Should the State of Israel have a right to exist?

[Washington Resistance Army]

They don't appear to be very interested in expanding their sphere of influence in the Middle East beyond Syrian borders frankly. The idea of Russia invading Israel because of ??? probably don't exist other in the fevered dreams of some Russian neonazis.

I'm sure Ukraine would have said the same thing, just a few years ago. Russia is clearly reassembling the Soviet Union, but not exactly the same as it was, and using a variety of tactics to create their sphere of influence. China, the same.

I'm not saying that Russia or China HAS expressed an immediate interest in the conquest of Israel (for some reason, I'm having to repeat this) - I'm saying if we're going to look at WRA's argument, it is a bad argument (and one that doesn't answer the question - as I pointed out) and there are multiple nations (some of them, superpowers) that could be interested in that little strip of land IF we're going to start using 'conquest is rights' as a rule.

My point was that "conquest is rights" never really stopped being the rule. Now it's just dependent on having The Bomb® and being able to weather economic retaliations. Case in point from your own post even, Russia invaded Ukraine and the world just watched, and to this day they still own a bunch of Ukrainian land.

[Grave_n_idle]

I'm sure Ukraine would have said the same thing, just a few years ago. Russia is clearly reassembling the Soviet Union, but not exactly the same as it was, and using a variety of tactics to create their sphere of influence. China, the same.

I'm not saying that Russia or China HAS expressed an immediate interest in the conquest of Israel (for some reason, I'm having to repeat this) - I'm saying if we're going to look at WRA's argument, it is a bad argument (and one that doesn't answer the question - as I pointed out) and there are multiple nations (some of them, superpowers) that could be interested in that little strip of land IF we're going to start using 'conquest is rights' as a rule.

My point was that "conquest is rights" never really stopped being the rule. Now it's just dependent on having The Bomb® and being able to weather economic retaliations. Case in point from your own post even, Russia invaded Ukraine and the world just watched, and to this day they still own a bunch of Ukrainian land.

Absolutely. That was my point. Russia's continuing occupation of Ukraine is a fairly major issue - just not serious enough to fight a war over (unfortunately for the people of Ukraine, eh?) and a similar situation exists in Taiwan (for example).

In both cases, it is NOT just accepted that if you can hold it with military strength, you win. It's an ongoing international incident, as it (arguably) should be.

As is Israel's illegal occupation.

[Fahran]

Good luck with that, because nobody reasonably nationalistic in 2021 would be willing to surrender their territory, even to a cabal of Western nations. Unless you invade and take it by force of arms ofc.

Not even the Palestinians want an internationally administered Jerusalem. They want East Jerusalem back as their capital. Anything short of that will likely be seen as a justification for continued military action. Jerusalem was probably the biggest stumbling block the last time Israel and Palestine got close to peace, and the exclusion of religious authorities likely hurt that aspect of negotiations.

[Fahran]

Doing as little as possible includes blowing up random civilian housing with airstrikes, forcibly evicting Palestinian families from their homes they’ve lived in for generations so Israelis can take them or just bulldozing them, tear gassing their way into mosques…

Doing as little as possible in Gaza means periodically bombing buildings and structures associated with Hamas to destroy weapons depots and harm their administrative apparatus, and such strikes have a history of working much better while resulting in far fewer casualties, on both sides, than an outright military occupation. The alternative that you propose, of course, would be to accept an increasing frequency of rockets hurling over the border, which no population would accept. Given some of the minor things y'all complain about in the West, I think you can understand why literal rockets might be a concern.

As for the recent expulsions, most of the Palestinian families have only been there about ten to fifteen years longer than Jewish settlers have been in the West Bank - that Palestinians and their fellow travellers want to expel. They were refugee families resettled in homes left by expelled Jewish families after the 1948 War. Many of them weren't properly settled until the 1960s. This is why it was a court case and not a unilateral action. Mind you, I don't think those people should have been expelled without negotiations and land/population transfers, but most people seem to have just forgotten the peace process.

And apparently they’re being forced to do these things because Hamas continues to exist. It all sounds a lot like the STOP MAKING ME HIT YOU abuser line.

Except Hamas is actively striking Israel and will do so with more success in the absence of a response - this has been statistically demonstrated. Though I suppose we should account for the fact that a decent portion of domestic abuse may go both ways, never mind that personal and national relations are different from one another.

[Brittany Normandy Aquitaine]

I pose this question because as an anachronistic imperialist experiment it seems very strange that we allow them to slaughter the native inhabitants like the Israelites slaughtered the Canaanites thousands of years ago just so some whites from Europe can role play as ancient people. Seems kind of strange to me. What do you think?

no, Israel should be a Christian nation in the Holy Land.

[Fahran]

The problem with this argument that Israel needs to maintain it's occupied and conquered territories is that it is a precedent. You're arguing that that area belongs to whoever can take and hold it... and that honestly sounds like a bad assertion for any nation to be making.

No. I'm arguing that borders should be dictated by both legally binding treaties and practical realities. It's why I tend to describe East Jerusalem and occupied portions of the West Bank as the Disputed Territories. I expect proper negotiations will see some reasonable and fair division of the territory in question if we can ever get back to those. The issue is that the 1968 borders that weren't respected in 1968 cannot be a starting point for negotiations given the political events that have transpired since then. Each side should be able to negotiate with what they actually have to offer - with the knowledge that they'll both have to give up prior and current territorial claims.

[Grave_n_idle]

The problem with this argument that Israel needs to maintain it's occupied and conquered territories is that it is a precedent. You're arguing that that area belongs to whoever can take and hold it... and that honestly sounds like a bad assertion for any nation to be making.

No. I'm arguing that borders should be dictated by both legally binding treaties and practical realities. It's why I tend to describe East Jerusalem and occupied portions of the West Bank as the Disputed Territories

They're not disputed. They are illegal occupations. That's not debatable, it's been settled for decades.

[Fahran]

PRC actually has more interest in Israel as a military and economic ally. And vice versa for Israel should America ever fail to support it. Which should be frankly concerning for American planners.

Turkey and Israel both have ideal geopolitical situations as middling powers. They have enough to offer to entice any one of the three large global powers, and can freely choose between options if one should fail to support them. Existing alliances won't really interfere with such alignments either - as evidenced by the US keeping Israel and numerous Arab polities on-side without too much difficulty. China has been able to cozy up to Pakistan and Turkic countries while staging a genocide of Uyghurs as well. And Russia has literally courted Israel as an ally in the immediate past.

[Fahran]

They're not disputed. They are illegal occupations. That's not debatable, it's been settled for decades.

While the international community may trumpet this on a routine basis, the problem is that the law has pretty much always been murky when it comes to partitions and wartime borders. And this would absolutely be the case if the shoe were on the other foot. This is why Jordan and Egypt were not similarly chastised between 1948 and 1967 for carrying out very similar policies in terms of expulsions and resettlements. The Oslo Accords set out a road map to peace that will legitimize de jure and de facto borders. Again, the problem is a refusal to accept shifts that have occurred since 1967 in the same way that the shifts that occurred in 1948 weren't accepted until after another war was lost.

[Grave_n_idle]

They're not disputed. They are illegal occupations. That's not debatable, it's been settled for decades.

While the international community may trumpet this on a routine basis, the problem is that the law has pretty much always been murky when it comes to partitions and wartime borders. And this would absolutely be the case if the shoe were on the other foot. This is why Jordan and Egypt were not similarly chastised between 1948 and 1967 for carrying out very similar policies in terms of expulsions and resettlements. The Oslo Accords set out a road map to peace that will legitimize de jure and de facto borders. Again, the problem is a refusal to accept shifts that have occurred since 1967 in the same way that the shifts that occurred in 1948 weren't accepted until after another war was lost.

I'm not interested in rationalisations or excuses. You said you 'tend to describe' those territories as disputed. They aren't. The occupation is illegal. It's that simple, and has been for decades.

Israel's continued occupation despite that doesn't make them disputed territories, it makes them illegally occupies territories with an occupier that refuses to acknowledge the occupation while simultaneously complaining about the repercussions of the occupation.

[Fahran]

I'm not interested in rationalisations or excuses. You said you 'tend to describe' those territories as disputed. They aren't. The occupation is illegal. It's that simple, and has been for decades.

Israel's continued occupation despite that doesn't make them disputed territories, it makes them illegally occupies territories with an occupier that refuses to acknowledge the occupation while simultaneously complaining about the repercussions of the occupation.

It's only illegal until a peace settlement legitimizes it or until half a dozen generations pass. Plenty of borders change from year to year, from decade to decade. It's still happening. The UN attempting to freeze one particular border with a nation-state that didn't exist in the 1990s won't hold up indefinitely. Eventually, "settlers" will have been there longer than at least some Palestinian families and you'll be proposing to do precisely what the Zionists did without the illusion time presently provides of moral righteousness.

If the Arabs can win, I wouldn't oppose it so much - at least not the principle of it. If they cannot win, they should cut a deal that gives them the greatest advantage and then work towards revanchist goals on a stronger footing. As a matter of realpolitik.

Mind you, I don't support the settlement policy, but I don't support borders that weren't recognized by the aggrieved party in 1967 either. I support a compromise that'll likely leave everyone unhappy on some level, but that will allow for peace. The region is a demographic time-bomb at present. The expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Jews from the Arab world and the explosion in the Palestinian population due to high fertility rates are going to create conflict regardless.

[Senkaku]

It's only illegal until a peace settlement legitimizes it or until half a dozen generations pass.

Sort of sums up the Israeli attitude, doesn’t it? Why don’t they just stop pretending they want the world’s moral approval? If our censoriousness doesn’t bother them, if there’s no validity to the moral criticisms of their campaign of conquest, then why do you and the Israeli state both continue engaging with it? You’ve decided moral legitimacy rests in your ability to go forth and slaughter or repress half a dozen generations of Palestinians; since you apparently don’t care what the world thinks about this, go forth and test your mettle, and stop complaining and begging for American aid when others take offense and try to put a stop to it.

[Fahran]

Sort of sums up the Israeli attitude, doesn’t it? Why don’t they just stop pretending they want the world’s moral approval?

Everyone pretends to want the world's moral approval. The Palestinians do so as well - hence many of them playing liberal and cosmopolitan when they're, properly speaking, Islamists or secular nationalists of some variety.

Israel, rightly in many cases, perceives the structure of global legal constructs as applied to this particular conflict as inequitable in the resolution of the Arab-Israeli struggle. An equitable outcome would have involved equitable land and population transfer beginning in 1948 or, at the very least, a cessation of hostilites following the de facto partition of the Mandate. As I have pointed out before, the present situation would not have occurred if the de jure and de facto borders had been acknowledged and respected before 1967.

The one-state solution many have promoted as an alternative essentially grants multiple Arab states a right to exist while subsuming the Jewish state into yet another Arab-majority state. This is symptomatic of the problem in approaching this issue from a liberal and cosmopolitan mindset when the people actually involved aren't properly speaking liberal or cosmopolitan when push comes to shove. They can't afford to be.

If our censoriousness doesn’t bother them, if there’s no validity to the moral criticisms of their campaign of conquest, then why do you and the Israeli state both continue engaging with it? You’ve decided moral legitimacy rests in your ability to go forth and slaughter or repress half a dozen generations of Palestinians; since you apparently don’t care what the world thinks about this, go forth and test your mettle, and stop complaining and begging for American aid when others take offense and try to put a stop to it.

I'm not an Israeli. As I've mentioned before, I'm not particularly awestruck by the settlement policy. I've described it as criminal and immoral in the past even. My point here, however, is that insistence on a return to borders that have been defunct for over half a century and that were not even recognized by those who want said return at the time they existed as a starting point for negotiations is silly. Many of the same powers standing on the soapbox have been leaders in annexing or carving up states that they defeated in war. And it wasn't called conquest then. Israel has backed off numerous times. Israel was willing to back off in 2005 if concessions were made equitably. That may have changed since 2017 or 2018 though. Likud is leaning harder and harder into simply slowly eating the West Bank.

[Vellocatus]

go forth and slaughter or repress half a dozen generations of Palestinians

checks history;

I suppose repeatedly provoking war with Israel and then getting your ass handed to you again and again does count as slaughter.

[Middle Vers]

No states should exist.

A united humanity is a much better option but people apparently don't like each other.

The world would be a much better place if humanity worked together as a whole. Too bad we're so naive and butthurt. We'd colonize and/or twrraform another planet or two by now.

[Senkaku]

Sort of sums up the Israeli attitude, doesn’t it? Why don’t they just stop pretending they want the world’s moral approval?

Everyone pretends to want the world's moral approval. The Palestinians do so as well - hence many of them playing liberal and cosmopolitan when they're, properly speaking, Islamists or secular nationalists of some variety.

Israel, rightly in many cases, perceives the structure of global legal constructs as applied to this particular conflict as inequitable in the resolution of the Arab-Israeli struggle. An equitable outcome would have involved equitable land and population transfer beginning in 1948 or, at the very least, a cessation of hostilites following the de facto partition of the Mandate. As I have pointed out before, the present situation would not have occurred if the de jure and de facto borders had been acknowledged and respected before 1967.

The one-state solution many have promoted as an alternative essentially grants multiple Arab states a right to exist while subsuming the Jewish state into yet another Arab-majority state. This is symptomatic of the problem in approaching this issue from a liberal and cosmopolitan mindset when the people actually involved aren't properly speaking liberal or cosmopolitan when push comes to shove. They can't afford to be.

This would make sense if I were some sort of “from the river to the sea” nutjob, but I’m well aware Israel’s nuclear weapons alone make an Arab one-state solution quite impossible (to say nothing of displacing millions who’ve lived there for generations now).

If our censoriousness doesn’t bother them, if there’s no validity to the moral criticisms of their campaign of conquest, then why do you and the Israeli state both continue engaging with it? You’ve decided moral legitimacy rests in your ability to go forth and slaughter or repress half a dozen generations of Palestinians; since you apparently don’t care what the world thinks about this, go forth and test your mettle, and stop complaining and begging for American aid when others take offense and try to put a stop to it.

I'm not an Israeli.

I’m aware, the second person was just me writing a continuation of my inner monologue addressed towards the people I’m actually most angry at here (Israelis in favor of continuing the annexations); but you’d do well to remember that Israel’s American enablers and propagandists are a vital part of its imperial project, and that means that whatever qualms or squeamishness you may feel about the settlement policy, your vigorous defenses of the Israeli state’s long-term vision of ethnic cleansing make you at least somewhat morally complicit in its crimes.

As I've mentioned before, I'm not particularly awestruck by the settlement policy. I've described it as criminal and immoral in the past even. My point here, however, is that insistence on a return to borders that have been defunct for over half a century and that were not even recognized by those who want said return at the time they existed as a starting point for negotiations is silly.

But as you noted a few posts ago, Israel was at one point willing to do such things unilaterally with the hope of peace! The withdrawal from Gaza shows that returning to borders that have been defunct for decades is within Israel’s capabilities; the real question is whether that specific withdrawal was evidence of a poorly-thought-out desire for peace, or a stratagem to increase dysfunction and pressure in Gaza to hasten the time when Israel would be able to fully subdue it while minimizing the cost of such a cleansing operation.

Many of the same powers standing on the soapbox have been leaders in annexing or carving up states that they defeated in war.

If we disqualified people from speaking out against present evil on the basis of their past sins, everything would be permitted.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

If we are to entertain irredentist claims from at least 60 years ago when is Russia returning Königsberg to its rightful owners? <.>

[Vassenor]

Doing as little as possible includes blowing up random civilian housing with airstrikes, forcibly evicting Palestinian families from their homes they’ve lived in for generations so Israelis can take them or just bulldozing them, tear gassing their way into mosques…

Doing as little as possible in Gaza means periodically bombing buildings and structures associated with Hamas to destroy weapons depots and harm their administrative apparatus, and such strikes have a history of working much better while resulting in far fewer casualties, on both sides, than an outright military occupation. The alternative that you propose, of course, would be to accept an increasing frequency of rockets hurling over the border, which no population would accept. Given some of the minor things y'all complain about in the West, I think you can understand why literal rockets might be a concern.

As for the recent expulsions, most of the Palestinian families have only been there about ten to fifteen years longer than Jewish settlers have been in the West Bank - that Palestinians and their fellow travellers want to expel. They were refugee families resettled in homes left by expelled Jewish families after the 1948 War. Many of them weren't properly settled until the 1960s. This is why it was a court case and not a unilateral action. Mind you, I don't think those people should have been expelled without negotiations and land/population transfers, but most people seem to have just forgotten the peace process.

And apparently they’re being forced to do these things because Hamas continues to exist. It all sounds a lot like the STOP MAKING ME HIT YOU abuser line.

Except Hamas is actively striking Israel and will do so with more success in the absence of a response - this has been statistically demonstrated. Though I suppose we should account for the fact that a decent portion of domestic abuse may go both ways, never mind that personal and national relations are different from one another.

Remember, those random civilian housing blocks were totally Hamas weapon caches because the Israeli government said so without providing evidence because the Israeli government would never lie to make itself look good.

[Duvniask]

If we are to entertain irredentist claims from at least 60 years ago when is Russia returning Königsberg to its rightful owners? <.>

Sorry, but warm water ports are like crack to the Russian state. No can do.

[Nouvelle Alexandrie]

Israel this, Palestine that. I'm tired of it all.
How about, instead of a one state solution, or a two state solution, or a no state solution, the United States just ANNEXES israel and palestine as the 51st state.

[Kubra]

Israel this, Palestine that. I'm tired of it all.
How about, instead of a one state solution, or a two state solution, or a no state solution, the United States just ANNEXES israel and palestine as the 51st state.

Senate seats.

[Fahran]

This would make sense if I were some sort of “from the river to the sea” nutjob, but I’m well aware Israel’s nuclear weapons alone make an Arab one-state solution quite impossible (to say nothing of displacing millions who’ve lived there for generations now).

I don't consider Arabs arguing for such an extreme approach nutjobs. They're not socially acceptable in polite circles, but their vision, minus the Antisemitism, is coherent and rooted in an Arab nationalist framework that had a lot more weight before 1967. In 1948, they could probably could have accomplished that localized goal. That said, any solution that isn't a blanket land transfer or the acceptance of substantial ethnic minorities by both sides is going to require the expulsion of tens if not hundreds of thousands of people who have lived in their communities for a generation or two. It's a consequence of first the Arabs and then the Jews rushing to settle refugees and immigrants in the homes of the refugees they created through their warring. As well as rapidly growing populations among the Arabs, Sephardim/Mizrachim, and Charedim.

I’m aware, the second person was just me writing a continuation of my inner monologue addressed towards the people I’m actually most angry at here (Israelis in favor of continuing the annexations); but you’d do well to remember that Israel’s American enablers and propagandists are a vital part of its imperial project, and that means that whatever qualms or squeamishness you may feel about the settlement policy, your vigorous defenses of the Israeli state’s long-term vision of ethnic cleansing make you at least somewhat morally complicit in its crimes.

Eh, my stance is more akin to arguing that the Israelis, Palestinians, and UN are all behaving nonsensically while not contemplating viewpoints beyond their own. Especially recently given the turn Likud has taken towards a more hardline position. I think historically the Israelis, in spite of their actual policies - which I consider barbaric, have held the most reasonable position. A partial annexation of the oldest settlements as part of a lasting peace is an acceptable conclusion to a war other people started, especially if Palestinian settlements on the Israeli side of the 1967 borders become part of Palestine proper. I think such transfers are necessary to create two viable nation-states. Never mind how interconnected those two-nation states would have to be to properly function even with this approach.

There's a reason access to the Israeli job market is a hot-button issue with Hamas's constituents to the point that they cared about it more than the right of return protests in many cases.

But as you noted a few posts ago, Israel was at one point willing to do such things unilaterally with the hope of peace! The withdrawal from Gaza shows that returning to borders that have been defunct for decades is within Israel’s capabilities; the real question is whether that specific withdrawal was evidence of a poorly-thought-out desire for peace, or a stratagem to increase dysfunction and pressure in Gaza to hasten the time when Israel would be able to fully subdue it while minimizing the cost of such a cleansing operation.

Given Israel's attempt to coordinate with Fatah to keep Hamas from seizing power, I think they underestimated internal Palestinian political machinations. While Hamas's extremism endeared them to many, they also had the benefit of not being corrupt plutocrats who were seen as stalling out a failing peace process. Never mind that the peace process can't proceed with the current popular viewpoints on either side. Palestinians were elated and supportive when Arafat rejected a deal that would have given them 100% of Gaza and 97% of the West Bank because, as I pointed out before, the view is that previous wartime losses were "compromises" in their national vision.

And, at this stage, Israel is probably more nakedly in favor of gradual displacement and annexation than they ever have been, which is another nail in the coffin.

If we disqualified people from speaking out against present evil on the basis of their past sins, everything would be permitted.

The thing is that it's not readily called an evil and there's not really been any effort to reverse it because the political will isn't there and the ethnic cleansing/resettlement has already been largely carried out. It's an ongoing process in many places in fact - and through similar means. We at least have some potential to define borders and put a stop to it here.

[Fahran]

Israel this, Palestine that. I'm tired of it all.
How about, instead of a one state solution, or a two state solution, or a no state solution, the United States just ANNEXES israel and palestine as the 51st state.

Senate seats.

I'm here for the spicy Hamas-Libertarian win. Johnson/Mashal 2028.

[The Knockout Gun Gals]

I suppose a state that supports extreme oppression has less rights.

[Relden]

I suppose a state that supports extreme oppression has less rights.

A state that bullies those around it and manipulates the domestic affairs of it's faithful allies.