US passes UN vote banning Israeli settlements

[Novus America]

Thing is lasting peace is going to no doubt require an adjustment of the West Bank's 1967 borders.
Israel is not going to go back to the 1967 borders. Negotiation is not just about making demands, you have to make some concessions. And the Palestinians are going to have to concede some of the land controlled by Jordan in 1967 or else the Israelis will not agree.

It is obviously not just for Israel to acquire land by force.

Yes I understand that we do not move borders as much as we once did, but borders do still move.
And have moved since the UN was created. And people do obsess over the Isareali Palestinian issue while overlooking other conflicts. Based on the press and attention it receives the fate of you would think the entire fate of the world hinges on this dispute, when it is just another territorial dispute. One of many.

I'm given to understand that some people do believe that the fate of the world hinges on this. Some Christian apocalypse myth or something like that.

Other countries have acquired land by force since 1967. We might complain, but it happens.

Also it is a bit more complicated than that. Israel got that land from Jordan who fought a war with Israel, lost and gave it up. Israel did not take the land from the Palestinian government by force. Also arguably Israel took land by force in 1949 too, also in fighting in self defense. Again what makes the 1967 borders so special? Better than any other ones?

Yes, the religious stuff partially explains the obsession with this conflict over others.

[Ifreann]

It is obviously not just for Israel to acquire land by force.


I'm given to understand that some people do believe that the fate of the world hinges on this. Some Christian apocalypse myth or something like that.

Other countries have acquired land by force since 1967. We might complain, but it happens.

Also it is a bit more complicated than that...

So I've heard.

[Imperializt Russia]

It wasn't Hamas that pasted the power stations, hospitals, schools and houses. Or shot or bombed children in Gaza.

Tell me why the population of Gaza might tend to be more pro-Hamas than pro-Israel.

It was Hamas who bombed Israeli villages using rockets fired from said hospitals, schools and houses.

And Hamas has shot plenty of people in Gaza.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Ha ... ce_in_Gaza
Hamas only supports democracy as a tool to gain power, not on principle.
Hamas kills political rivals.

And I do not expect the people of Gaza to support Israel.
But opposing Israeli policies does not require supporting Hamas.

The Palestinian people can have peace. OR have Hamas. They cannot have both as the two are mutually exclusive.

And they chose Hamas, well as much as the choice in Gaza was free and fair, but certainly despite its oppressive measures Hamas does have a lot of popular support.

So they chose no peace. Which was their choice to make, but they are going to have to live with the consequences.

"Hamas keeps the hospitals operational despite almost no power. But they made the mistake of voting for Hamas, so oh well ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ you had your chance!"
*fwoosh*

[Novus America]

It was Hamas who bombed Israeli villages using rockets fired from said hospitals, schools and houses.

And Hamas has shot plenty of people in Gaza.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Ha ... ce_in_Gaza
Hamas only supports democracy as a tool to gain power, not on principle.
Hamas kills political rivals.

And I do not expect the people of Gaza to support Israel.
But opposing Israeli policies does not require supporting Hamas.

The Palestinian people can have peace. OR have Hamas. They cannot have both as the two are mutually exclusive.

And they chose Hamas, well as much as the choice in Gaza was free and fair, but certainly despite its oppressive measures Hamas does have a lot of popular support.

So they chose no peace. Which was their choice to make, but they are going to have to live with the consequences.

"Hamas keeps the hospitals operational despite almost no power. But they made the mistake of voting for Hamas, so oh well ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ you had your chance!"
*fwoosh*

Others besides Hamas can operate hospitals.
I mean Musolini made infrastructure improvements too. However he was not down with peace. War was a fundamental part of his ideology, more than the infrastructure improvements.

Oh and if Hamas had not started bombing Israel, then the power would have stayed on. Israel bombed power stations in retaliation for Hamas bombing Israel, not for the LOLs.

If they just want hospitals and no war why not support a party for hospitals and against war?
And
When you vote for a party that advocates war, you should not be surprised when you get war.

Pretty simple concept really.

[Gauthier]

Yes I understand that we do not move borders as much as we once did, but borders do still move.
And have moved since the UN was created. And people do obsess over the Isareali Palestinian issue while overlooking other conflicts. Based on the press and attention it receives the fate of you would think the entire fate of the world hinges on this dispute, when it is just another territorial dispute. One of many.

I'm given to understand that some people do believe that the fate of the world hinges on this. Some Christian apocalypse myth or something like that.

Bat Signal For Jesus.

[Wallenburg]

Israel's temper tantrum in response to this resolution is rather amusing.

[Gauthier]

Israel's temper tantrum in response to this resolution is rather amusing.

It's about rallying the base. And looking forward to when Trump takes office so they can have a pogrom on Palestinians without repercussions.

[Cattle Mutilators]

Other countries have acquired land by force since 1967. We might complain, but it happens.

Also it is a bit more complicated than that. Israel got that land from Jordan who fought a war with Israel, lost and gave it up. Israel did not take the land from the Palestinian government by force. Also arguably Israel took land by force in 1949 too, also in fighting in self defense. Again what makes the 1967 borders so special? Better than any other ones?

Yes, the religious stuff partially explains the obsession with this conflict over others.

OK, so let's assume that Israel is entitled to the Occupied Territories Judea and Samaria by right of conquest.

What happens to the Palestinian population of these territories, then?

If Israel wants to annex these lands, fine; let's momentarily concede them the right to do that. What rights does the State of Israel have with regards to the population of these annexed lands?

They can't expel the Palestinian population; that's a violation of just about every core principle of human rights, and could even be classified as ethnic cleansing when you get right down to it (I could use the "G-word" here, but I'll avoid the controversy of doing that just yet). The global community would be quite justified in condemning Israel for such a thing, and it would further be destructive to the self-image of Judaism as a faith, given the unique history of the Jewish people (mumble, mumble, Nietzche quote "become the monster", mumble).

Alternatively, Israel could effectively institutionalize the Palestinians' status as second-class citizens, limit them to an ever-shrinking set of enclaves, limit their ability to exercise self-government or curtail that right altogether, and significantly curtail or even utterly eliminate their civil rights. The model of South Africa and apartheid comes to mind, and that, too, would be something the world would be quite justified in condemning.

Finally, Israel could recognize that morality dictates that if Palestinians are to be residents of Israel, then they must be citizens of Israel, and work slowly to incorporate them into its citizenry, eventually granting them full civil rights, including the franchise. This is likely the only policy that would meet with international standards of human rights and decency; unfortunately for Israel's Jewish population, it would also likely be the end of Zionism, as the resultant shared State of Israel could not be a Jewish state and still welcome Palestinians as full citizens with full civil and human rights (and of course this leaves aside the question of actually pacifying the Palestinian population in question, to the point where'd they'd be willing to effectively become full and genuine Israelis).

This is the real question going forward, then: Whither Israel? What will its moral and ethnic character be in the decades to come, given the choices it must inevitably make?

[Uxupox]

Other countries have acquired land by force since 1967. We might complain, but it happens.

Also it is a bit more complicated than that. Israel got that land from Jordan who fought a war with Israel, lost and gave it up. Israel did not take the land from the Palestinian government by force. Also arguably Israel took land by force in 1949 too, also in fighting in self defense. Again what makes the 1967 borders so special? Better than any other ones?

Yes, the religious stuff partially explains the obsession with this conflict over others.

OK, so let's assume that Israel is entitled to the Occupied Territories Judea and Samaria by right of conquest.

What happens to the Palestinian population of these territories, then?

If Israel wants to annex these lands, fine; let's momentarily concede them the right to do that. What rights does the State of Israel have with regards to the population of these annexed lands?

They can't expel the Palestinian population; that's a violation of just about every core principle of human rights, and could even be classified as ethnic cleansing when you get right down to it (I could use the "G-word" here, but I'll avoid the controversy of doing that just yet). The global community would be quite justified in condemning Israel for such a thing, and it would further be destructive to the self-image of Judaism as a faith, given the unique history of the Jewish people (mumble, mumble, Nietzche quote "become the monster", mumble).

Alternatively, Israel could effectively institutionalize the Palestinians' status as second-class citizens, limit them to an ever-shrinking set of enclaves, limit their ability to exercise self-government or curtail that right altogether, and significantly curtail or even utterly eliminate their civil rights. The model of South Africa and apartheid comes to mind, and that, too, would be something the world would be quite justified in condemning.

Finally, Israel could recognize that morality dictates that if Palestinians are to be residents of Israel, then they must be citizens of Israel, and work slowly to incorporate them into its citizenry, eventually granting them full civil rights, including the franchise. This is likely the only policy that would meet with international standards of human rights and decency; unfortunately for Israel's Jewish population, it would also likely be the end of Zionism, as the resultant shared State of Israel could not be a Jewish state and still welcome Palestinians as full citizens with full civil and human rights (and of course this leaves aside the question of actually pacifying the Palestinian population in question, to the point where'd they'd be willing to effectively become full and genuine Israelis).

This is the real question going forward, then: Whither Israel? What will its moral and ethnic character be in the decades to come, given the choices it must inevitably make?

They already are granted humanitarian standards for right and decency. Though Israel accepting millions of Palestinians will probably not happen in the future.

[Cattle Mutilators]

They already are granted humanitarian standards for right and decency. Though Israel accepting millions of Palestinians will probably not happen in the future.

The Palestinians in the Occupied Territories Judea and Samaria aren't considered Arab citizens of Israel. They don't have any of the rights you cite, including the right to vote in Israeli elections.

I grant you, if annexation occurs, then giving them citizenship would be the only moral thing to do. Somehow, though, I don't think that's what the Israeli government has in mind.

[Canadian Davsland]

Israel having a temper tanrtum and storming off off like a spoiled bratty kid only makes them look more pathetic and childish. Also, cutting off funding to UN groups and nation, not to mention cutting diplomatic relations with nations just because they got their way isolates Israel further and pusheds the world to support a two state resolution or an independent palestinian state.

Netanyahu and his Zionist cronies are doing damage to Israel and it's standing in the world.

[Kubra]

Israel's temper tantrum in response to this resolution is rather amusing.

It's about rallying the base. And looking forward to when Trump takes office so they can have a pogrom on Palestinians without repercussions.

Israel won't pogrom the palestinians. Well, it's more that they can't. When Hamas provokes conflict, it's because they want the IDF to come at em point blank, in the streets. Israel won't do it, they refuse to, because they know that it's a bad idea. They're not fond of body bags recently, and they do everything in their power to prevent that.

[Wallenburg]

Israel having a temper tanrtum and storming off off like a spoiled bratty kid only makes them look more pathetic and childish. Also, cutting off funding to UN groups and nation, not to mention cutting diplomatic relations with nations just because they got their way isolates Israel further and pusheds the world to support a two state resolution or an independent palestinian state.

Netanyahu and his Zionist cronies are doing damage to Israel and it's standing in the world.

Damage that they will inevitably blame on Arabs.

[The Portland Territory]

Not sure about y'all, but I support a one-state solution for Israel. There is no such thing as a Palestinian ethnicity, theyre Arab. They can go and live in one of the other 22 Arab nations. Give the Jews the rest of Palestine for their 1 nation, which is relatively small

[Kubra]

Not sure about y'all, but I support a one-state solution for Israel. There is no such thing as a Palestinian ethnicity, theyre Arab. They can go and live in one of the other 22 Arab nations. Give the Jews the rest of Palestine for their 1 nation, which is relatively small

You know, I'd expect Israel supporters to be less fond of pushing pan-arabism. I mean, back in the early 20th century they certainly weren't fond of it, unless they were actual fascists (funny story).

[Uxupox]

They already are granted humanitarian standards for right and decency. Though Israel accepting millions of Palestinians will probably not happen in the future.

The Palestinians in the Occupied Territories Judea and Samaria aren't considered Arab citizens of Israel. They don't have any of the rights you cite, including the right to vote in Israeli elections.

I grant you, if annexation occurs, then giving them citizenship would be the only moral thing to do. Somehow, though, I don't think that's what the Israeli government has in mind.

They don't vote because they are considered a separate state. I'd be like a Canadian voting in the American election.

[Fartsniffage]

Not sure about y'all, but I support a one-state solution for Israel. There is no such thing as a Palestinian ethnicity, theyre Arab. They can go and live in one of the other 22 Arab nations. Give the Jews the rest of Palestine for their 1 nation, which is relatively small

There's no such thing as a white American. You're all European. Get your ass back to Russia because western europe doesn't really want you.

[Kubra]

The Palestinians in the Occupied Territories Judea and Samaria aren't considered Arab citizens of Israel. They don't have any of the rights you cite, including the right to vote in Israeli elections.

I grant you, if annexation occurs, then giving them citizenship would be the only moral thing to do. Somehow, though, I don't think that's what the Israeli government has in mind.

They don't vote because they are considered a separate state. I'd be like a Canadian voting in the American election.

The Palestinian state is not recognized by Israel. That's the crux of the matter: right wing sorts want to claim the territories as belonging to Israel, but they don't want to deal with everything else that entails, such as recognizing the palestinian population as citizens.

[Uxupox]

They don't vote because they are considered a separate state. I'd be like a Canadian voting in the American election.

The Palestinian state is not recognized by Israel. That's the crux of the matter: right wing sorts want to claim the territories as belonging to Israel, but they don't want to deal with everything else that entails, such as recognizing the palestinian population as citizens.

They won't recognize them either as official policy stands.

[Trahanland]

The Palestinian state is not recognized by Israel. That's the crux of the matter: right wing sorts want to claim the territories as belonging to Israel, but they don't want to deal with everything else that entails, such as recognizing the palestinian population as citizens.

They won't recognize them either as official policy stands.

Thanks Jordan/King Hussein/Arafat.
Wash their hands of the problem only for it to become a festering sore for thirty years.

[Kubra]

The Palestinian state is not recognized by Israel. That's the crux of the matter: right wing sorts want to claim the territories as belonging to Israel, but they don't want to deal with everything else that entails, such as recognizing the palestinian population as citizens.

They won't recognize them either as official policy stands.

Exactly. It puts palestinians in a weird limbo where no one says they have a state, but no one will let them have one. Maybe that state could have been a united arabia, but that died after sykes-picot.
And, well, idk if I'd have been fond of a united arabia as the architects imagined it, to be honest. Late pan-arabism was best, shame it happened after the possibility of the project had passed.

[Novus America]

[region-tag][/region-tag]

Other countries have acquired land by force since 1967. We might complain, but it happens.

Also it is a bit more complicated than that. Israel got that land from Jordan who fought a war with Israel, lost and gave it up. Israel did not take the land from the Palestinian government by force. Also arguably Israel took land by force in 1949 too, also in fighting in self defense. Again what makes the 1967 borders so special? Better than any other ones?

Yes, the religious stuff partially explains the obsession with this conflict over others.

OK, so let's assume that Israel is entitled to the Occupied Territories Judea and Samaria by right of conquest.

What happens to the Palestinian population of these territories, then?

If Israel wants to annex these lands, fine; let's momentarily concede them the right to do that. What rights does the State of Israel have with regards to the population of these annexed lands?

They can't expel the Palestinian population; that's a violation of just about every core principle of human rights, and could even be classified as ethnic cleansing when you get right down to it (I could use the "G-word" here, but I'll avoid the controversy of doing that just yet). The global community would be quite justified in condemning Israel for such a thing, and it would further be destructive to the self-image of Judaism as a faith, given the unique history of the Jewish people (mumble, mumble, Nietzche quote "become the monster", mumble).

Alternatively, Israel could effectively institutionalize the Palestinians' status as second-class citizens, limit them to an ever-shrinking set of enclaves, limit their ability to exercise self-government or curtail that right altogether, and significantly curtail or even utterly eliminate their civil rights. The model of South Africa and apartheid comes to mind, and that, too, would be something the world would be quite justified in condemning.

Finally, Israel could recognize that morality dictates that if Palestinians are to be residents of Israel, then they must be citizens of Israel, and work slowly to incorporate them into its citizenry, eventually granting them full civil rights, including the franchise. This is likely the only policy that would meet with international standards of human rights and decency; unfortunately for Israel's Jewish population, it would also likely be the end of Zionism, as the resultant shared State of Israel could not be a Jewish state and still welcome Palestinians as full citizens with full civil and human rights (and of course this leaves aside the question of actually pacifying the Palestinian population in question, to the point where'd they'd be willing to effectively become full and genuine Israelis).

This is the real question going forward, then: Whither Israel? What will its moral and ethnic character be in the decades to come, given the choices it must inevitably make?

Note I do not believe Israel is entitled to the West Bank any more than Russia is entitled to East Prussia/Kalingrad, China Tibet, Morocco Western Sahara, etc.

Just noted that Israel is not going to return to the 1967 boundaries. Certainly they are NOT giving up the Temple Mount.

Now you did not mention one other possiblity. That Israel annexs only PART of the West Bank, and still allows part of it to be fully independent. This would be a two state solution just with different borders than the 1967 ones.

As you note Israel realistically cannot do what is he Soviets did to East Prussia, and I doubt most Israelis would want to.

And will not want that many Arabs as it could upset the Jewish majority.

Allowing Palestinians to have much of even perhaps most of the 1967 West Bank while taking a piece of it seems most logical. It gives Israel more land and security without having to deal with as many Arabs.

The main question becomes where to draw the new borders.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... We-map.png
Now if I were Israel I would draw the border slightly West of Jenin, Nablus and Ramallah and slightly South of Ramallah and Jericho. This would allow Israel to take most of the West Bank without causing the ethnic problems. The Arabs in the area taken would be given citizenship as they would not be enough to cause problems.

Note I am not saying this is the morally right thing to do. Just what it would be most logical for Israel to do.

[Canadian Davsland]

Israel having a temper tanrtum and storming off off like a spoiled bratty kid only makes them look more pathetic and childish. Also, cutting off funding to UN groups and nation, not to mention cutting diplomatic relations with nations just because they got their way isolates Israel further and pusheds the world to support a two state resolution or an independent palestinian state.

Netanyahu and his Zionist cronies are doing damage to Israel and it's standing in the world.

Damage that they will inevitably blame on Arabs.

Unfortunately yes. When really the blame is on Netanyahu, his failed policies, his ignorance, and support of his Zionist cronies.

[Wallenburg]

Damage that they will inevitably blame on Arabs.

Unfortunately yes. When really the blame is on Netanyahu, his failed policies, his ignorance, and support of his Zionist cronies.

Technically, anyone who supports the right for Israel to exist is "Zionist". It's not exactly Zionism that is the problem here, it's Netanyahu's failure to make it work with the rights of other people.

[Novus America]

Unfortunately yes. When really the blame is on Netanyahu, his failed policies, his ignorance, and support of his Zionist cronies.

Technically, anyone who supports the right for Israel to exist is "Zionist". It's not exactly Zionism that is the problem here, it's Netanyahu's failure to make it work with the rights of other people.

Thing is Netanyahu seems like he is not interested in negotiating in good faith, and neither is the Palestinian government. Moreover it is quite possible Netanyahu is not even sure what to do. Some ultra nationalists in his coalition want the whole West Bank, but more moderates in his coalition, the issue of what to do with the people there and international pressure make this unworkable.

A lot would be fine with only part of the West Bank, but agreeing what part is difficult and the ultra nationalists would not give up an inch.

The Palestinians also will not give up any part, and a huge number refuse to accept the existence of Israel at all.

So there is quite an impasse. Realistically getting both sides to agree on it is impossible.