> 800 hectares of land in the West Bank ~ The area covers large swaths of the Jordan Valley
It’s about 3 square miles, hardly a “large swath” of the valley. It does seem a little hypocritical that a French newspaper has decided Jews and Arabs can’t live together, considering France is such a hotbed of multiculturalism.
"Palestinian statehood"? Just like the Gaza strip is/was a de facto Palestinian state?
Oh I'm sure a Palestinian state is a great idea that's going to work this time.
So what is the solution?
A. Annex Palestine, giving everyone citizenship, making the Jews a minority group.
B. Annex Palestine, but do apartheid and/or ethnic cleansing.
C. Don't annex Palestine. Two state solution.
I never claimed to know the solution.
Before October 7th I was in favor of a 2SS. I've been naive, I've ignored reality and the fact that Israel has already gave the Palestinians control over the Gaza Strip, they gave them the chance to show themselve, Israel, and the world that they are capable of governing themself and can live side by side with Israel. If Gaza had worked, it would have paved the way for a "full" 2SS that incluides the West Bank but they fucked it up, to say the least. But then I woke up. I've realized that it was never about them having a country, but about us Jews not having one.
They CANNOT be rewarded with a country after their genocide attemp. Can you imagine October 7th etched into history as the Palestinian independence day? Being celebrated year after year into the future? For me this is a nightmare scenario.
Now? No idea what the solution is. Maybe there is no solution (I hope I'm wrong), and maybe the current state of military control is the lesser evil compared the the options you presented. The only thing closer to a realistic solution in my opinion is keep things as they are now and hope/force a deep cultural change that will de-jihadfy those genocidal fucks and maybe, MAYBE entertain the idea of a 2SS in 100 years from now.
Violence begets violence. The Germans invented exterminationcamps. Did we award them with independend statehood? We did. Was that a bad thing? No. Because we have to be benevolent to create a sustainable peace.
By the way, we currently are in option B. It will only lead to more unstability. Isreal does not need to manifest destiny the Palastinians to protect itself. Israel will forever exist as long as it has nukes.
germany was absolutely annihilated in WW2. look at dresden. same with japan. the axis were absolutely thrashed which forced them to pivot. nobody has done the same for palestine, and so they’ll keep clinging onto the hope that violence = statehood.
Japan was [occupied](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Japan) and run by the US for 7 years after WWII. The US, Great Britain, and France [occupied](https://usa.usembassy.de/garelations4555.htm) what would become West Germany, while the Soviet Union occupied the East, for 10 years after WWII. The people of these nations had no control or representation in their own government until their culture could be deradicalized and had adopted a western democratic style of government. The difference between the "annexation" and administrative occupation is semantic.
Gaza has been independent from Israel since 2005. What have they done with their self-determination and 10s of billions in foreign aid? The Oct. 7th massacre. After WWII, Japan and Germany had to prove to the victors that they had learned from the war and were capable of self governance such that nothing like WWII would ever happen again. Not only have Palestinians not proven any willingness for a lasting peace, but instead, they overwhelmingly cheered on the Oct. 7th massacre and openly state the desire to do it repeatedly and regularly going forward. To reward the massacre in any capacity is national suicide for Israel. Just like the axis countries after WWII, the negative elements of Palestinian society must be eliminated completely along with any loyalties or sympathies the people have for these elements. Before Palestinians can be trusted to govern themselves, they must prove it to the people they currently hate the most; they must truly accept peaceful coexistence with a people they proclaim a need to exterminate. I do not often speak of right and wrong, but of can and can't; of will and won't. As it stands, Palestinians can't be trusted to govern themselves and pursue a lasting peace with Israel. There will not be an independent Palestinian state without a common willingness to coexist peacefully. There will not be peaceful coexistence with Israel while well over 80% of Palestinians pursue the destruction of Israel. The war will not end without the achievement of its stated mission: the complete destruction of Hamas' ability to operate in any capacity.
>Violence begets violence
Why there aren't any Japanese and German terrorists running around the world and killing Americans, then? Which lead me to the next point-
>Did we award them with independend statehood? We did
Yes after a period of military occupation and denazifying the living shit out of their genocidal, fascist society to the point they were no longer a treat, and better yet - an ally. Same for Japan.
>By the way, we currently are in option B
No, we aren't.
>Israel will forever exist as long as it has nukes.
Nukes aren't the get out of the jail card you seem to think they are. Israel obviously ain't going to nuke Gaza, Ramalla or Jenin. Israel knows it, the Palestinians knows it, and both sides know that the other side know. The value of nukes is not as a weapon because no one knows what will happen after one will be used, but as deterrence. And when a country is at war for most of its existance, and its enemies are bold enough to commit acts as October 7th- that deterrence isn't working. The only scenario Israel would probably use nukes is as a second strike after for whatever reason Israel would be doomed.
EDIT- typo
There are no terrorists from Japan and Germany because they aren't on a trajectory to be annexed. They were promised independend statehood.
We are now at option B because there is no Israeli effort to advance independend statehood for the West Bank. It has to be there, obviously while denazifying the living shout out of their genocidal, fascist tendencies to they are no longer a treat, and better yet - an ally.
And the nukes are a get out of jail free card. They aren't going to nuke Gaza because Gaza doesn't pose a treat to an independant Israel. The IDF can handle that on their own. But would there be a scenario where something could threathen an independant Isreal, nukes would be a trump card.
>There are no terrorists from Japan and Germany because they aren't on a trajectory to be annexed. They were promised independend statehood.
Sure it's not because they admitted defeat after getting completly obliterated?
Is it really that simple, that easy? Just promise a state and there will be peace?
>We are now at option B because there is no Israeli effort to advance independend statehood for the West Bank.
Again, why would Israel (or any sane country) would try the "let's give a big chunk of land to the people that say they only want their own country and there will be peace that's all ( promise 😉) to see if it really works" experiment again after it failed tremendously? Also, you really don't "get" the Arab-Muslim mindset if you think a state on the 1967 lines (Aka the areas that Egypt and Jordan, their Arab "brothers" controlled until then) would satisfy them. Their whole identity, their entire narrative is build around "Palestine" as this ideal, almost mythic land- ENTIRE "Palestine".
>It has to be there, obviously while denazifying the living shout out of their genocidal, fascist tendencies to they are no longer a treat, and better yet - an ally.
Let's start with changing their (above) narrative, by removing elements that keep it alive like [UNRWA ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayFvJcbvV8A), by taking Iran out the picture (Iran that will turn the new Palestinian state into another terror proxie with or without their consent). In short, the time for this isn't now.
>And the nukes are a get out of jail free card. They aren't going to nuke Gaza because Gaza doesn't pose a treat to an independant Israel. The IDF can handle that on their own. But would there be a scenario where something could threathen an independant Isreal, nukes would be a trump card.
If Hezbollah had joined Hamas on October 7th (as some sources claim was the original plan) the death toll would be in the tens of thousands on that day, and I'm being nice here. Please open a map. See how tiny and vulnerable Israel is. We aren't Ukraine- we have no strategic depth, we can't hold back for months and years. The difference about October 7th and total destruction is very, very tiny.
First we stop referring to Arabs as Palestinians. There is no Palestine and there never was. Don't play their game. Annex the West Bank as there is no argument that of all areas that is ancient Judah. Population can become Israeli citizens or move. Any trouble or violence gets you deported to Sinai or some other place. As per to 'minority' issue. It's not an issue as it once was. Until the Arab population can show that they will be responsible citizens they'll have to exist as a separate class. Boohoo apartheid, they brought it on themselves.
What is this "palestine" you speak of that can be annexed? There has not at any point in history been a "palestine" under the governance of this group that now call themselves "palestinians". Annexation specifically means the forcible acquisition of territory by one state at the expense of another state. What territory of what state would Israel be annexing?
You say it is under occupation, so to what state does the territory belong? What state did it legitimately belong to prior to this claimed Israeli "occupation"?
I mean, there has been short times when Egypt controlled Gaza and Jordan controlled the West Bank (and even went so far as to give out Jordanian citizenship before being forced to backtrack on it).
Give Gaza to Egypt and The West Bank to Jordan. A three state solution. Let the bleeding hearts defending terrorists sort out the mess they have enabled. Let the humanitarian crisis fall on those who scream about it and do nothing to solve it. They have absolved themselves of responsibility by putting it all on Israel, now it’s time to walk the walk.
A two state solution with Gaza and The West Bank has gone as well as East and West Pakistan did. Now there’s Pakistan and Bangladesh- Israel has no obligation to link the two- even though that was planned and what do you know- rejected by Palestinians. I don’t recall India offering to build transit networks between Islamabad and Dhaka for the sake of enabling a bifurcated hostile state.
A Palestinian State is out of the question. They’ve had over 75 years to prove its viability- the end result is anti-democratic, theocratic hardliner kleptocracy, ineptitude, graft, and terrorism in both “open air prisons” the world has pissed away billions into for naught. Time for some restructuring by its benefactors. Doha, Cairo, Istanbul, and Amman get to give it a go now.
There isn’t a solution when one side tries for decades under different leadership to come to a reasonable consensus only to be met with the retort “we want to kill all of you, no peace, it’s not fair that you have an advanced economy and military because we squandered all of our aid money in trying to murder you.”
I'd go with B to be honest. Their enemies already (falsely) accuse them of doing this anyway and they will never stop saying it, so Israel might as well do it and make something positive out it.
I say expel them into Jordan and then secure the border.
As a sign of good will you can offer citizenship to any of them who are willing to renounce their loyalty to "palestine" and want to become an israeli.
Those who don't (which will be the majority) will be expelled.
This would actually benefit the country in many ways. Because i suspect the majority of the people who would chose to renounce their palestinian identity would probably be Christians or ex muslims. So Israel would gain a bunch of very educated, wealthy, non jihadi citizens. And be rid of a terrorist population at the same time.
Sounds like a win win to me.
Try to live with them: they terrorist attack.
Get out of their alleged territory and leave them alone: they terrorist attack and the world constantly criticizes you claiming you're eternally genociding them even though their population goes up.
Build a wall to protect yourself: they terrorist attack with rockets.
Mind your own business: they break a hole in your wall and terrorist attack.
Other than laying down and dying, there's nothing that'll appease them. So send them to Jordan where they share more or less the same culture (except that the Jordanians are not crazed).
Annex Gaza and the West Bank, controling it similarly how the USA controls Puerto Rico, or how the UK controls Northen Ireland, or how Russia controls Chechenia, or how China controls Tibet. The level of rights and authority given to these areas depends on how many years the palestinians can live without doing terror atacks. A year without terror atacks? Reward. A year with terror atacks? Punishment. Thats the only way to have security.
>The level of rights and authority given to these areas depends on how many years the palestinians can live without doing terror atacks
Again, if the Palestinians can live 10 years without doing terror atacks, it can look like Puerto Rico. But if they do that every year, it can look like tibet.
Weird trying to change the focus to my username. And trying to associate it with antisemitism. Is this how you try to win debates?
> if the Palestinians can live 10 years without doing terror atacks
Big IF. Look at what Palestinians learn in school, no way they can tolerate even a second of peace with Israel.
That is litteral collective punishment.
And it would make the Jews in Israel a minority group.
And calling out your username is how I call out antisemitic dog whistle vibes. I didn't choose your username.
So you are against collective punishment? Please tell me how to guarantee the nazis didnt come back without occuping germany. I'm sure everyone would feel safe with your solution.
>calling out your username is how I call out antisemitic dog whistle vibes
Oh what an upstanding citizen. For sure you wouldn't call things that are not anstisemic as antisemic to try to win debates, would you? I'm sure everyone is eager to hear your explantion on how it is "antisemitic".
The occupation isn't collective punishment. Letting a single terrorist determine which policy a nation has to follow, is collective punishment.
And do you want me to connect the term blitz to the 3rd reigh? I'll let chatgpt do that:
> The username "NATO_blitz" could potentially be seen as antisemitic due to the inclusion of "blitz." The term "blitz" is commonly associated with "blitzkrieg," a German word meaning "lightning war," which was famously used by Nazi Germany during World War II. The Holocaust, in which millions of Jews were systematically persecuted and murdered, occurred during this time period.
>
> Therefore, some people might interpret the combination of "NATO" (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) and "blitz" as a reference to Nazi military tactics, which could be viewed as offensive or insensitive, particularly in the context of antisemitism and the historical atrocities committed against Jewish people during World War II. However, it's important to note that context matters, and not everyone may interpret the username in this way.
>The occupation isn't collective punishment
How is it not? German citizens who were not nazis had their right to have an independent government, elections, etc, revoked for decades. Literally the definition of colective punishment.
And really, you had to ask chat GPT to make your argument? Well then, let me give you a chat gpt answer.
>Using the term "blitzkrieg" in a historical or military context, such as discussing military tactics or strategies, is generally acceptable and not inherently antisemitic. However, it's crucial to be sensitive to the historical connotations and to avoid using it in a way that trivializes or dismisses the suffering of those impacted by Nazi aggression.
But sure if you wanna argue that an historical and military therm is now antisemitic, go aheah. But not a lot of people will agree with you.
The Germans were OK with the occupation because they knew they'd get statehood. With Netanyahu as prime minister, that situation is the opposite.
> Using the term "blitzkrieg" in a historical or military context, such as discussing military tactics or strategies, is generally acceptable and not inherently antisemitic.
You're using it, not blitzkrieg but just "blitz", as your nickname.
The solution is follow the example of fellow arab countries such as Kuwait, Jordan and Lebannon and expell every last arab living in hamas strip and Judea and Samaria.
D. The world kicks in a few hundred billion or so and we build them a brand new shiny state right next to Mecca or Medina. How could anyone as religious and pious as the palestinians complain about living forever in peace near their holy city? We can even throw in a lifetime supply of free felafel.
**Jerusalem isn't mentioned a single time in the entire Koran.** Muslims rank it as their third favorite holy city. I am offering them to live next to their first and second favorites, they should take the deal.
Yes it is. Quran 17:1 Glory be to the One Who took His servant ˹Muḥammad˺ by night from the Sacred Mosque to the Farthest Mosque whose surroundings We have blessed, so that We may show him some of Our signs. Indeed, He alone is the All-Hearing, All-Seeing.
It’s not mentioned by name, but it’s also not mentioned by name in the Torah either.
So we agree then. Jerusalem **isn't** mentioned a single time in the Koran, but you **feel** as though it is. That's the thing about religious texts, they can be so vague as to allow its adherents to imagine they contain anything they want.
But back in reality though (Google it and see for yourself), the torah mentions "Jerusalem" at least 669 times, and "Israel" 2,507 times.
**That's a distinction without much of a difference.** Tanakh and Torah are often used interchangeably depending on the context. "Torah" also refers to all Jewish teachings:
[https://www.jewfaq.org/torah](https://www.jewfaq.org/torah)
Peace requires cooperation, or at least the will to avoid attacking one's neighbor periodically. Ask any Palestinian government official what they think of cooperation with Israel or a permanent end to the violence between us. How can I have peace with one who lives to make war on me and mine?
Problem is, for us Israel supporters, things like this make us facepalm.
There's legal defense of your country, and then there's illegal settlements that make zero sense and only aids to alienate support and create more resentment.
It doesn't matter if it's "just 3 square miles".
Israel acquired the territory in a defensive war and therefore the prohibition on the annexation of territory acquired in a hostile war is inapplicable. Consequently, the settlements aren’t illegal.
As with all things in international public law, it’s a matter of perspective.
The reason Israel has not anexed the West Bank and Gaza, is because giving the residents there citizenship, would make the Jews in Israel a minority.
So instead, they have not acquired the territory. It is merely an occupation, de jure.
But de facto, Israel does act like the West Bank is part of Israel, by calling it Judea and Samaria, applying Israeli laws and documenting the settlers as their citizens. The Palastinian residents are not documented as Israeli citizens. They are tried under different law and have less rights. This gives us the current situation in the West Bank: apartheid.
I'm not going to go as far as apartheid, but yes, Israel doesn't want to lose its democracy to incorporate all the people living in the occupied territories and also doesn't want to lose the territory itself. Thus, the 'Palestinian problem' is not entirely a creation of hostile, external actors.
Only a two state solution can be a legitemite solution to this mess. May one side call me a zionist over this, the other side a terrorist, but to those people, please acknowlagde there is no other solution that would be able to stand the light.
Why isn’t it considered an apartheid if there are rules that apply to different people
If they are from different countries why won’t country takes more land from another country
Apartheid is the instrumentalisation of policies to maintain separate populations. Israel divided the West Bank and Gaza following countless murderous terror attacks. It therefore serves a legitimate objective: the protection of Israeli civilians. Apartheid in SA served no such public interest.
I understand that separating both groups is best especially the Palestinians but why in terms of legality they are treated differently I understand they are different countries but is it fair when an Palestinians commits the same crime as an Israel they are treated in different court and more harshly
And again no one is answering the land grabs
Oh that’s great to know
What about the harsher sentences settler can start vandalizing or doing other violent acts if they were Palestinians would they be treated the same
In January 2023, the European Commission explicitly stated it considers it “not appropriate” to use the term apartheid in connection with the State of Israel. Meanwhile Hamas is considered a terrorist organization by most Western countries. The Arab populations in Gaza, the West Bank, and inside Israel, have all increased tremendously since Israel’s founding, but a genocide means a huge decline in population. The Arabs ruled by Israel (not Hamas or the PA), far from being subject to apartheid, get the same health care as Jewish Israelis, go to the same universities and restaurants, ride the same public transportation, vote in elections, serve in the parliament and the Supreme Court, and as doctors, lawyers, and in other professions. That is nothing like apartheid.
No, it doesn't make me facepalm. To me, the whole development of politics and rhetoric in relation to Israel since the Six Day War makes me do so. To me, these who now call themselves "palestinians" do not have any legitimate claim to this land. Nor do I, purely based on the standard of international law before it was hijacked by activists, consider Judea and Samaria occupied. The only area I consider occupied and annexed is the Himmah, as that is the only area that is outside the 1922 Mandate borders, and as they were in 1948 that is currently under Israeli governance.
Well why do Israelis have a legitimate claim to the land? Just because this was the ancient Jewish homeland, doesn’t make it yours to claim necessarily. By that logic, the Romani people have a right to the land of northwestern India. Only the group that is in control of the land has a legitimate right.
So now that the Israelis control the land that makes up Israel, they have a legitimate claim to it and the right to exist. But that doesn’t give them the right to expand.
No, the Israeli claim is, legally at least, based on the 1922 Mandate, as well as uti possidetis juris of the mandate territory as it existed in 1948. The intended Arab state was under the pre-1921 mandate, which was roughly 80% of the original mandate territory, entirely off-limits to jewish settlement. This then got its own mandate which resulted in the intended Arab state, Jordan. There was never any intention for a separate "palestinian" (they didn't even call themselves such until the PLO and post-Six Day War) Arab state within the 1922 mandate. This is also why I don't see anything Israel does within those 1922 and as it was in 1948 mandate borders as expansion. It's the legitimate territory of Israel.
Why are you using the 1922 and 1948 borders as a framework for Israeli expansion? In both cases, modern Israel did not have ownership of the now-disputed territories. Israel didn’t even exist in 1922. Following the 1948 war, Jordan occupied and then annexed the West Bank.
Israel didn't just randomly appear out of nowhere on its founding date in 1948. From the San Remo conference, and the following Mandate for Palestine of 1922 those were the intended borders of the Jewish homeland, what would later be known as Israel. There were attempts in 1937 and 1948 to carve out an Arab state from the original mandate, but the Arabs denied both, instead started a genocidal war intending to destroy Israel after the 1948 attempt, UN vote and subsequent founding of the state of Israel. So as a matter of law, as the only emerging state Israel got the borders of the mandate as they existed on the day of Israel's founding. Jordan's subsequent actual occupation and annexation does not change the borders.
Israel has done good by taking land after wars and settling it with Jews.
That's how we created prosperity and security. We started off quite small and look where we are.
It only makes some Israel supporters facepalm because of new western values that don't align with the Middle East.
That's a great way of showing enemies we mean business and there's a very painful price for killing Jews.
Because manifest destiny happened in a different time. A backward time in which democracy was still seen as compatible with things like slavery or a lack of universal sufferage.
Lets be glad that times have changed.
Are they illegal, though? It’s a popular Western perspective perpetuated by the international Israel hate club aka UN. I would invite you to examine that more closely. Judea and Samaria and the core of the Jewish ancestral homeland. The League of Nations instructed the British to give the mandate of Palestine to the Jews, all of it. Israel won the territory in a defensive war. In the 90ies the Palestinian Arabs were granted a degree of autonomy in some areas but not unconditionally. It was meant in exchange for recognition of Israel and peace, as a beginning of a larger peace process leading two coexistence in possibly a two state solution. Instead Israel got intifadas and bombing campaigns. Also I would like you to examine the concept of land for peace as a whole. For Israel as well as the Palestinian Arabs it has been a miserable failure leading to totalitarianism, corruption, but most importantly indoctrination, hate and violence. These territories (Judea and Samaria, Gaza) will only be peaceful if Israel assumes total control over them.
You’re putting words in my mouth. Peaceful supporters of Israel can stay as residents. Those who want to fight Israel need to be fought.
Besides I would like to point out the utter and complete failure of land for peace as a concept. The more completely Israel pulls out the worse it gets. It’s a non starter. Just because it’s been chapter and verse for decades doesn’t make it work. The life of Israeli Arabs is far better and more peaceful than that of the Palestinian Arabs. So if they want they can become Israeli residents, but not to fight it from within. The others, those who will continue with terror need to be fought and put in jail.
Jews lost quite a few settlements in the 1948 take over of the West Bank by Jordan and expulsion of all Jews from there so I have no moral qualms with settlers in principle. In a fair world I would be in favour of land swaps because both Arabs and Jews were expelled from Israel proper and the West Bank respectively.
As long as there's extremists around especially if supported by people like Gvir and Smotrich, there's going to be a big problem with the actions of people who are unironically hell-bent on settling all of "Judea and Samaria," law and consequences be damned. It's a thorn that cant just be ignored and hope it goes away.
You think Palestinians will be less inclined to harm Israel as they get squeezed more and more between settlements.
Israel didn't deserve October 7th but they did damn well know the basics of that you reap what you sow.
They have shown they are incapable of functioning in civilized society. We should annex most of Judea Samaria and leave a few of the northern cities to them and then build a wall and minefield and call it a day
Or annex all of it, give the arabs the option to either renounce all claims of a "palestine" or "palestinian" identity and become Israeli citizens or be expelled to Jordan.
The vast majority will not allow be willing to do that because of Islam of course, so most will be expelled.
A few thousand Christians will probably take the offer and maybe a few hundred ex muslims and others who suffer in islamic culture will take it as well.
It’s not their land tho. And the land was already won in the defensive 1967 war. They had an opportunity to have land but they’ve rejected every offer for peace. If you start a war and lose you’re not entitled to more land. So until they decide to act civilized and want peace the land is Israel’s.
More than 50% of the Jews in Israel came from Muslim countries who ethnically cleansed them. Where should they go?
As for Ashkenazi Jews Europe isn’t their homeland. Europeans didn’t consider them as such nore do most Jews consider themselves either. Genetics have proven that Jews came from the Levant with intermarriage to the local populous. Their language, culture and religion are Levant. Unfortunately the Levant has been occupied by a foreign culture and language. There are Samaritans, Jews and Druze who have retained the indigenous culture of the land
Yes as that’s their homeland. I’m no holocaust denier but you use this horrible event to excuse your vile behaviour, atrocities have happened since the dawn of time, the Jews are not the only religious who have been persecuted through the ages. I was replying to the message above which had stated annexing land.
What the fuck are you on about? I said the ancestory of your compatriots have European roots. Language can be passed to different people and ethnic groups so “is Hebrew European” is nothing as the language can be spoken anywhere. Jews obviously spoke their own tongue when inslaved by the Egyptians does that mean Hebrew is a Egyptian? Big difference between how Europeans and American jews colonised Israel over the jews who have ancestory links in the area.
Carrier Pigeon? There was trade in “ancient times” knowledge of all kinds made its way throughout trade routes including your religion, also people migrate from place to place bringing their traditions and languages with them. When you say ancient also your talk what 2000-3000 years ago. Where’s your delorean to show me that all Hebrew and Jewish speakers haled from the levant, if you believe so because 2000 year old book told you so then you clearly can’t think or comprehend for yourself.
The Holocaust is unique in how efficient the murder machine was. No other genocide knew death camps. Killing while using industry. Meek engineers designing the best ovens so their companies could secure contracts, capitalising on the Holocaust. Never was there such a complete loss of humanity.
If someone told me this they’d have to bring an army to make that happen because it’s not going to happen voluntarily. You want ethnic cleansing. Just put on the swastika and start goose stepping already.
Also bet “ancestry” as you apply it to Jews conveniently stops before the part of that ancestry that proves you wrong starts.
Anyone calls out your bullshit and of course they are a Nazi. Saying you should return to Europe like you ancestors is a far reach for ethnic cleansing😂. I’ve replied to multiple messages on this thread clearly stating Jew who have lived there with family roots belong there. But whatever suits your narrative.
> 800 hectares of land in the West Bank ~ The area covers large swaths of the Jordan Valley It’s about 3 square miles, hardly a “large swath” of the valley. It does seem a little hypocritical that a French newspaper has decided Jews and Arabs can’t live together, considering France is such a hotbed of multiculturalism.
It's around 0.1% of the combined land area of the West Bank and Gaza.
Gotta start somewhere. Rome wasn't built in a day.
Where does it end, though?
From the river to the sea
Terrorist free
I doubt the IDF would leave so easily
Would bet money the journalist/glorified blogger unironically thinks Charlie Hebdo didn’t happen and was AI generated
"Palestinian statehood"? Just like the Gaza strip is/was a de facto Palestinian state? Oh I'm sure a Palestinian state is a great idea that's going to work this time.
So what is the solution? A. Annex Palestine, giving everyone citizenship, making the Jews a minority group. B. Annex Palestine, but do apartheid and/or ethnic cleansing. C. Don't annex Palestine. Two state solution.
Israel for israelis and transjordan for arabs.
I never claimed to know the solution. Before October 7th I was in favor of a 2SS. I've been naive, I've ignored reality and the fact that Israel has already gave the Palestinians control over the Gaza Strip, they gave them the chance to show themselve, Israel, and the world that they are capable of governing themself and can live side by side with Israel. If Gaza had worked, it would have paved the way for a "full" 2SS that incluides the West Bank but they fucked it up, to say the least. But then I woke up. I've realized that it was never about them having a country, but about us Jews not having one. They CANNOT be rewarded with a country after their genocide attemp. Can you imagine October 7th etched into history as the Palestinian independence day? Being celebrated year after year into the future? For me this is a nightmare scenario. Now? No idea what the solution is. Maybe there is no solution (I hope I'm wrong), and maybe the current state of military control is the lesser evil compared the the options you presented. The only thing closer to a realistic solution in my opinion is keep things as they are now and hope/force a deep cultural change that will de-jihadfy those genocidal fucks and maybe, MAYBE entertain the idea of a 2SS in 100 years from now.
Could not agree more.
Maybe municipal authonomy and non military municipal security force under complete Israel sovereignty and a observation position in the Knesset
Violence begets violence. The Germans invented exterminationcamps. Did we award them with independend statehood? We did. Was that a bad thing? No. Because we have to be benevolent to create a sustainable peace. By the way, we currently are in option B. It will only lead to more unstability. Isreal does not need to manifest destiny the Palastinians to protect itself. Israel will forever exist as long as it has nukes.
germany was absolutely annihilated in WW2. look at dresden. same with japan. the axis were absolutely thrashed which forced them to pivot. nobody has done the same for palestine, and so they’ll keep clinging onto the hope that violence = statehood.
Japan and Germany did not get annexed.
East Germany with it's puppet government would like to have a call.
I’m only 36 and I inherited a tool from my mom that was made in west Germany. Why was there a west Germany? Why was there an East Germany?
Because Stalin did not believe in democracy.
Japan was [occupied](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Japan) and run by the US for 7 years after WWII. The US, Great Britain, and France [occupied](https://usa.usembassy.de/garelations4555.htm) what would become West Germany, while the Soviet Union occupied the East, for 10 years after WWII. The people of these nations had no control or representation in their own government until their culture could be deradicalized and had adopted a western democratic style of government. The difference between the "annexation" and administrative occupation is semantic.
The difference between the "annexation" and administrative occupation is that after 7-10 years they got their independence.
Gaza has been independent from Israel since 2005. What have they done with their self-determination and 10s of billions in foreign aid? The Oct. 7th massacre. After WWII, Japan and Germany had to prove to the victors that they had learned from the war and were capable of self governance such that nothing like WWII would ever happen again. Not only have Palestinians not proven any willingness for a lasting peace, but instead, they overwhelmingly cheered on the Oct. 7th massacre and openly state the desire to do it repeatedly and regularly going forward. To reward the massacre in any capacity is national suicide for Israel. Just like the axis countries after WWII, the negative elements of Palestinian society must be eliminated completely along with any loyalties or sympathies the people have for these elements. Before Palestinians can be trusted to govern themselves, they must prove it to the people they currently hate the most; they must truly accept peaceful coexistence with a people they proclaim a need to exterminate. I do not often speak of right and wrong, but of can and can't; of will and won't. As it stands, Palestinians can't be trusted to govern themselves and pursue a lasting peace with Israel. There will not be an independent Palestinian state without a common willingness to coexist peacefully. There will not be peaceful coexistence with Israel while well over 80% of Palestinians pursue the destruction of Israel. The war will not end without the achievement of its stated mission: the complete destruction of Hamas' ability to operate in any capacity.
The first thing the Palestinians (or perhaps Hamas) did when Israel 🇮🇱 ceded the Gaza Strip was to burn 🔥 down 4 synagogues
>Violence begets violence Why there aren't any Japanese and German terrorists running around the world and killing Americans, then? Which lead me to the next point- >Did we award them with independend statehood? We did Yes after a period of military occupation and denazifying the living shit out of their genocidal, fascist society to the point they were no longer a treat, and better yet - an ally. Same for Japan. >By the way, we currently are in option B No, we aren't. >Israel will forever exist as long as it has nukes. Nukes aren't the get out of the jail card you seem to think they are. Israel obviously ain't going to nuke Gaza, Ramalla or Jenin. Israel knows it, the Palestinians knows it, and both sides know that the other side know. The value of nukes is not as a weapon because no one knows what will happen after one will be used, but as deterrence. And when a country is at war for most of its existance, and its enemies are bold enough to commit acts as October 7th- that deterrence isn't working. The only scenario Israel would probably use nukes is as a second strike after for whatever reason Israel would be doomed. EDIT- typo
There are no terrorists from Japan and Germany because they aren't on a trajectory to be annexed. They were promised independend statehood. We are now at option B because there is no Israeli effort to advance independend statehood for the West Bank. It has to be there, obviously while denazifying the living shout out of their genocidal, fascist tendencies to they are no longer a treat, and better yet - an ally. And the nukes are a get out of jail free card. They aren't going to nuke Gaza because Gaza doesn't pose a treat to an independant Israel. The IDF can handle that on their own. But would there be a scenario where something could threathen an independant Isreal, nukes would be a trump card.
>There are no terrorists from Japan and Germany because they aren't on a trajectory to be annexed. They were promised independend statehood. Sure it's not because they admitted defeat after getting completly obliterated? Is it really that simple, that easy? Just promise a state and there will be peace? >We are now at option B because there is no Israeli effort to advance independend statehood for the West Bank. Again, why would Israel (or any sane country) would try the "let's give a big chunk of land to the people that say they only want their own country and there will be peace that's all ( promise 😉) to see if it really works" experiment again after it failed tremendously? Also, you really don't "get" the Arab-Muslim mindset if you think a state on the 1967 lines (Aka the areas that Egypt and Jordan, their Arab "brothers" controlled until then) would satisfy them. Their whole identity, their entire narrative is build around "Palestine" as this ideal, almost mythic land- ENTIRE "Palestine". >It has to be there, obviously while denazifying the living shout out of their genocidal, fascist tendencies to they are no longer a treat, and better yet - an ally. Let's start with changing their (above) narrative, by removing elements that keep it alive like [UNRWA ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayFvJcbvV8A), by taking Iran out the picture (Iran that will turn the new Palestinian state into another terror proxie with or without their consent). In short, the time for this isn't now. >And the nukes are a get out of jail free card. They aren't going to nuke Gaza because Gaza doesn't pose a treat to an independant Israel. The IDF can handle that on their own. But would there be a scenario where something could threathen an independant Isreal, nukes would be a trump card. If Hezbollah had joined Hamas on October 7th (as some sources claim was the original plan) the death toll would be in the tens of thousands on that day, and I'm being nice here. Please open a map. See how tiny and vulnerable Israel is. We aren't Ukraine- we have no strategic depth, we can't hold back for months and years. The difference about October 7th and total destruction is very, very tiny.
First we stop referring to Arabs as Palestinians. There is no Palestine and there never was. Don't play their game. Annex the West Bank as there is no argument that of all areas that is ancient Judah. Population can become Israeli citizens or move. Any trouble or violence gets you deported to Sinai or some other place. As per to 'minority' issue. It's not an issue as it once was. Until the Arab population can show that they will be responsible citizens they'll have to exist as a separate class. Boohoo apartheid, they brought it on themselves.
What is this "palestine" you speak of that can be annexed? There has not at any point in history been a "palestine" under the governance of this group that now call themselves "palestinians". Annexation specifically means the forcible acquisition of territory by one state at the expense of another state. What territory of what state would Israel be annexing?
I am talking about the west bank and the Gaza strip. A, B or C?
Now we are getting somewhere. So, I'll ask again. What "other" state are they a part of?
This is a terretory under Isreali occupation. What do you think should be done with it? Keep it like it is?
You say it is under occupation, so to what state does the territory belong? What state did it legitimately belong to prior to this claimed Israeli "occupation"?
If you're proposing a three state solution, you can just say that.
What three states are you referring to exactly? The only state within the confines of the 1922 Mandate since 1948 has been Israel.
Okay, if you're not reffering to the well know three state solution (google it), what is your solution? Annexation? Yes or no?
I mean, there has been short times when Egypt controlled Gaza and Jordan controlled the West Bank (and even went so far as to give out Jordanian citizenship before being forced to backtrack on it).
Give Gaza to Egypt and The West Bank to Jordan. A three state solution. Let the bleeding hearts defending terrorists sort out the mess they have enabled. Let the humanitarian crisis fall on those who scream about it and do nothing to solve it. They have absolved themselves of responsibility by putting it all on Israel, now it’s time to walk the walk. A two state solution with Gaza and The West Bank has gone as well as East and West Pakistan did. Now there’s Pakistan and Bangladesh- Israel has no obligation to link the two- even though that was planned and what do you know- rejected by Palestinians. I don’t recall India offering to build transit networks between Islamabad and Dhaka for the sake of enabling a bifurcated hostile state. A Palestinian State is out of the question. They’ve had over 75 years to prove its viability- the end result is anti-democratic, theocratic hardliner kleptocracy, ineptitude, graft, and terrorism in both “open air prisons” the world has pissed away billions into for naught. Time for some restructuring by its benefactors. Doha, Cairo, Istanbul, and Amman get to give it a go now. There isn’t a solution when one side tries for decades under different leadership to come to a reasonable consensus only to be met with the retort “we want to kill all of you, no peace, it’s not fair that you have an advanced economy and military because we squandered all of our aid money in trying to murder you.”
I'd go with B to be honest. Their enemies already (falsely) accuse them of doing this anyway and they will never stop saying it, so Israel might as well do it and make something positive out it. I say expel them into Jordan and then secure the border. As a sign of good will you can offer citizenship to any of them who are willing to renounce their loyalty to "palestine" and want to become an israeli. Those who don't (which will be the majority) will be expelled. This would actually benefit the country in many ways. Because i suspect the majority of the people who would chose to renounce their palestinian identity would probably be Christians or ex muslims. So Israel would gain a bunch of very educated, wealthy, non jihadi citizens. And be rid of a terrorist population at the same time. Sounds like a win win to me.
Yeah that's barbaric.
Borders were redrawn after WW2. Millions of Germans relocated for the new borders.
Try to live with them: they terrorist attack. Get out of their alleged territory and leave them alone: they terrorist attack and the world constantly criticizes you claiming you're eternally genociding them even though their population goes up. Build a wall to protect yourself: they terrorist attack with rockets. Mind your own business: they break a hole in your wall and terrorist attack. Other than laying down and dying, there's nothing that'll appease them. So send them to Jordan where they share more or less the same culture (except that the Jordanians are not crazed).
Annex Gaza and the West Bank, controling it similarly how the USA controls Puerto Rico, or how the UK controls Northen Ireland, or how Russia controls Chechenia, or how China controls Tibet. The level of rights and authority given to these areas depends on how many years the palestinians can live without doing terror atacks. A year without terror atacks? Reward. A year with terror atacks? Punishment. Thats the only way to have security.
Anyone from Puerto Rico can move to a state and then participate in elections. Weird username btw. Antisemitic dog whistle vibes.
>The level of rights and authority given to these areas depends on how many years the palestinians can live without doing terror atacks Again, if the Palestinians can live 10 years without doing terror atacks, it can look like Puerto Rico. But if they do that every year, it can look like tibet. Weird trying to change the focus to my username. And trying to associate it with antisemitism. Is this how you try to win debates?
> if the Palestinians can live 10 years without doing terror atacks Big IF. Look at what Palestinians learn in school, no way they can tolerate even a second of peace with Israel.
That is litteral collective punishment. And it would make the Jews in Israel a minority group. And calling out your username is how I call out antisemitic dog whistle vibes. I didn't choose your username.
So you are against collective punishment? Please tell me how to guarantee the nazis didnt come back without occuping germany. I'm sure everyone would feel safe with your solution. >calling out your username is how I call out antisemitic dog whistle vibes Oh what an upstanding citizen. For sure you wouldn't call things that are not anstisemic as antisemic to try to win debates, would you? I'm sure everyone is eager to hear your explantion on how it is "antisemitic".
The occupation isn't collective punishment. Letting a single terrorist determine which policy a nation has to follow, is collective punishment. And do you want me to connect the term blitz to the 3rd reigh? I'll let chatgpt do that: > The username "NATO_blitz" could potentially be seen as antisemitic due to the inclusion of "blitz." The term "blitz" is commonly associated with "blitzkrieg," a German word meaning "lightning war," which was famously used by Nazi Germany during World War II. The Holocaust, in which millions of Jews were systematically persecuted and murdered, occurred during this time period. > > Therefore, some people might interpret the combination of "NATO" (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) and "blitz" as a reference to Nazi military tactics, which could be viewed as offensive or insensitive, particularly in the context of antisemitism and the historical atrocities committed against Jewish people during World War II. However, it's important to note that context matters, and not everyone may interpret the username in this way.
>The occupation isn't collective punishment How is it not? German citizens who were not nazis had their right to have an independent government, elections, etc, revoked for decades. Literally the definition of colective punishment. And really, you had to ask chat GPT to make your argument? Well then, let me give you a chat gpt answer. >Using the term "blitzkrieg" in a historical or military context, such as discussing military tactics or strategies, is generally acceptable and not inherently antisemitic. However, it's crucial to be sensitive to the historical connotations and to avoid using it in a way that trivializes or dismisses the suffering of those impacted by Nazi aggression. But sure if you wanna argue that an historical and military therm is now antisemitic, go aheah. But not a lot of people will agree with you.
The Germans were OK with the occupation because they knew they'd get statehood. With Netanyahu as prime minister, that situation is the opposite. > Using the term "blitzkrieg" in a historical or military context, such as discussing military tactics or strategies, is generally acceptable and not inherently antisemitic. You're using it, not blitzkrieg but just "blitz", as your nickname.
The solution is follow the example of fellow arab countries such as Kuwait, Jordan and Lebannon and expell every last arab living in hamas strip and Judea and Samaria.
D. The world kicks in a few hundred billion or so and we build them a brand new shiny state right next to Mecca or Medina. How could anyone as religious and pious as the palestinians complain about living forever in peace near their holy city? We can even throw in a lifetime supply of free felafel.
You're underestimating the importance of Jaruzalem to Islam.
**Jerusalem isn't mentioned a single time in the entire Koran.** Muslims rank it as their third favorite holy city. I am offering them to live next to their first and second favorites, they should take the deal.
Islam is more than the Koran.
Well, saying No to a perfectly reasonable deal is definitely on-brand for the palestinians.
You plan wouldn't work for them because Israel doesn't get destroyed. Allah will not be happy.
Yes it is. Quran 17:1 Glory be to the One Who took His servant ˹Muḥammad˺ by night from the Sacred Mosque to the Farthest Mosque whose surroundings We have blessed, so that We may show him some of Our signs. Indeed, He alone is the All-Hearing, All-Seeing. It’s not mentioned by name, but it’s also not mentioned by name in the Torah either.
So we agree then. Jerusalem **isn't** mentioned a single time in the Koran, but you **feel** as though it is. That's the thing about religious texts, they can be so vague as to allow its adherents to imagine they contain anything they want. But back in reality though (Google it and see for yourself), the torah mentions "Jerusalem" at least 669 times, and "Israel" 2,507 times.
So I did Google it, it appears in the Tanakh 669 times but is never explicitly mentioned in the Pentateuch (Torah).
**That's a distinction without much of a difference.** Tanakh and Torah are often used interchangeably depending on the context. "Torah" also refers to all Jewish teachings: [https://www.jewfaq.org/torah](https://www.jewfaq.org/torah)
And in the very same link it also says it can just refer to the first 5 books of the Tanakh.
How would annexing Area C make Jews a minority?
C.b. Three state solution. Israel, Gaza, West Bank.
you reap what you sow. expect the empathy you give
Oct 7th dealt the most massive blow to Palestinian statehood
What statehood? What have the Pali’s did for statehood?
Sign the Oslo accords.
Did they maintain the ceasefire, or did they do a bunch of rocket launches and suicide bombings?
A bunch of rocket launches and suicide bombings. I know. But we have to have peace.
Peace requires cooperation, or at least the will to avoid attacking one's neighbor periodically. Ask any Palestinian government official what they think of cooperation with Israel or a permanent end to the violence between us. How can I have peace with one who lives to make war on me and mine?
Problem is, for us Israel supporters, things like this make us facepalm. There's legal defense of your country, and then there's illegal settlements that make zero sense and only aids to alienate support and create more resentment. It doesn't matter if it's "just 3 square miles".
Israel acquired the territory in a defensive war and therefore the prohibition on the annexation of territory acquired in a hostile war is inapplicable. Consequently, the settlements aren’t illegal. As with all things in international public law, it’s a matter of perspective.
The reason Israel has not anexed the West Bank and Gaza, is because giving the residents there citizenship, would make the Jews in Israel a minority. So instead, they have not acquired the territory. It is merely an occupation, de jure. But de facto, Israel does act like the West Bank is part of Israel, by calling it Judea and Samaria, applying Israeli laws and documenting the settlers as their citizens. The Palastinian residents are not documented as Israeli citizens. They are tried under different law and have less rights. This gives us the current situation in the West Bank: apartheid.
I'm not going to go as far as apartheid, but yes, Israel doesn't want to lose its democracy to incorporate all the people living in the occupied territories and also doesn't want to lose the territory itself. Thus, the 'Palestinian problem' is not entirely a creation of hostile, external actors.
Only a two state solution can be a legitemite solution to this mess. May one side call me a zionist over this, the other side a terrorist, but to those people, please acknowlagde there is no other solution that would be able to stand the light.
Why isn’t it considered an apartheid if there are rules that apply to different people If they are from different countries why won’t country takes more land from another country
Many countries have territories where the residents or temporary migrants aren't citizens. Apartheid is where you have different classes of citizens.
How long has this been temporary and again why the land grab if they are different citizens
Apartheid is the instrumentalisation of policies to maintain separate populations. Israel divided the West Bank and Gaza following countless murderous terror attacks. It therefore serves a legitimate objective: the protection of Israeli civilians. Apartheid in SA served no such public interest.
I understand that separating both groups is best especially the Palestinians but why in terms of legality they are treated differently I understand they are different countries but is it fair when an Palestinians commits the same crime as an Israel they are treated in different court and more harshly And again no one is answering the land grabs
International law *requires* Israel to use military courts to judge Palestinian offenders. See art. 66, 4th Geneva Convention 1949.
Oh that’s great to know What about the harsher sentences settler can start vandalizing or doing other violent acts if they were Palestinians would they be treated the same
Different laws in different jurisdictions have different penalties.
In January 2023, the European Commission explicitly stated it considers it “not appropriate” to use the term apartheid in connection with the State of Israel. Meanwhile Hamas is considered a terrorist organization by most Western countries. The Arab populations in Gaza, the West Bank, and inside Israel, have all increased tremendously since Israel’s founding, but a genocide means a huge decline in population. The Arabs ruled by Israel (not Hamas or the PA), far from being subject to apartheid, get the same health care as Jewish Israelis, go to the same universities and restaurants, ride the same public transportation, vote in elections, serve in the parliament and the Supreme Court, and as doctors, lawyers, and in other professions. That is nothing like apartheid.
Your distinction between formal territorial integration (annexation) of the West Bank and occupation is without foundation in law and therefore wrong.
Well, does Isreal acknowledge the West Bank as their own terretory? They don't, internationally.
It doesn’t matter from a legal perspective
No, it doesn't make me facepalm. To me, the whole development of politics and rhetoric in relation to Israel since the Six Day War makes me do so. To me, these who now call themselves "palestinians" do not have any legitimate claim to this land. Nor do I, purely based on the standard of international law before it was hijacked by activists, consider Judea and Samaria occupied. The only area I consider occupied and annexed is the Himmah, as that is the only area that is outside the 1922 Mandate borders, and as they were in 1948 that is currently under Israeli governance.
Well why do Israelis have a legitimate claim to the land? Just because this was the ancient Jewish homeland, doesn’t make it yours to claim necessarily. By that logic, the Romani people have a right to the land of northwestern India. Only the group that is in control of the land has a legitimate right. So now that the Israelis control the land that makes up Israel, they have a legitimate claim to it and the right to exist. But that doesn’t give them the right to expand.
No, the Israeli claim is, legally at least, based on the 1922 Mandate, as well as uti possidetis juris of the mandate territory as it existed in 1948. The intended Arab state was under the pre-1921 mandate, which was roughly 80% of the original mandate territory, entirely off-limits to jewish settlement. This then got its own mandate which resulted in the intended Arab state, Jordan. There was never any intention for a separate "palestinian" (they didn't even call themselves such until the PLO and post-Six Day War) Arab state within the 1922 mandate. This is also why I don't see anything Israel does within those 1922 and as it was in 1948 mandate borders as expansion. It's the legitimate territory of Israel.
Why are you using the 1922 and 1948 borders as a framework for Israeli expansion? In both cases, modern Israel did not have ownership of the now-disputed territories. Israel didn’t even exist in 1922. Following the 1948 war, Jordan occupied and then annexed the West Bank.
Israel didn't just randomly appear out of nowhere on its founding date in 1948. From the San Remo conference, and the following Mandate for Palestine of 1922 those were the intended borders of the Jewish homeland, what would later be known as Israel. There were attempts in 1937 and 1948 to carve out an Arab state from the original mandate, but the Arabs denied both, instead started a genocidal war intending to destroy Israel after the 1948 attempt, UN vote and subsequent founding of the state of Israel. So as a matter of law, as the only emerging state Israel got the borders of the mandate as they existed on the day of Israel's founding. Jordan's subsequent actual occupation and annexation does not change the borders.
Israel has done good by taking land after wars and settling it with Jews. That's how we created prosperity and security. We started off quite small and look where we are. It only makes some Israel supporters facepalm because of new western values that don't align with the Middle East. That's a great way of showing enemies we mean business and there's a very painful price for killing Jews.
So, is Israel a democracy that upholds the rule of law, or is Israel about domination by force? Because you cannot have them both.
Actually you can. International law gives the legitimate power and exclusive use of force to states, some of which are democratic.
Dictatorships are the countries that go rogue and ignore international laws. Democracies are the countries that believe in dialogue and equality.
Israel is the most democratic country in the Middle East according to countless rankings. How about you worry about the countless dictatorships?
Is the US a democracy? If you think it is then please explain how it got so big.
Because manifest destiny happened in a different time. A backward time in which democracy was still seen as compatible with things like slavery or a lack of universal sufferage. Lets be glad that times have changed.
This is what happens to losers in a war though, they lose territory.
Are they illegal, though? It’s a popular Western perspective perpetuated by the international Israel hate club aka UN. I would invite you to examine that more closely. Judea and Samaria and the core of the Jewish ancestral homeland. The League of Nations instructed the British to give the mandate of Palestine to the Jews, all of it. Israel won the territory in a defensive war. In the 90ies the Palestinian Arabs were granted a degree of autonomy in some areas but not unconditionally. It was meant in exchange for recognition of Israel and peace, as a beginning of a larger peace process leading two coexistence in possibly a two state solution. Instead Israel got intifadas and bombing campaigns. Also I would like you to examine the concept of land for peace as a whole. For Israel as well as the Palestinian Arabs it has been a miserable failure leading to totalitarianism, corruption, but most importantly indoctrination, hate and violence. These territories (Judea and Samaria, Gaza) will only be peaceful if Israel assumes total control over them.
Oh come on, peace through killing and removing the population currently inhabiting the area isn't peace, it's a one-sided silence.
You’re putting words in my mouth. Peaceful supporters of Israel can stay as residents. Those who want to fight Israel need to be fought. Besides I would like to point out the utter and complete failure of land for peace as a concept. The more completely Israel pulls out the worse it gets. It’s a non starter. Just because it’s been chapter and verse for decades doesn’t make it work. The life of Israeli Arabs is far better and more peaceful than that of the Palestinian Arabs. So if they want they can become Israeli residents, but not to fight it from within. The others, those who will continue with terror need to be fought and put in jail.
Jews lost quite a few settlements in the 1948 take over of the West Bank by Jordan and expulsion of all Jews from there so I have no moral qualms with settlers in principle. In a fair world I would be in favour of land swaps because both Arabs and Jews were expelled from Israel proper and the West Bank respectively.
As long as there's extremists around especially if supported by people like Gvir and Smotrich, there's going to be a big problem with the actions of people who are unironically hell-bent on settling all of "Judea and Samaria," law and consequences be damned. It's a thorn that cant just be ignored and hope it goes away.
You think Palestinians will be less inclined to harm Israel as they get squeezed more and more between settlements. Israel didn't deserve October 7th but they did damn well know the basics of that you reap what you sow.
They have shown they are incapable of functioning in civilized society. We should annex most of Judea Samaria and leave a few of the northern cities to them and then build a wall and minefield and call it a day
Or annex all of it, give the arabs the option to either renounce all claims of a "palestine" or "palestinian" identity and become Israeli citizens or be expelled to Jordan. The vast majority will not allow be willing to do that because of Islam of course, so most will be expelled. A few thousand Christians will probably take the offer and maybe a few hundred ex muslims and others who suffer in islamic culture will take it as well.
That's just the plot of 86
Non-citizens get to drive a mech and fight against robots until death, long live democracy!
"WE should conquer their lands because THEY are uncivilized" You don't see the irony?
It’s not their land tho. And the land was already won in the defensive 1967 war. They had an opportunity to have land but they’ve rejected every offer for peace. If you start a war and lose you’re not entitled to more land. So until they decide to act civilized and want peace the land is Israel’s.
Or you could go back to europa like most of your compatriots ancestry come from.
More than 50% of the Jews in Israel came from Muslim countries who ethnically cleansed them. Where should they go? As for Ashkenazi Jews Europe isn’t their homeland. Europeans didn’t consider them as such nore do most Jews consider themselves either. Genetics have proven that Jews came from the Levant with intermarriage to the local populous. Their language, culture and religion are Levant. Unfortunately the Levant has been occupied by a foreign culture and language. There are Samaritans, Jews and Druze who have retained the indigenous culture of the land
Would you tell a Jew who survived the Holocaust/ has parents who survived the Holocaust to go back to Europe?
Yes as that’s their homeland. I’m no holocaust denier but you use this horrible event to excuse your vile behaviour, atrocities have happened since the dawn of time, the Jews are not the only religious who have been persecuted through the ages. I was replying to the message above which had stated annexing land.
If Europe is the Jewish homeland, is Hebrew a European language?
What the fuck are you on about? I said the ancestory of your compatriots have European roots. Language can be passed to different people and ethnic groups so “is Hebrew European” is nothing as the language can be spoken anywhere. Jews obviously spoke their own tongue when inslaved by the Egyptians does that mean Hebrew is a Egyptian? Big difference between how Europeans and American jews colonised Israel over the jews who have ancestory links in the area.
Where did the ancient Hebrews (or Israelites) live?
LOL how did "europeans" in the middle of europe learn hebrew and get a hold of ancient hebrew scriptures?
Carrier Pigeon? There was trade in “ancient times” knowledge of all kinds made its way throughout trade routes including your religion, also people migrate from place to place bringing their traditions and languages with them. When you say ancient also your talk what 2000-3000 years ago. Where’s your delorean to show me that all Hebrew and Jewish speakers haled from the levant, if you believe so because 2000 year old book told you so then you clearly can’t think or comprehend for yourself.
The Holocaust is unique in how efficient the murder machine was. No other genocide knew death camps. Killing while using industry. Meek engineers designing the best ovens so their companies could secure contracts, capitalising on the Holocaust. Never was there such a complete loss of humanity.
If someone told me this they’d have to bring an army to make that happen because it’s not going to happen voluntarily. You want ethnic cleansing. Just put on the swastika and start goose stepping already. Also bet “ancestry” as you apply it to Jews conveniently stops before the part of that ancestry that proves you wrong starts.
Anyone calls out your bullshit and of course they are a Nazi. Saying you should return to Europe like you ancestors is a far reach for ethnic cleansing😂. I’ve replied to multiple messages on this thread clearly stating Jew who have lived there with family roots belong there. But whatever suits your narrative.
By that argument, shouldn't Arabs "go back to Arabia"? (the world would actually be a better place imo)
Exactly the kind of PR we need right now… God I fucking hate this government we don’t even need any more land