What has Israel ever done for us?

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

The "buffer states" would be better if they didn't harbor terrorists, which they would do a lot less if young men could get a job. There's a story up the thread about Israeli soldiers destroying homesteading equipment donated by Ireland, for no apparent reason than preventing "counter-settlements" on supposedly Palestinian land. A buffer state that was even somewhat prosperous would be neutral or better towards Israel, if the latter helped them establish industry and farming.

Doing the opposite, oppressing the supposed "buffer state" can have no purpose besides attracting gunfire and rockets as a casus belli, and keeping any effective government there from resisting. So they haven't done it yet? They've done it before. They'll just wait until a major-power war happens nearby and they can be sure no major-power will intervene to stop them.



Jews were not threatened in their very existence, by the Holocaust. Nor are the Roma, nor even the Kurds. Israel was a historical mistake, which will not be repeated for the Roma or the Kurds.



I judge "reasonable" to be Israel's borders before any wars. You judge reasonable by "that, plus a bit here and there but not really much"



Um, no it would not have done that. It's highly professional but rather small military would do a poor job of occupying all that, then insurgencies and possible major-power intervention would likely take it all back ... and why not Israel too? Who lives by the sword, dies by the sword.



Stop saying "the Jews" when you mean Israel. Or perhaps Israeli Jews. You're basically slandering a religion by what a country did.

If Israel wanted nothing but peace, they would at least have allowed the West Bank and Gaza Strip to build their own economies and government. But no, the only government that can get elected are former terrorists. Perhaps Israeli Jews have forgotten that before Israel was established, Zionists were terrorists too.



Israel oppresses the surrounding Palestinian territories. Israel being so proud of its democratic traditions, when they have a long history of assassinating Palestinian leaders (other than Arafat, who they liked because he refused to negotiate, creating effectively null leadership) ... and decry Hamas as terrorists even though democratically elected. Well it's just hypocrisy. They oppress the territories, and then feign surprise that people there don't like Israel.

It's hard to see that as good faith. These aren't buffer states. They're borderline failed states which serve as human shields against more capable states, and a standing pretext for invasion whenever it suits Israel. It would be more honest if Israel did invade them, but they would lose troops and that would be unpopular at home.

Imagine you're a Israeli politician, try to convince your people that it's in their best interest to give money and supplies to a nation that is right at that moment shelling you with mortars, who are responsible for the death of your citizens and soldiers just that morning. I'd be surprised if anyone took you seriously. How many times has Palestine reached out to Israel about getting funding for it's own people? How many times have the Palestinians reached out with an olive branch for peace? Last i checked they haven't made any serious attempts towards peace with Israel, nor have they sought to encourage their own economy to grow. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink, similarly Israel has been more than open to cooperating with the Palestinians if they demonstrate a willingness to make peace, which they haven't.

The only historical mistake made in that region though was allowing the Palestinians to have their own state without supervision from a nation like Israel, because the Palestinians have chosen to shoot themselves in the foot over and over again to try and gain international sympathy, yet constantly wage atrocities on the peaceful people of Israel. In case you didn't know this, genocide is wrong and has been a constant threat to the Jews since they went into diaspora. Them being given their land back was a blessing and with any luck the Kurds will also be allowed to have their own state in the coming years.

I judge reasonable by historical claims, by which Israel has the best in the land of Israel. I mean going by your metric Israel's borders before war don't result in many changes since they were first forced out by war with the Romans. If that had never happened than the Palestinians as we know them today may not have ever existed.

Who lives by the sword dies by the sword? I can't say i can argue with that given the results of the Six Day War and how the Arabs were totally destroyed in less than a week. Besides if Israel had chosen to keep hold of it's won territory and appealed to the US, do you really think they would suddenly back the aggressors of the conflict, the Arab nations? No.

Israel started the Six Day War. They stated that closure of the Straits of Tiran would cause war, the canal was closed by Egypt (to Israeli shipping only), Egypt mobilized to the border, and Israel struck first.

Israel initially lied that Egyptian armor and aircraft were headed for the border. When nobody believed them, they re-designated their offensive as "pre-emptive". That was more than 50 years ago, but you still believe Egypt struck first, because it affirms your fairy tale that Israel can do no wrong.

They would have supported their allies, Israel as they have done with other groups. And the US wouldn't have backed down to the Soviets, especially during the Cold War-so if Israel had wanted to take back its original borders it would have. It pulled back in the interest of peace, something that it's neighbors take for granted.

"Elected" would appear to be a loose term, given that Palestine isn't considered a democracy by many western democracies. Do you know how many mortar shells were fired into Israel from the Gaza Strip throughout 2019? More than you might think-maybe if those living in the Gaza Strip invested money into farming or industry and less into weapons to kill civilians with, they wouldn't have as many economic issues as they do.

The Palestinians haven't liked Israel since it was given back to the Jews. It has nothing to do with how the Israeli government chooses to interact with the Palestinian government.

The Palestinians had their land taken from them by Zionists. That was their land just the way the US lands are their land, by many generations of their ancestors living there. Their historical claim was even better than that, being longer.

Native Americans > Palestinians > Modern Americans > Israel

And yet I recognize the state of Israel. 70 years is enough to establish its legitimacy. You assert more than that though: Modern Israel's legitimacy from the start. Israel's right to occupy land, with or without war, beyond its previous borders. Israel's right to oppress neighbouring states which it continues to keep weak.

You however are totally mired in Zionist apologism, to the extent you can say "Israel wants nothing but peace" despite acting as a brutal dictator in what are effectively occupied lands.

At least we agree on one thing though, things would be better off if Israel did move in and take back it's historic territory instead of sharing it.

I said it would be more honest of them: reserving the right to conduct military strikes in neighbouring territory, then acting outraged when militia there lob mortars at them, is dishonest playing of the "they started it" card.

"Historic territory" is total bullshit. With this attitude that anything Israel does is right because of "historic" claims, you should not be surprised that some people are still calling for the total abolition of Israel. Their people have no intention of making peace except on their terms: Israel does anything it wants, and any resistance will be met with airstrikes.

Palestine chooses to be Israel's enemy, when cooperation would massively improve the quality of life for those living in Palestinian occupied territory. What gestures has Palestine made towards peace with Israel? Israel actually has made overtures for peace, which have been rejected time and again.

Gee, maybe the Palestinians don't trust Israel? Or maybe their governments not being strong enough to resist Israeli military excursions, do not feel in a strong enough bargaining position to make a treaty?

The reason I didn't reply to all of your post, is that I've heard it all before. It is futile to try to make you address the ongoing mistreatment of the Palestinians, or the completely lopsided death toll, or the "historical" injustice of the foundation of Israel itself, because you'll just pass those over to talk about the good aspects of Israel.

I grant the existence of Israel. Its existence has become legitimate by the passage of time. But until it respects in practice the sovereignty of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, there will never be peace.

[Rusozak]

Boy, this thread was just a magnet for anti-Semitism bringing hot takes ranging from Jewish conspiracies to Holocaust justification. But to answer the question of what has Israel ever done for us? Well, uh...

Hmm...

Given us excuses to shoehorn ourselves into Middle Eastern politics and all those juicy oil fields?

[Treciene]

Many things

[Greater Cesnica]

Boy, this thread was just a magnet for anti-Semitism bring hot takes ranging from Jewish conspiracies to Holocaust justification. But to answer the question of what has Israel ever done for us? Well, uh...

Hmm...

Given us excuses to shoehorn ourselves into Middle Eastern politics and all those juicy oil fields?

Hey, those defense contractors need those juicy government contracts.

[Greater Cesnica]

And where is that evidence?

https://history.state.gov/historicaldoc ... 68v19/d352

At the time of the attack, the U.S.S Liberty was flying the American flag, and its identification was clearly indicated in large white letters and numerals on its hull. It was broad daylight and the weather conditions were excellent. Experience demonstrates that both the flag and the identification number of the vessel were readily visible from the air.

Beginning at about 0515 hours local time on June 8, 1967, and at intervals thereafter prior to the first attack, aircraft believed to be Israeli circled the U.S.S. Liberty on a number of occasions.

Accordingly, there is every reason to believe that the U.S.S. Liberty was or should have been identified, or at least her nationality determined, prior to the attack. In these circumstances, the later military attack by Israeli aircraft on the U.S.S. Liberty is quite literally incomprehensible. As a minimum, the attack must be condemned as an act of military irresponsibility reflecting reckless disregard for human life.

The subsequent attack by Israeli torpedo boats, substantially after the vessel was or should have been identified by Israeli military forces, manifests the same reckless disregard for human life. The silhouette and conduct of the U.S.S. Liberty readily distinguished it from any vessel [Page 636]that could have been considered as hostile. The U.S.S. Liberty was peacefully engaged, posed no threat whatsoever to the torpedo boats, and obviously carried no armament affording it a combat capability. It could and should have been scrutinized visually at close range before torpedoes were fired.

iirc, the most likely reason for Israeli warplanes to engage the Liberty would have been due to the Liberty having gathered evidence of Israeli war crimes in the Sinai against the Egyptians.

[Miku the Based]

2. We can sell them a ton of weapons and be pretty sure they won't go to terrorists this time.

The Uzi has a notorious reputation of getting in the hands of mafia and mobs. The desert eagle is a pop culture icon for gangsters. Sure, not as ubiquitous as other firearms but only one country makes them and they happen to be in 4% of firearm related crime in the US.

[Insaanistan]

This is actually pretty much what I was trying to say.

I thought so. I just wanted to clarify the matter a bit.

Understood and much appreciated.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

Boy, this thread was just a magnet for anti-Semitism bring hot takes ranging from Jewish conspiracies to Holocaust justification. But to answer the question of what has Israel ever done for us? Well, uh...

Hmm...

Given us excuses to shoehorn ourselves into Middle Eastern politics and all those juicy oil fields?

The only reason to interfere with the oil fields is to stop someone else getting them. Considering the captive oil of Canada, the US could ban imports and set its own domestic oil price.

Except I guess the world oil price still matters to US oil companies who do a lot of work overseas. Also if the ME countries pumped hard enough the world oil price would fall significantly below the 'protected' US oil price, putting the US at a trade disadvantage. Shoehorn it is then.

[Miku the Based]

Israeli intelligence has a clean record in combatting fascism and terrorism.

Mossad had connections with Azov battalion in which Brenton Tarrant was a member. Not only that but the murders (extrajudicial killings, the kinder word) by mossad concerning former Nazis is not exactly a good record to keep, especially since it is against international law and against due process of that law.
Just a rumour; There was also a person proclaiming he came from Israel to be at the January 6th protest which left the country soon afterwords.
To give due credit mossad originated from humble beginnings and used to care for integrity and law and order without bias. Could hardly say so now.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

2. We can sell them a ton of weapons and be pretty sure they won't go to terrorists this time.

The Uzi has a notorious reputation of getting in the hands of mafia and mobs. The desert eagle is a pop culture icon for gangsters. Sure, not as ubiquitous as other firearms but only one country makes them and they happen to be in 4% of firearm related crime in the US.

It’s probably because the Uzi actually works. As usual stuff Jewish folks have touched often becomes awesome, guns are not exceptions.

[Atheris]

Really? I'd say militant Islamic fundies can be traced back to the Rashidun Caliphate and maybe even earlier.

The Islam of the Rashidun Caliphate does not really resemble the Islam of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab and the Ikhwan. It's impossible to understate the importance of the Grand Mosque Seizure and the Iranian Revolution on the trajectory of modern Islamist extremism. Umar, in particular, likely wasn't especially interested in forced conversions or making Islam a hegemonic religion or political ideology. It would have meant forfeiting the jizya, which was an important source of income for the early Caliphate. In fact, the Umayyads fell in part because they continued trying to impose the jizya on non-Arab Muslims according to at least one source I've found. A lot of the ideas associated with modern Islamist extremism emerged from the thought of Sayyid Qutb.

'Twas a joke.

[Fahran]

When I say support I mean acknowledging that they are more in the right than Israel. The people of Palestine fought because of Jewish terrorism and Some Jews (not all, I say some) broke international laws and invaded their lands. Have you seen what Isreal has done to Palestine?

Why would we acknowledge a falsehood when doing that does little to strengthen our hand? The Sephardim and Mizrachim were expelled en masse by the Arab nations between 1948 and 1970 to the point that many Arab countries that had once had sizable and culturally significant Jewish minorities had small enclaves of a few hundred remaining at best. The Ashkenazim were butchered wholesale, often with the complicity of their neighbors, even after 1945 and still experienced severe discrimination and Antisemitism in Russia even after the fall of the USSR. And the Arab nations began the war by outright ethnically cleansing Jewish communities that had persisted in Judea, Samaria, and East Jerusalem for millennia and expressed a desire to cleanse all Jews from Israel. Calling that morally right or insinuating that (some) Jews violated international law by repelling these attacks and then securing their own protection is a touch silly at best and downright insidious at worst.

Israel should halt its settlement policy, but it does not owe its political enemies an apology when, had things gone the other way, they would have received neither an apology nor any mercy. Palestine, as a cause, has always been about Arab nationalism in much the same way that Israel and Zionism have always been about Jewish nationalism. It has become about human rights largely because the cause was roundly defeated when it was about Arab nationalism. They're opposite sides of the same coin. So to claim that there's a "morally right" side is more than a bit... sus.

[Fahran]

As long as the settlements exist, and the Israelis use very right of Palestinians to exist as a people as a bargaining chip, there is not good-faith negotiation.

Israel isn't using the right of Palestinians to exist as a people as a bargaining chip. They're using occupied territories as a bargaining chip in an effort to force a geopolitical enemy to the negotiating table to secure de facto extant borders as de jure borders. Is it pleasant? No, not really. Is it moral? Probably not, but it's comprehensible and practical given that plenty of other countries engage in similar behaviors when they can and that a refusal to negotiate following a severe military defeat is a stunningly modern thing.

Israel ceasing its flagrant violations of the Geneva Convention's laws against ethnic cleansing in the settlements (and let's not be facetious, exiling communities and colonizing the land is ethnic cleansing) is a starting point, it is not a goal of negotiations.

The point of negotiations is to secure recognition of Israeli claims on East Jerusalem and certain Jewish inhabited regions taken as a result of the 1967 War. In practice, Israel has been governing these territories as part of Israel proper for around forty years and Jewish communities in those territories have been there for at least two generations. As for the settlement policy and policy of expulsion, yes, it is ethnic cleansing under a number of statutes and it's morally wrong. Pursuing the "solutions" proposed by the Palestinians and UN would also be morally wrong since the actual approach doesn't result in equity for Jews and Palestinians.

Israel shouldn't get special rights that the Arabs have to accommodate in order for the Israelis to even consider peace.

They're not demanding special rights. They simply want negotiations to begin with extant de facto borders instead of with the now largely defunct 1967 borders, which the Arabs didn't even recognize as legitimate in 1967.

The Israelis have no right to continue building the settlements, it is illegal, and the Palestinians have every right to forcibly attack the settlements, including with deadly force, as they are in violation of international law.

I mean... attacking civilians also violates international law...

[Fahran]

The Uzi has a notorious reputation of getting in the hands of mafia and mobs. The desert eagle is a pop culture icon for gangsters. Sure, not as ubiquitous as other firearms but only one country makes them and they happen to be in 4% of firearm related crime in the US.

I mean... most firearm-related crime still involves handguns, especially when we look at homicides. They're cheap and easier to conceal.

[Punished UMN]

As long as the settlements exist, and the Israelis use very right of Palestinians to exist as a people as a bargaining chip, there is not good-faith negotiation.

Israel isn't using the right of Palestinians to exist as a people as a bargaining chip. They're using occupied territories as a bargaining chip in an effort to force a geopolitical enemy to the negotiating table to secure de facto extant borders as de jure borders. Is it pleasant? No, not really. Is it moral? Probably not, but it's comprehensible and practical given that plenty of other countries engage in similar behaviors when they can and that a refusal to negotiate following a severe military defeat is a stunningly modern thing.

Israel ceasing its flagrant violations of the Geneva Convention's laws against ethnic cleansing in the settlements (and let's not be facetious, exiling communities and colonizing the land is ethnic cleansing) is a starting point, it is not a goal of negotiations.

The point of negotiations is to secure recognition of Israeli claims on East Jerusalem and certain Jewish inhabited regions taken as a result of the 1967 War. In practice, Israel has been governing these territories as part of Israel proper for around forty years and Jewish communities in those territories have been there for at least two generations. As for the settlement policy and policy of expulsion, yes, it is ethnic cleansing under a number of statutes and it's morally wrong. Pursuing the "solutions" proposed by the Palestinians and UN would also be morally wrong since the actual approach doesn't result in equity for Jews and Palestinians.

Israel shouldn't get special rights that the Arabs have to accommodate in order for the Israelis to even consider peace.

They're not demanding special rights. They simply want negotiations to begin with extant de facto borders instead of with the now largely defunct 1967 borders, which the Arabs didn't even recognize as legitimate in 1967.

The Israelis have no right to continue building the settlements, it is illegal, and the Palestinians have every right to forcibly attack the settlements, including with deadly force, as they are in violation of international law.

I mean... attacking civilians also violates international law...

Israel is weaponizing its civilians as a means of committing ethnic cleansing to expand its borders, attacking the settlements is not an attack on a civilian population, but the repulsion of military invasion.

How can the Arabs accept negotiations on "extant de facto borders" when those borders exist because of the settlement policy and are constantly being expanded. As I said, you are omitting that Israel is using population replacement and the weaponization of demographics as a bargaining chip. This "Yes, the settlements are ethnic cleansing, and it's wrong" but "we are doing it to force negotiations" is doublespeak. The settlements are hindering negotiations, and Israel knows this, it doesn't stop the settlements because the settlements are the key to a permanent military solution, which it has been pursuing since the Intifada. Israel is using the peace process as a PR stunt, because it has no need of the peace process when it has utterly succeeded in all of its strategic goals. The ceasing of ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians and the dismantling of illegal population replacement is a prerequisite for negotiations.

[Fahran]

Mossad had connections with Azov battalion in which Brenton Tarrant was a member.

As far as I'm aware, the Azov Battalion is recognized as a special operations regiment by the legitimate government of Ukraine and has the tacit backing of the United States and EU as far as I'm aware. The "plausible deniability" that Electronic Intifada's reporters honed in on is that sales were officially made to the government of Ukraine, not directly to the Azov Battalion. Really, short of not supporting Ukraine at all, there's probably no way to ensure that firearms don't end up with a Ukrainian military unit that doesn't like Jews or Roma. And, perhaps, nobody should be supporting Ukraine.

Not only that but the murders (extrajudicial killings, the kinder word) by mossad concerning former Nazis is not exactly a good record to keep, especially since it is against international law and against due process of that law.

I really don't care what international law has to say about the rights afforded to former Nazis when they had no regard for international law as they carried out genocide and their defenders had no regard for international law when they refused to extradite them for trial to Israel. Israel can and should try to smuggle them out of those countries like it did with Eichmann, but, if it can't, well... maybe try them in absentia and sentence them to death?

Just a rumour; There was also a person proclaiming he came from Israel to be at the January 6th protest which left the country soon afterwords.

Sounds unsubstantiated.

To give due credit mossad originated from humble beginnings and used to care for integrity and law and order without bias. Could hardly say so now.

I mean... they're an intelligence agency and a downright effective one by most standards.

[Fahran]

Israel is weaponizing its civilians as a means of committing ethnic cleansing to expand its borders, attacking the settlements is not an attack on a civilian population, but the repulsion of military invasion.

I'm skeptical that argument would fly in an international court for much the same reason that a lot of Israel's excuses would not stave off global ridicule. If you're violating a law, you're violating a law. You may well believe it's just to violate the law, but that's not going to matter to the lawyers or the people who want to see the law enforced.

How can the Arabs accept negotiations on "extant de facto borders" when those borders exist because of the settlement policy and are constantly being expanded. As I said, you are omitting that Israel is using population replacement and the weaponization of demographics as a bargaining chip.

Because the alternative is the increased likelihood of even greater forced concessions later on down the road. Generally, nations don't get to be picky about when and how they negotiate when they lose multiple wars in a decisive fashion. Even in 1967, negotiations would not have led to the status quo ante bellum because the Palestinians and their allies didn't have the military strength or political control over territories to demand that. And yet Palestinian leadership is still demanding the status quo ante bellum of 1967 as the starting point for any ongoing negotiations. It's not practical at all.

[Punished UMN]

Israel is weaponizing its civilians as a means of committing ethnic cleansing to expand its borders, attacking the settlements is not an attack on a civilian population, but the repulsion of military invasion.

I'm skeptical that argument would fly in an international court for much the same reason that a lot of Israel's excuses would not stave off global ridicule. If you're violating a law, you're violating a law. You may well believe it's just to violate the law, but that's not going to matter to the lawyers or the people who want to see the law enforced.

How can the Arabs accept negotiations on "extant de facto borders" when those borders exist because of the settlement policy and are constantly being expanded. As I said, you are omitting that Israel is using population replacement and the weaponization of demographics as a bargaining chip.

Because the alternative is the increased likelihood of even greater forced concessions later on down the road. Generally, nations don't get to be picky about when and how they negotiate when they lose multiple wars in a decisive fashion. Even in 1967, negotiations would not have led to the status quo ante bellum because the Palestinians and their allies didn't have the military strength or political control over territories to demand that. And yet Palestinian leadership is still demanding the status quo ante bellum of 1967 as the starting point for any ongoing negotiations. It's not practical at all.

So states must simply tolerate armed invaders bussing in their own population to replace their own? This is a ridiculous notion and it is not one that is established under international law. Armed migration is a military invasion. The Israeli military shouldn't get to use its own civilians as human shields for its illegal military outposts. The blood of those settlers is on Bibi's hands.

The Palestinians are demanding that their country's sovereignty be recognized by the Israelis as a starting point for negotiations? What an outrage! How can the Palestinians negotiate with the Israelis properly when the Israelis don't even acknowledge the legitimacy of the Palestinians to negotiate? "It's not practical" because the Israelis have designed the demographics of the post-war to be impractical and to make it impossible for a Palestinian state to exist at all.

[Fahran]

So states must simply tolerate armed invaders bussing in their own population to replace their own?

They must tolerate unarmed invaders or employ nonlethal means, absolutely. That's why Israel gets in trouble and draws public ire every time it forcefully halts right of return protests. International law does not look favorably on murdering people for moving into an area you don't want them to move into.

This is a ridiculous notion and it is not one that is established under international law. Armed migration is a military invasion.

Well, it's largely unarmed migration despite being backed by the very armed state.

The Israeli military shouldn't get to use its own civilians as human shields for its illegal military outposts. The blood of those settlers is on Bibi's hands.

The blood of those settlers is on the people who shed that blood in much the same way that the blood of Palestinians killed in hospitals in Gaza is on the hands of the IDF, at least based on how international law sees the situations in question.

The Palestinians are demanding that their country's sovereignty be recognized by the Israelis as a starting point for negotiations?

Within specific and no longer extant borders. That's the rub. Israel already acknowledges Palestinian sovereignty to some degree despite rampant violations of that sovereignty. Both sides are now in the process of haggling over and making demands about who has sovereignty where. And they can't seem to agree on that at all.

What an outrage! How can the Palestinians negotiate with the Israelis properly when the Israelis don't even acknowledge the legitimacy of the Palestinians to negotiate? "It's not practical" because the Israelis have designed the demographics of the post-war to be impractical and to make it impossible for a Palestinian state to exist at all.

Ariel Sharon offered about 96% of the West Bank for a Palestinian state back in 2005, which would have necessitated a withdrawal of many settlements. The deal was refused because it wasn't the status quo ante bellum of 1967, which is what the UN and Palestinian leadership have been demanding since about the 1980s, thirteen or more years after it would have been an option. Palestine could exist tomorrow if the pipedream was abandonned.

[Punished UMN]

So states must simply tolerate armed invaders bussing in their own population to replace their own?

They must tolerate unarmed invaders or employ nonlethal means, absolutely. That's why Israel gets in trouble and draws public ire every time it forcefully halts right of return protests. International law does not look favorably on murdering people for moving into an area you don't want them to move into.

This is a ridiculous notion and it is not one that is established under international law. Armed migration is a military invasion.

Well, it's largely unarmed migration despite being backed by the very armed state.

The Israeli military shouldn't get to use its own civilians as human shields for its illegal military outposts. The blood of those settlers is on Bibi's hands.

The blood of those settlers is on the people who shed that blood in much the same way that the blood of Palestinians killed in hospitals in Gaza is on the hands of the IDF, at least based on how international law sees the situations in question.

The Palestinians are demanding that their country's sovereignty be recognized by the Israelis as a starting point for negotiations?

Within specific and no longer extant borders. That's the rub. Israel already acknowledges Palestinian sovereignty to some degree despite rampant violations of that sovereignty. Both sides are now in the process of haggling over and making demands about who has sovereignty where. And they can't seem to agree on that at all.

What an outrage! How can the Palestinians negotiate with the Israelis properly when the Israelis don't even acknowledge the legitimacy of the Palestinians to negotiate? "It's not practical" because the Israelis have designed the demographics of the post-war to be impractical and to make it impossible for a Palestinian state to exist at all.

Ariel Sharon offered about 96% of the West Bank for a Palestinian state back in 2005, which would have necessitated a withdrawal of many settlements. The deal was refused because it wasn't the status quo ante bellum of 1967, which is what the UN and Palestinian leadership have been demanding since about the 1980s, thirteen or more years after it would have been an option. Palestine could exist tomorrow if the pipedream was abandonned.

Civilians entering an occupied territory with the help of an invading army are no longer merely immigrants, they constitute part of the occupying forces of the invader.

The founders of the Israeli state were quite clear that the peace process was not intended to create peace but to increase the strength of the Israeli state for future wars. The Israelis have yet to implement almost any of their promises, so why shouldn't the Palestinians view any offer that doesn't come with concrete gestures as anything more than an attempt to deceive?

The goal of eradicating Arabs from the whole of Palestine existed in the halls of the Zionist movement before they had even established the Zionist state. The founder of Israel was quite clear on this:

"Does the establishment of a Jewish state [in only part of Palestine] advance or retard the conversion of this country into a Jewish country? My assumption (which is why I am a fervent proponent of a state, even though it is now linked to partition) is that a Jewish state on only part of the land is not the end but the beginning.... This is because this increase in possession is of consequence not only in itself, but because through it we increase our strength, and every increase in strength helps in the possession of the land as a whole.The establishment of a state, even if only on a portion of the land, is the maximal reinforcement of our strength at the present time and a powerful boost to our historical endeavors to liberate the entire country".

Gurion even says in the same letter that the goal of the Zionist movement is that "we must expel the Arabs" (Gurion denied this but it is confirmed by Israeli historian Benny Morris. Moreover, Gurion was also quite clear on the desire to provoke the Arabs into a war as a justification:

The Arabs will have to go, but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as a war

- article Gurion published in New Judea, 1937.

[Indoinastan]

1. They're a middle eastern country that doesn't hate us, so we can use them to have some influence in the region.
2. We can sell them a ton of weapons and be pretty sure they won't go to terrorists this time.
3.

It's a place we park our planes for our middle east wars. Think of it as like one giant air force base.

I agree that they don't hate the US, but judging by America's occupation on Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and Syria, it is clear why the most Middle East nations hate us. Also, I doubt that the weapons won't go to Zionist terrorists. It's most probably going to be used against Palestine or other Islamic states.

[Fahran]

I agree that they don't hate the US, but judging by America's occupation on Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and Syria, it is clear why the most Middle East nations hate us. Also, I doubt that the weapons won't go to Zionist terrorists. It's most probably going to be used against Palestine or other Islamic states.

I mean... the governments of the Middle East don't really hate us. A lot of them are allies of one sort or another. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, the UAE, etc. provide a pretty robust example of that. Turkey was arguably one of our most reliable allies against the USSR up until the USSR collapsed and Erdogan managed to purge the Kemalists from the military. Our principal enemies, despite our complete hopelessness at cultivating good will among local populations, are Iran, Syria, and non-state actors like Hezbollah, Hamas, al-Qaeda, ISIL, and the Taliban and, thankfully, most of them also suck at PR.

Real Arab doomer hours, who's up? "My government sucks, we still haven't liberated Palestine from the Zionist entity, AQAP killed my uncle and my cousin, we're still allied with America for some reason, the Houthis killed my brother, and I saw a prince drinking booze in a hotel despite the fact that I'd get flogged for doing that because it violates sharia."

[The Horror Channel]

It's quite problematic that the U.S. continues to support such a horrible "nation". We didn't support South Africa, and Israel is much worse when it comes to apartheid. They are evil.

[Sundiata]

It's quite problematic that the U.S. continues to support such a horrible "nation". We didn't support South Africa, and Israel is much worse when it comes to apartheid. They are evil.

I think that Israel needs to change its approach to foreign policy as well. One innocent person dead is too many.

[Australian rePublic]

What do you mean what has Israel done for the USA? What has the Central African Republic done for the USA? What has Eswatini done for the USA? Does that mean for that the USA should stop helping them diplomatically? What has Lebanon done for the USA? What has Palestinian done for the USA? Why should the USA favour the interests of other ME countries? At least in Israel, they somewhat share American values, which is diametrically opposite to the rest of the ME