…eight field hospitals isn’t enough to cope with the devastation of the Gazan healthcare system. Surely you know this.
From the article:
This is simply a lie.
I’ve shown to you before this is a lie. I’ve provided cites and everything. Yet here you are again, sharing a link to an outdated 2018 opinion piece that is predicated on a lie and expect us to think that this is somehow relevant.
There isn’t going to be a two-state solution. It isn’t just Gaza. Its whats happening on the West Bank. Gazans will either escape from Gaza, live under a brutal occupation, or they will die. On the West Bank Israel will keep on confiscating land until there is no where else for the Palestinians to go.
96% of 67 borders is not 67 borders. This confirms what I thought that since Camp David it’s been about the Palestinians not accepting less than an Israeli withdrawal to internationally recognized territory.
It is one of multiple factors behind the Palestinian rejection of a two state solution, of course it is.
From 47 to 79 the Palestinians had a bunch of surrounding Arab countries saying “don’t make peace, one of these days we will wipe out Israel and give all the land to you guys”.
Since then, those Arab states have made peace with Israel.
In a sane world, Palestinians would realize at this point that they aren’t ever getting rid of the Jews, and agree to a two state solution. But instead, with international cheerleading and clandestine support from Iran, they are more determined for a single state Palestine from the river to the sea than ever.
Sure, but there were land swaps to make up for it (Israeli territory from beyond the green line traded in exchange for the 4% we are talking about).
Sucks to suck. You can’t say “ok, 1947, we are going to wipe you off the map. Oh no, it didn’t work! Ok, 1967, NOW we will wipe you off the map. Oh no, it didn’t work! OK, 1973, now we will REALLY wipe you off the map! Oh no, we failed again! OK, Intifada! That didn’t work? OK, Intifada 2.0, now with extra suicide bombings! Oh, that didn’t work either? So, 67 borders, we cool, right?”
If you think Intifadas and Oct 7ths are justified over 4% of the land (even though you get other land to make up for it), then frankly, we are operating from such divergent frameworks that I don’t know we will ever see eye to eye.
When you lose a war, you tend to get less than you would have had if you agreed not to fight the war to begin with. That’s kinda Diplomacy 101. Obviously - that’s how states disincentivize each other from fighting wars at every petty disagreement.
If Israel had lost the Yom Kippur war, do you think the terms that the victorious Arab states would have imposed on Israel would have been “a return to 67 borders”? (Not you as in @Cheesesteak, I mean the general “you”).
Obviously it doesn’t, which is why I don’t think this is the reason for Palestinian views on the two-state solution.
BTW, I presume this is about public opinion on the matter, since Fatah supports the 67 borders and Hamas believes what they do because they’re religious extremists.
I think Palestinians have declined in support of the two-state solution for similar reasons to Israelis – we’re now so long from the leadership making any progress in talks, at this point Israeli withdrawal would be a much more significant undertaking than it was in the 90’s due to how much settlements have expanded and its easy to see why members of the public distrust an idea that has essentially made negative progress over the past 2 decades.
No idea, but it’s hard to claim that Palestinian leaders reject the 67 borders when they’re only ever offered less than the 67 borders.
Do I think Palestinian leaders should take what they can get from the obviously more powerful Isreal? Yes. Does the fact that they disagree with me mean they would never accept anything other than wiping Israel off the map? No.
Sorry to be a broken record, but I’m not passing any judgments on whether Israel is in the right or wrong for not offering a full disengagement from the West Bank.
I’m saying people who criticize Palestinians for not accepting the 67 borders are wrong, because they aren’t offered the 67 borders. If you want to criticize them for not accepting a deal where some level of occupation in the West Bank occurs east of the 67 borders, criticize them for that.
Oh sure, I get that part. I was thinking more of the “we’ll let anyone in whose family may have once lived here” idea. Has anyone besides Myer Lansky been denied? Maybe someone could find some scrolls showing that Antarctica is the true holy land, and the zealots in both sides can kill each other there for a change.
Sadly, to paraphrase you from above, there are too many people on both sides operating from such divergent frameworks that I don’t know they will ever see eye to eye. Eye for an eye, on the other hand, they seem to have figured out
The problem is maximalists. Saying 94% of the land plus land you weren’t ‘entitled’ to to begin with isn’t enough is maximalism.
Israel is never offering a 100% return to 67 borders. The vast majority of the settlements, and all of the ones deep into Gaza, can and should be evicted; but there are a handful of places where a city has basically grown over the border, and that can only be accounted for with land swaps.
Much of East Jerusalem - the parts that didn’t have Jewish majority populations at the time of Olmert’s offer - were on the table. And much of the old city/the religious sites would have come under international management. East Jerusalem would have been the capital of the Palestinian state.
I think clarifying this is important, because if Palestinian leaders reject a straight-up, you get a complete end to the occupation, there’s no real way to explain that other than they actually do want Israeli territory. If there are proposals that have practical considerations and allow Israel to maintain occupation in some areas and Palestinian leaders reject them, that is more indicative of them not agreeing that those particulars were an acceptable compromise.
Then why did they always walk away while talking about a right of return* rather than attempting to negotiate over the 4% Israel wanted to keep or the 4% Israel was offering in exchange?
One thing they could say is “the 4% you are giving us sucks, we want better land or more of it”.
Another thing they could say is “parts of the 4% you are taking are too important, we want to keep those”.
They did neither. They said “right of return” and walked away.
*again, to Israel proper. If they want to let in the entire population of China once there is a Palestine, that’s none of Israel’s business.
I thought that you were one of the people who said Israel should ceasefire now, which I assume means accepting the ceasefire on the terms currently presented by Hamas (or worse, a unilateral ceasefire). If I am mistaken about that, I apologize.
Obviously, I disagree. I think Israel is dismantling Hamas in the only way it can be tackled.
The question is what will happen once Hamas has been knocked down. The only way to knock it out is to replace it. Netanyahu doesn’t have a plan for this second stage; I hope his war cabinet either forces him to implement one or (at this point the preferable option) topples the government.
They by a majority, supported the October 7th attacks and support the destruction of Israel.
The point I’m making is that Hamas doesn’t operate in a vacuum, there has to be some measure of popular support for them to have such a hold on the population, just like Germans when the Nazis were in charge, and I find it jarring that Hamas can literally rape and butcher civilians without much pushback, yet Israel taking the fight back to Hamas own territory is met with outrage. Hamas started the war, not Israel.
I’ve asked this before and i haven’t seen a good answer. If Hamas is mostly guys with guns, how does destroying the structure they happen to be standing in right now make any difference?
I mean, i get that you might take down a building while people are actively standing in it and shooting. But
How can this be if any military value?
It was used yesterday. Tomorrow, they will launch their war from the pile of rubble, instead.
I just don’t see how this helps Israel. I do see how it helps Hamas. Anyone whose home is blown up will move a couple of points from the positive/neutral side of the scale towards “hates Israel with all his heart”.
I didn’t think that in October, or November. I do now. Why the massive destruction? Why herd people back and forth while destroying their homes, livelihoods, hospitals, mosques, and other physical manifestations of culture?
BB has said that there is not enough food in Gaza. Everyone knows that SOME food is getting in.
How does any of the activity of the IDF lead to “Hamas is gone”? It seems to me that it leads to “nearly every surviving Palestinian joins in Hamas’ goals of destroying as much of Israel as they can.”
I’m happy to condemn that. And yes, it obviously happens. And i repeat, destroying those places HELPS Hamas, it doesn’t hurt Hamas. Because they can strike from literally anywhere. They don’t really depend on a big built war machine. The october 7th pogrom didn’t use bombs, or any built structure. So anything that turns the population towards Hamas helps Hamas more than destroying the place they happen to have been lobbing bombs from yesterday hurts it.
Anyway, at this point i think there is no hope of peace. That’s obviously what Hamas wants. They won. I mostly hope they don’t take down Israel with them. But that looks a hell of a lot more likely today than it did on October 8th.