Huh? The scenario you proposed is that the IDF disarms the settlers and then leaves. This would get the settlers murdered, unless they run away to Israel. Obviously they could flee to Israel, that’s the whole point of Israel - so when someone decides to cleanse the Jewish ethnicity from their land, they have somewhere to go. Some of them would successfully do that, some would die trying, and some would refuse to flee and then be murdered.
No, but if the IDF left the West Bank, do you think the Palestinians would make that distinction?
Considering the fact that the Palestinian Authority pays bounties for the murder of any Israeli, settler, criminal settler, or in Tel Aviv, why would we expect that they would?
I fully expect that in the event of a two state solution there would be few if any Jewish people allowed to remain in Palestine, while Arab Israelis would of course remain Israeli.
I proposed multiple scenarios to end the ongoing brutality and human rights violations in the West Bank. AFAICT you oppose them all, and best I can figure, it’s because you think human rights violations are something of value to be traded (at least when they’re happening to Palestinians), not (as I feel) something everyone has an obligation to stop.
And that’s why you’ve made hundreds of posts denouncing the Martyr Fund and calling on Palestinians to unilaterally oppose that regardless of what Israel does or does not do, right? Can you just link me to that thread?
You’re so worried about innocent civilian lives, which is why you raise so much awareness about the worst ongoing genocide - in Sudan, where more people have died in the last few weeks than in this entire Gaza war. Can you link that thread please?
Is there a thread on that? I’d be happy to contribute, but there’s probably not much of a discussion when everyone agrees. I’m not really a “me too!” poster. I like arguing. Agreement isn’t nearly as interesting.
Maybe start a thread about how it’s wrong to crush the skulls of puppies? I’d chime in my opposition there too.
Does anyone disagree with your contributions to the Bondi shooting thread?
Anyways, you do you. I’m just not really inclined to take it very seriously when people say they’re so driven by human rights and international law but there’s exactly one context where they want to discuss it.
What I find fascinating is that I used to think that people who agreed with me on things like liberal values arrived at that agreement through a very similar process of reasoning; but I’ve learned that there are many people who arrive at the same conclusion that I do on many issues even though they have entirely different values that just happen to lead to the same outcomes in some but not all cases.
Yes - I find it absolutely mind blowing that people hold ideas like “the stronger party is responsible for unilateral deescalation simply because they are stronger.”
Or that they’d use “tit for tat” as a pejorative when basic game theory tells us this is the only rational way to behave.
I don’t hold that idea. I do hold the stronger party has more responsibility than the weaker party for de-escalation, yes, because they’re stronger… but “more” is not “all”.
Most Palestinians are already doing it – they’re not doing anything to harm Israelis. The ones who are, or are engaging in practices like paying the families of killers or whatever, should and must stop (just like the settlements must stop, the brutality against civilians in the WB must stop, and most importantly, the killing of civilians in Gaza must stop). It all should and must stop now, with no conditions or criteria. Right now at this moment, the vast majority (but not all) of that wrongdoing and killing that must stop is at the hands of Israel.
And most Israelis are already not doing anything to harm Palestinians, so, mission accomplished?
In what world is that how international negotiations work?
Right now Russia should and must stop invading Ukraine and withdraw back to its own borders, renouncing its claim of all parts of Ukraine it claims to have annexed.
Right now the United States should and must impeach Donald Trump and try him for his attempted insurrection on and before January 6, including generating the false slates of electors and inciting a riot at the capitol.
IIRC, Civil Rights, the end of slavery, and the end of Apartheid in SA didn’t happen through “bilateral negotiation”. At least, for the latter, not until protests, sanctions, and civil disruptions had made continuing the policy impossible.
Civil Rights involved a country granting full rights to its own population. Same with Apartheid. Slavery ended through a massive war that was only settled by the total and utter defeat of one side, including what today we would likely call war crimes when Sherman intentionally targeted the civilian population, famously saying he would “Make Georgia howl”.
The solution to the occupation of the West Bank is the creation of an independent Palestinian state. That requires bilateral negotiation.
IMO the solution to the occupation of the West Bank is to stop the occupation of the West Bank. YMMV. Just like the solution to the killing of kids in Gaza is to stop killing kids in Gaza.