Not everyone agrees with that claim, including the AP.
Moderating
This is jerkish. Knock it off.
Speaking of Al Jazera, they had an article on this yesterday for the anniversary of Nakba (a specific term I wasn’t familiar with–that came up in a Google News search.)
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/5/15/nakba-day-for-palestinians-not-just-an-historical-event
The relevant bit from that article is
Press-freedom groups condemned the attack. They accused the military, which claimed the building housed Hamas military intelligence, of trying to censor coverage of Israel’s relentless offensive against Hamas militants.
It wouldn’t surprise me at all if both were true. The military both wanted to bomb Hamas intelligence and also wanted less press coverage. It’s entirely possible that the primary motive was too help cover up whatever atrocity the military plans next. But i don’t think either the military or Al Jazeera (or the AP) is claiming
Is al Jazeera anti-Israeli? Yes. Is their rhetoric anywhere close to the most inflammatory in the area? Oh hell no. There are both Palestinians and right wing Israelis who do a LOT more to whip up Palestinian terrorists.
You realize that that is exactly the position of the Israeli far-right? They’re the ones claiming that there is no difference between Israel and the settlements, and that abandoning the latter is tantamount to abandoning the former.
It’s just one more belief the anti-peace camps on both sides of the conflict have in common.
I actually HAVE heard people voice that sentiment - the notion that Israel should just tolerate Hamas rockets and simply accept the deaths from the rockets that get past the Iron Dome because they’re so much more powerful than the Palestinians and it’s just not fair for the big, mean, well-equipped bully to fight back/defend its population. Rather like the US should have just tolerated the 9/11 attacks instead of going after bin Laden.
One problem is that the optics of Israel bringing down large buildings is terrible, no matter if the reason behind doing that was justified or not. By bombing a building full of journalists it pretty much guarantees the press will not be friendly towards Israel going forward.
No matter the outcome it will be bad for Israel.
Honestly, it’s a situation in which no one really wins.
There will never be any meaningful, lasting peace as long a Israel treats people born in their country as second rate citizens or unwanted visitors.
The body count says it all.
" At least 10,033 Palestinians and 1,275 Israelis have been killed by someone from the other side since 2000."
https://israelpalestinetimeline.org/charts/
One Israeli is worth between 8 and 9 Palestinians.
By those numbers, isn’t it between 7 and 8?
Of all the pointless nitpicking…
The most equitable settlement would be two independent states, Israel and Palestine, existing in peace side-by-side.
Over the last 70+ years, Israel’s people and leaders have, on a number of occasions, shown themselves open to such a position.
But it’s been an absolute non-starter among the overwhelming majority of Palestinians and Arabs, be they ordinary people or those in power.
That is the crux of the problem.
Do you think that may have something to do with the fact that Hamas uses civilians as human shields? Do they bear any responsibility for their actions? Do you think Israel would be blowing up random civilian buildings if Hamas wasn’t using them to wage war against Israel?
Using civilians as human shields is a war crime - one that’s completely glossed over by many.
So if more Israelis were killed, you’d be happier?
Obviously, I’d want both numbers to be as low as possible, but as an Israeli I want my government to care more about its citizens than it does about anyone else. That’s what I pay them for, and that’s what you pay your government for, too. I’m not going to apologize for that. Does that make me evil? I don’t know. What it does make me, though, is alive - which is always better than the alternative.
It demonstrates the extreme power differential. Hamas (and others among the extremely violent within the larger Palestinian population) want to kill every Jew – and all they’ve managed to kill are ~1200 or so in 20 years. The IDF actually takes some care (probably not enough in some instances) to only target violent extremists, and yet they’ve killed over 10,000 in 20 years (not sure if a significant portion of that body count were killed by non-IDF actors – i.e. roving mobs or whatever).
That’s just an astronomical power differential.
Exactly.
Now, in a perfect world, Israel and this newly independent Palestinian state would develop strong economic and social ties over time. With lessening hostilities, social and economic ties with neighboring nations would strengthen as well. At some point, maybe these ties could grow into something more, like a European Union style partnership (“But Arabs and Jews have been fighting for thousands of years!” say people ignorant of both Middle Eastern or European history). It wouldn’t surprise me to see this happen within the century.
But until that happens, a two state solution is the only way to ensure everyone has a government that’s truly looking out for their rights.
For that same reason, while imagining two multicultural and multiethnic nations is a wonderful goal and vision for the future, it isn’t realistic. The Palestinians will not be happy with a solution that leaves significant Jewish populations under Palestinian rule, nor would they agree to give up all land on which Jewish Israelis now live. That’s why the settlements have to go, and Israel has to be willing to evict them.
Israel meanwhile will end up with significant Arab populations; most Arab Israelis who live in Israel, not Gaza or the West Bank, are against population or land swaps. And who can blame them? Dysfunctional as the Netanyahu government can be, daily life under it is enormously better than life under Hamas. But I think a peace deal should allow Arab Israelis who DO want to move to the newly established Palestian to do so.
Yes, if Hamas leadership had control of the IDF and Netanyahu had Hamas’ militias tomorrow, there is little doubt that Hamas would engage in a campaign of genocide that would leave millions dead. That’s why I’ve said you can criticize Israel’s decisions for being ineffective at the goal of bringing the violence to an end, and have done so in this thread. But others are using these figures to claim that Israel is engaging in ethnic cleansing while Hamas are just plucky misunderstood heroes, which is patently ridiculous.
Besides- do you think the IDF’s actions in Gaza and the West Bank might have to do with why the body count on the Israeli side is relatively low?
I don’t know all the answers, to these questions or the other big ones. Here’s what I am confident about – many entirely peaceful Palestinians, especially in Gaza, are truly desperate people with almost zero chance at a decent quality of life for themselves and their children. I believe the Israeli government could do a lot more to improve that quality of life and reduce the desperation. I believe the Israeli government could do a lot more to stop and roll back settlements, which cause legitimate grievance among Palestinians. I believe the Israeli government could do more to stop roving mobs from attacking Palestinians and Arabs, and do more to protect legitimate Palestinian and Arab property rights. That Hamas and other violent extremists among the Palestinians want to kill all the Jews (and succeed in killing some Jews) doesn’t remove the moral obligation of the Israeli government to do these things.
I agree with all of this, and if still lived there I’d be voting for politicians who make exactly these points. But the problem is that Israel is a democracy. And every time Hamas rockets land in Israel, the politicians who make the opposite points find that their ideas are better received. Rallying the population of a democracy to vote to make real, painful sacrifices in order to help someone who hates you, who repeatedly tries to kill you, and who has rejected concessions in the past is a Herculean task, and I don’t envy the Israeli politicians who beat that drum.
You can tell the government to take that approach, and perhaps it could for a while, but again, the problem is that Israel is a democracy. If the people see that their government isn’t protecting them, they will replace it. It’s equivalent to telling Americans not to address gun violence because it would make the gun nuts angry, and that would be worse overall.
(Incidentally, according to the link above, in most years gun violence in the US leads to far more deaths than the Israeli and Palestinian actions combined. Hell, in most years, American cops kill more people than the IDF. Obviously America is a much bigger country, but I just found that interesting. When I go to Israel, people often ask me if I’m worried about terrorism (and I was there on vacation during for example Lebanon II) and I always tell them I’m more worried about being gunned down in the US than about being the victim of terrorism in Israel)
It heavily depends on your definition of “show yourself open.” The continued settlements and bulldozing Palestinian homes as well as kicking Palestinians out of their homes generally have the effect that the negotiations would need to start with a smaller and smaller, less developed, less contiguous area of land on the Palestinian side. So yes, after slowly making a Palestinian state less and less practical Israel is open to negotiate for a 2-state solution, but I don’t really think this counts personally.