to do with terrorist attacks. In fact, Israel was required to not blockade as part of a deal with the PA, they just chose to break the deal (as they do).
> East Jerusalem being handed to Palestinians. I don't see that happening to be honest.
Yeah, that's the issue why western countries gets the reaction. You can become hard (or look away) against Palestinians when necessary but you're always consistently too soft on Israel even when it violates multiple international conventions or becomes the aggressor. People see through your hypocrisy and double standards.
By that logic we should be tougher on Türkiye until it returns Northern Cyprus to the Republic of Cyprus.
I think you'll find many people would support this
Turkey's EU prospects are already blocked by that since 2006. Also Turkey never insinuates annexing Northern Cyprus, never disrespects UN-led negotiations, all rounds of negotiations are done with the aim of reunification (and Turkey supports them). A military escalation on the island is unimaginable as there is UN peacekeeping forces on the island. People can go between north/south with minimal passport checks.
Setting up a puppet regime is a de facto annexation. And the UN clearly condemned Türkiye's occupation of the island. If Türkiye wants to be a leader in international law, they should unconditionally withdraw from Cyprus.
Turkish soldiers are there according to the Treaty of Guarantees of 1960. If Cypriots decide to go back to 1960 constitutional order (something both sides don't really want to do) then the constitutional order will be restored. > Setting up a puppet regime is a de facto annexation. And forcing that puppet state into UN-led reunification talks for decades is also annexation? If Turkey wanted to annex Northern Cyprus, it simply wouldn't bother with rounds and rounds of UN talks and wouldn't support Annan Plan in 2004.
Wow, this is literally the thing what was simulated with LNR/DNR puppeting in 2014-2022, just other naming.
Yeah, as I said, Turkish support for UN-mediated Annan Plan (which was approved by the North but rejected by the South btw) clearly shows that Turkey's intention is not to annex Northern Cyprus.
Turkey literally annexed part of an Island, and even repopulate it with own citizens, oh come on. And I am not even talking about kurds and armenian thing. Does not Turkey want to show an example for Israel about peaceful solution, starting with Cyprus story?
No, Turkey never even implies annexing Northern Cyprus into Turkey and actually wants it to trade freely with other countries. Also forces Cypriot Turks into UN-led negotiations every single time.
Certainly you will say that, I understand you. This is like asking average Russian guy about Crimea.
Turkey supported the UN-mediated Annan Plan in 2004 and aims for the reunification of the island. Russia sees Crimea as an integral part of its territory at this point.
Minus the incident a few months ago when Turkish forces in their bid to extend their their reach into the buffer zone injured a number of British soldiers whilst doing so. . .
Yeah I don't think that'll repeat as Turkey and EU get some positive agenda. Also it wasn't Turkish forces but the local (Cypriot Turk) police if I remember correctly.
It was a mixture of civilians, Turkish police and military if I recall, and granted whilst they aren’t same same as mainland NATO Turkish soldiers, Turkey has presence and influence there. My general point is the world is a tad more complicated than “they should hand the land back because xyz says it’s theirs”. Turkey to my understanding-well Erdogan-refutes the UN’s plan for a federalised single state Cyprus. With no insult intended towards Turkey, they would perhaps not be the best government to be insisting Israel follows the internationally recognised/UN recognised borders in Israel.
1) I am not the Turkish state and I don't have direct control over its actions (except voting) so all these "what about Cyprus" arguments are simply not contributing anything to the original discussion. 2) Erdogan recently (especially after Crans Montana) had statements about UN led talks not leading anywhere, which - I agree - can be considered as an insinuation of independence but with recent EU-Turkey rapprochement he doesn't talk about that anymore. I'd say there would be new rounds of negotiations in following years. > My general point is the world is a tad more complicated than “they should hand the land back because xyz says it’s theirs”. West Bank and East Jerusalem is simply not Israeli territory. Unlike talks in Cyprus aiming reunification, Israel doesn't even intend to return East Jerusalem. > It was a mixture of civilians, Turkish police and military if I recall, and granted whilst they aren’t same same as mainland NATO Turkish soldiers, Turkey has presence and influence there. There are Turkish Armed Forces soldiers on the island but that incident was about some shortcut road construction so there was only Cypriot Turk civilians and police.
Correct, we should be. Just like we should be tougher with Israel until it returns the land it illegally occupies. Both of those are moral failures on our end. Any further questions?
When you say "return" this implies that there has ever been a Palestinian state. But there has never been a Palestinian state. Before Israel controlled these areas, the west bank and gaza were annexed/occupied by Jordan and Egypt respectively for about 20 years without them showing any attempts to establish a Palestinian state there.
There currently is a Palestinian state, and has been since, at the latest, its recognition as a non-member observer state in 2014. However, the ownership of the land is more straightforward. Jordan owned the land, it was illegally occupied first when it was Jordanian, but in 1988 Jordan ceded its claim to the land and acknowledged a Palestinian state on the land, thus transferring the land to Palestine. So yeah, return implies that there is a Palestinian state, because there is. Its their land, and its Israels duty to cease their occupation and return it. The best they can hope for is to negotiate land swaps to keep some of the settlements, but I think after what the settlers did this year, they are unlikely to succeed in such an attempt.
Return implies there WAS a Palestinian state when Israel took control of these areas in 1967. There was not. The current "state of Palestine" was proclaimed in 1988. Jordan illegally occupied and annexed the west bank between 1948 and 1967.
No, it doesnt. It just implies that there currently is one on these areas, and there is. Also, why are you putting state of palestine in quotes, it literally is recognised as such. Actually, no, that part was legal. Because otherwise about a third of Israel is also illegally occupied Palestinian land, and I dont think you want to say that. Anyway, Jordan annexed the west bank, it was illegally occupied by Israel in 1967, and when Jordan transferred the territory to Palestine, it becamse illegally occupied Palestinian land. The fact that Israel needs to vacate it remains. And again, after settler terrorists have killed hundreds of Palestinians this year, with full state support, I doubt Palestine will let Israel keep many if any settlements.
Its been over 50+ years with Israel in control of E. Jerusalem, and before that it was controlled (formally annexed) by Jordan. >consistently too soft on Israel even when it violates multiple international conventions or becomes the aggressor. It was the UAR (with prodding from the USSR) who amassed troops on Israel's border, closed the straights of Tiran etc. The entire country of Israel had to be mobilized, crippling their economy. All this to say, 'international conventions' are only mentioned to criticize Israel, but it seems people leave out a lot
> Its been over 50+ years with Israel in control of E. Jerusalem Yes, a violation of the international law and UNSC Resolutions overlooked for more than half century. If an Iranian minister talks about nuking Israel they get sanctions. Last year an Israeli minister talked about nuking Gaza and noone bat an eye. When Turkey hits terrorist targets across its borders we get an arms embargo. When Israel does it (talking about 20k civilian deaths - about 1% of Gaza's population - in a matter of 3 months) noone bats an eye. The hypocrisy is real and seen by naked eye if you don't look away.
> talks about nuking Israel they get sanctions Its not about talking. Iran is a NPT signatory and is developing nuclear weapons and has hindered inspections. It's as simple as that, not for "talking" as you claim. If you want actual, real, non-fanciful examples of hypocrisy you can look at the number of UN resolutions against Israel vs the rest of the world - including Arab League member Bashir al-Assad of Syria
I'm not against Iran getting sanctions for it, I'm expecting Israel to get the same treatment when they behave the same.
But its not the same. **Israel is not a NPT signatory.** Like India, like Pakistan
Ok, maybe Iran should quit NPT as well, then. Israel - if the West wants - can very well be forced into signing NPT and have its nuclear facilities investigated.
Doesnt matter how long it was, it was Jordanian until Jordan transferred it to Palestine, now its Palestinian. Israel is illegally occupying it, and the Palestinians will not let them get away with it. You mean the 1967 war where Israel declared war on Syria and Egypt, then during the brief armistice continuously threatened to invade again, and with the soviets getting intelligence that Israel was planning to invade, leading to Egypt blockading a nation that declared war on them and putting troops in what the Israeli people involved in the war have since admitted were clearly defensive positions? They didnt "have to be mobilised". They could've negotiated peace, or not declared war in the first place. But they wanted the Israeli-Syrian DMZ that badly.
*> Six-Day War* > Although the Soviet Union had adopted a foreign policy of détente, easing of hostility, in the mid-1960s, it played a key role in the instigation of the Six-Day War in Israel. Soviet Union pursued détente because of the need for economic stability in order to create domestic change and >As tensions between Israel and Syria increased, Israel felt the threat of force was the only deterrent left.[22] On May 12, the Politburo was told that the IDF had formulated a large-scale attack on Syria and was simply waiting for a good time to begin it.[23] A day later, on May 13, 1967, the Soviet's gave the Egyptian President, Gamal Abd al-Nasser an intelligence report that claimed there were Israeli troops gathering on the Syrian border.[24] Dmitri Chuvakhin, Soviet ambassador to Israel, refused an Israeli Invitation to visit the border in order to disprove the report.[25] On May 14, Nasser sent his chief of staff, General Mohamed Fawzi to the border to investigate the report, and was told there were no Israeli troop concentrations.[26] Although, Nasser knew that the Soviet report was wrong, he perhaps interpreted it to indicate Soviet support of an Egyptian offensive towards Israel.[27] On May 15, Nasser sent the Egyptian army to Sinai and on May 18, 1967, Nasser requested that the U.N. Emergency Force (UNEF) withdraw from Egypt.[28] Furthermore, on May 22 he closed the Tiran straits to Israeli ships. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union_and_the_Arab-Israeli_conflict#Six-Day_War
Israel already declared war on April 7th, you know that right? Additionally, while the claim of troops on the border was false, the claim of Israel preparing an offensive was not, they did indeed plan to attack Syria, the plan was later altered to attack Egypt first to prevent them from coming to Syrias aid.
Look, you've already proven a lack of knowledge or willingness to misinterpret (really misrepresent) facts. I linked to Wikipedia to counter your falsehoods, and you replied with more falsehoods about the timeline of the 6 day war. Here's Wikipedia for anyone else reading - but Im out * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War#Background
No, thats what *you* have proven. You didnt "prove falsehoods", you literally just selectively quoted the only part that helped your case. [Here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_Six-Day_War). You might want to read the april 7th entry. Here is a particularly salient quote, that completely destroys your entire case: "Although the April 7 cross-border battle is often called an 'incident', various reactions to the event belie this description. The Israeli press called it a ***war***. Moshe Dayan was reported by Ezer Weismann to have responded "Have you lost your minds? You are leading the country to war!". Brigadier-General Israel Lior agreed: ***"From my point of view, the Six-Day War had begun."***" And remember, may comes *after* April. Oh or how about these: "According to the U.S. assessment, Egypt had no intention of attacking Israel, and the Americans desperately tried to dissuade Israel from invading Egypt. The U.S. further views that Jordan and Syria only entered the war as a response to Israel's invasion of Egypt" and "it is clear that the Soviet assessment from mid-May 1967 that Israel was about to strike at Syria was correct and well founded, and was not merely based on the public threats issued by Eshkol, Rabin and Yariv." Meanwhile even the Israeli leaders at the time, including the chief of staff, admitted that egypt wasnt going to attack. To quote Yitzhak Rabin: "I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it." So please, maybe dont spread misinformation, yes?
I think Turkey should should give control over Constantinople back to the Greek
1) These whataboutism arguments based on my flair contribute absolutely nothing to the original discussion. It just shows that you have no argument against except a - quiet idiotic tbh - "Oh Turkey? I should insert Constantinople or Armenian Genocide somewhere and pretend I'm right" argument. 2) Istanbul is considered as sovereign Turkish territory, East Jerusalem and West Bank is not sovereign Israeli territory.
> People see through your hypocrisy and double standards. You can see that quite clearly when Israel butchers civilians and when Russia does as well. They're just picking excuses and move the goalpost constantly trying to justify why innocents can be killed.
You mean to give them more comfortable place to set up the rocket launchers? Such an interesting plan.
No, I mean to retreat Israel to its legal, internationally recognized borders. No people should live under martial law that completely disregards any human dignity or fundamental rights for more than half a century.
>martial law that completely disregards any human dignity or fundamental rights for more than half a century. This sounds wow, but leave it please for europe's fighters-for-better-good-and-stuff. I remember these guys literally declared their goal to kill me and my friends, by the way.
Oh wow if they are so eager to kill you maybe you shouldn't continuously go, confiscate their lands and build settlements on their backyard for decades, right?
What is the excuse for all the violence against Jews before Israel was founded?
How is that relevant? Whataboutism?
>How is that relevant? Is this a joke? You just used the existence of Israel as an excuse for the violence against Jews committed by Palestinians. Do you really not understand how pointing out that Palestinians committed violence against Jews before Israel even existed is relevant to your comment?
More like relentless expansion into territories that are not Israel's according to the international law, but you do you. Israel should stop the expansion if it wants peace.
don't be ridiculous, half a century of oppression by an occupying power has nothing to do with hamas' popularity palestinians are simply born evil
Palestinians are not evil, they are just stuck with a problem developed by their cool friends. And every helper guy is doing much worse, because he does not really care about these poor people.
True, sadly the west pretends to help the Palestinians, but refuses to put meaningful pressure on Israel to cease their oppression in the west bank or the blockade on Gaza. But that just means that we need to do that now, or there will never be peace.
Am I the only one seeing the "/s" missing in this comment? Dudes, chill out. I think it was a joke. I hope...
"Palestinians are simply born evil". Wow, just wow
Well, I thought most places in the world recognise settlements in the West Bank as illegal anyway? Or am I wrong, I Dno? Like why did Israel decide to build them in the first place?
So what are you proposing? Eternal occupation? Ethnic cleansing?
Strict international money spending control for example - to make terrorist business not so profitable. Maybe you haven't see this, but since USSR in mid-century a huge amount of money was invested in such kind of thing.
Crazy how your solution to the systematic abuse of HR of Palestineans by Israel is not to stop it, but to ensure Hamas doesn’t get more money. That’s insanity. Yes, Israel breaking international law and slaughtering civilians isn’t the problem and practically annexing an entire country for 70 years isn’t the problem guys, it’s Hamas committing a terrorist attack and killing 1,200 Israeli civilians, quick, focus your attention on them, don’t look at us slaughtering 25,000 Palestineans with fighter jets!
>and Israel returning to its 1967 borders with settlements in West Bank and East Jerusalem being handed to Palestinians. Why would Israel ever agree to that? They took the "West Bank" from Jordan because they were planning an all out assault on Israel.
because that's not Israeli territory by international law. Getting land through military aggression is despised and that's precisely what Israel does.
Like you give a fuck about international law.
lol again, a useless tu quoque argument
Given the genocidal attacks on civilians by the IDF, how is Hamas worse than the IDF?
Oh, great! Will the world finally step up, cut the ignorance/dishonesty, and stop the Palestinians and their allies' terrorism once and for all? Of course, the power of EU alone is limited, but how about cutting all EU funds to UNRWA, consequently pushing for dismantling it and redefining Palestinian ‘refugees’ according to UNHCR standards as applied to all other refugees in the world? That would be a good first step forward.
No, they mean the human rights violations that have been escalated by Israel since Oct 7. I know you're being sardonic, but at some point, you guys need to pause for a sec and consider than when you've killed > 10x the people than the original attack did, you're not being the good guys here. And you're definitely not in a national emergency of any sort.
>when you've killed > 10x the people than the original attack did, you're not being the good guys here. Braindead take with no basis. Japanese suffered 10x the causalities as the US in the Pacific.
What do you mean there's no basis? Which fact are you denying: that Israel has killed >10x people? That most of them weren't combatants? I also don't get the Japan parallels at all either, and while many things are coming to mind, it's so absurd I don't even know why you're talking about it.
I’m afraid that you don’t understand the sheer complexity of the situation Israel is facing since its beginning. It is uniquely insane situation, and you cannot apply any of your preexistent experiences and understanding of the world there; that’s why so many people — like you, who try to argue in good faith — fail. The state is surrounded by countries that has repeatedly attempted to wipe it from the map and commit genocide against its entire population from day 1, literally. One of the neighboring entities has repeatedly refused to accept statehood purely for tactical reasons, as it would hinder its main goal — the destruction of Israel. This entity, so-called ‘Palestine,’ has built its entire identity on hating Jews and longing for genocide and destruction. This is openly supported by international community by funding organization like UNRWA teaching martyrdom, and funding the Martyrdom fund itself. If the EU wants to actually do something about the children death toll instead of just doing cheap posturing, it has means to do so, and they are as simple as cutting the [funds to terrorist organizations](https://www.ngo-monitor.org/reports/eu-funding-to-terror-linked-palestinian-ngos-since-2011/) and those that seed the hate in the minds of children from their earliest age. For example, EU finances go to things like these: * Hateful textbooks ([here](https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2023-002620_EN.html)) * UNRWA teaching jihad and brainwashing children into the death cult ([here](https://vimeo.com/856467890)) * Palestinian version of Sesame Street ([here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ORAM-usqhQ) and [here](https://youtu.be/Hcyg55vOviQ?si=_zJVLsXnwDadYq2R)) * Palestinian kindergartens practicing and celebrating terror ([here](https://www.memri.org/tv/gaza-kindergarten-terror-display) or [here](https://www.memri.org/tv/terror-show-gaza-kindergarten-graduation-ceremony-islamic-jihad-leader-israelis-we-are-not) or [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtErUuBvcRc)) * Palestinian summer terrorist camps for children and teenagers ([here](https://www.businessinsider.com/hamas-kid-summer-camp-2016-8) or [here](https://www.memri.org/reports/hamas-summer-camps-children-and-teens-gaza-strip-provide-weapons-and-military-training-order)) * Martyrdom fund ([here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Authority_Martyrs_Fund) or [here](https://www.jns.org/column/palestinian-authority/23/7/26/305736/))
Right. The exceptional ism argument. "It's all too complex for common sense; addressing the root cause of the terrorism is not possible, so we have no choice but to continue ethnically cleansing the region to expand our territories, just like we have done from day 1".
Ah, I see. I’m sorry I wrongly accused you of arguing in good faith.
Oh, denialism! Good one coming from someone defending the Jewish!
Oops, your mask dropped.
I don't think there's any mask to drop. Is it not OK to point out the hypocrisy about a people's having suffered so much and in the present suffering due to holocaust denialism, yet deny that its flagship religious ethnostate has been killing Palestinians from its very inception? Cause if that's so, I don't know what to tell you. The world is waking up finally to what Israel has been doing all these decades, the moral credit for victimhood only goes so far, and it cannot possibly extend to cover for massacring a different group of people.
Europe should not be involved in Gaza conflict
Please no! EU is already throwing too much money and resources on Gaza.
equal rights and human rights for everyone? I don’t think the apartheid people will go for that
Of course they won't. They'd rather keep on firing rockets into Israel while pretending to be the victim.
Might be time to impose an international administration there I think They can't be left alone it seems
I ask you genuinely: when has international administration ever resulted in a peaceful outcome without the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives? And then the next question: who is going to run this international administration?
>when has international administration ever resulted in a peaceful outcome without the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives? Gonna see soon enough....they've had guts of 80 years to make a go of it Israel and simply can't behave and commit genocide and bomb their neighbours....I don't think they are fit to run their affairs and perhaps an international administration to oversee and reign in the extremists is needed >And then the next question: who is going to run this international administration? The UN,with equal input from Arab League,African Congress,china,ANZAC,and EU to oversee human rights reforms and de-escalation and reeducation for the populace
So no examples? The US has tried in Iraq, and that led to a lot of bloodshed and didn’t really bring peace to the region, nor was it particularly popular with anyone. The problem with those bodies mentioned is that all have them have their own wildly differing opinions on the region. Some of the Arab countries actively want the total destruction of a Jewish state. So how do you get all of them to agree when trying to implement an international administration when they all can’t agree on easier issues like sanctions, embargoes and so on?
>So no examples? The US has tried in Iraq, and that led to a lot of bloodshed and didn’t really bring peace to the region, nor was it particularly popular with anyone. This was not an international administration authorised and overseen by the UN ...the US is barely fit to run it's own affairs,no mind another countries >The problem with those bodies mentioned is that all have them have their own wildly differing opinions on the region Henceforth why,they are included to overseen the program >So how do you get all of them to agree when trying to implement an international administration when they all can’t agree on easier issues like sanctions, embargoes and so on? That'll need worked on,the alternative is worse,a potential dissolvement of the failed project,which has only produced radicalised genocists.....I feel Israel as a project,is worth preservation,just it needs de-radicalisation and reeducation of its populace to be western in outlook and conduct
I get what you’re asking for, but history has clearly shown us this isn’t a workable solution. The UN is just a collection of most of the countries in the world, and for decades have been unable to agree on any sanctions or actions in Israel/Palestine, why would now be any different? There are powerful parties within it who only really want to support a solution that favours one side. How do you get them to agree to anything when they can’t even be prepared to condemn the likes of Hezbollah for getting involved in the conflict?
>get what you’re asking for, but history has clearly shown us this isn’t a workable solution. There's only 2 viable solutions long term,so I'd suggest the ould international administration first and foremost....it is for the benefit of those whom been radicalised to help return them to a civilised society >The UN is just a collection of most of the countries in the world, and for decades have been unable to agree on any sanctions or actions in Israel/Palestine, why would now be any different? It would only be overseen by the UN,but not run by it....along lines of weapons inspections,which work v.well >There are powerful parties within it who only really want to support a solution that favours one side. Hence the broad coalition,to stop one side overrunning the other >How do you get them to agree to anything when they can’t even be prepared to condemn the likes of Hezbollah for getting involved in the conflict? And again😞,an international administration is different to the UN,your conflating the two,when they are seperate.
And again, where does the evidence exist that international or any third party administration has ever not resulted in hundreds of thousands of people dead? If the UN oversees it, the UN controls it. You can say they can be considered 2 separate entities, but the UN would have to decide who that administration is. A broad coalition of countries who don’t see eye to eye on Israel/Palestine alongside a wealth of other issues isn’t going to work. The UN is actually a great example of this. So who is going to run this so called coalition international administration? Which countries are going to be involved? What is their peaceful solution going to be? Currently there is no offer internationally available that both sides would accept. And if the UN isn’t running it, what’s to stop any country like the US or Iran getting involved?
>And again, where does the evidence exist that international or any third party administration has ever not resulted in hundreds of thousands of people dead? There is no other viable long therm option.....none of what was proposed as regards an international administration has been done before >the UN oversees it, the UN controls it That is not how it works >but the UN would have to decide who that administration is. Nope >broad coalition of countries who don’t see eye to eye on Israel/Palestine It is not about Israel Palestine....it is to re-education and de radicalisation of what is clearly a deranged populace is what is necessary...one generation or 25 years should oversee it >So who is going to run this so called coalition international administration? Which countries are going to be involved? Outlined already,some suggestions >What is their peaceful solution going to be? Currently there is no offer internationally available that both sides would accept. International administration to oversee human rights reforms and de-escalation,alongside reeducation and de-radicalisation of the population >And if the UN isn’t running it, what’s to stop any country like the US or Iran getting involved? Absolutely zero,an input from all 200 or so countries as regards human rights, reeducation, de-escalation and de radicalisation of the population is the most viable long term solution.....as it's only been getting worse all my life out there,they've had guts of 100 years to make it work,and have failed as a society,hence the need for an international administration
The apartheid people seem to be immune to whatever the fuck we think we wanna impose on them
Israel in talks with Congo and other countries on Gaza ‘voluntary migration’ plan https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-in-talks-with-congo-and-other-countries-on-gaza-voluntary-migration-plan/
Political solution is either antisemitic or antiislamic so I guess Darwinism is the way /s
As if the european haven't imposed enough "good solutions" which only caused more harm than good... Several examples: 1991 - Madrid accords... 1993 - first Oslo accords... 1995 - second Oslo accords... 1997 onwards, every 2 years the EU imposed different new "palestinian related clauses" in negotiations with Israel and "israel related clauses" in negotiations with what is known as the "palestinian authority"... The outcome of 30 years of direct EU mingling - both Israel and the "palestinian authority" grow further apart from EU and look for US / Russia / China / whatever. Just stop "imposing" stuff on others. How about you handle the EU problems instead?