[Pants-of-dog]

No disagreement there - it needs to be part of a broader agreement.

But, I think you can agree with me that it would be a good first step. After all, the worst case scenario, would be that there would be less contact between Palestinians and Israeli civilians, in turn making it less likely to see an escalation and allowing for a relaxation of security measures.

Yet the precedent from the Gaza withdrawal shows this would not by itself end the conflict. Even unilaterally ending the occupation itself doesn't really guarantee that.

The only way to really end the conflict is to dismantle settler colonialism.

How exactly is it irrelevant? It illustrates Israel has shown willingness to give up land for a commitment to peace, and that it is in fact possible for Israelis and Arabs to agree to live in peace and actually do it.

It seems like you are homogenizing Arabs into one hive mind.

Israel and Egypt have enjoyed a long peace. Returning land to Egypt is not necessarily going to be relevant to nations other than Egypt.

You can say many things about The Guardian, being pro-Israel isn't one of them

That is a press report, not an op-ed by the way.[/quote]

[wat0n]

The only way to really end the conflict is to dismantle settler colonialism.

That which doesn't exist can't be dismantled to end the conflict.

After all, there was no Israeli state yet there was still conflict before 1948.

It seems like you are homogenizing Arabs into one hive mind.

Not really. If anything, you actually do homogenize Israelis into a hive mind, one bent on settling the land. Hence your justifications for October 7.

Israel and Egypt have enjoyed a long peace. Returning land to Egypt is not necessarily going to be relevant to nations other than Egypt.

Yet it does show that Israel is willing to give up land, even symbolically relevant land, in exchange for lasting peace.

[Rich]

The only way to really end the conflict is to dismantle settler colonialism.

While undoing the gains of the Muslim settler imperialists might be a nice idea, its not a practical reality. Subjectively Hamas stand in the tradition of Arab-Muslim terrorist rapist settler imperialism. However they are the dominant faction in Gaza, so they need to be part of the negotiations. Now maybe given a free vote the majority of Gazans might choose unconditional surrender to the Jewish Apartheid regime, but this is irrelevant. People are not going to lay down their lives to overthrow Hamas just to be docile subjects of the Jews.

[QatzelOk]

The only way to really end the conflict is to dismantle settler colonialism.

And since that will never happen, let's just say the magic words "two-state solution," and send Israelis more arms so that they can continue to fund re-election campaigns and don't publish any video footage of our politicians' sex escapades aboard planes.

[KurtFF8]

That which doesn't exist can't be dismantled to end the conflict.

After all, there was no Israeli state yet there was still conflict before 1948.

You're now denying that there are settlers in the West Bank? And that there were in Gaza before they were removed after pressure?

And the conflict can't have predated 1948 because the parties involved in this conflict literally didn't exist before then.

[wat0n]

You're now denying that there are settlers in the West Bank? And that there were in Gaza before they were removed after pressure?

And the conflict can't have predated 1948 because the parties involved in this conflict literally didn't exist before then.

Huh, yes the parties to this conflict definitely did exist before 1948. What are you talking about?

[Sherlock Holmes]

Is a child like Kfir Bibas benefitting from occupation?

There are of course examples of people not benefitting from the occupation the vast majority are Palestinians. But many do benefit from it else there wouldn't be an occupation. If the Zionist regime did not gain some benefit from the illegal occupation why on earth would they even continue with it?

We both know the answer, it is land, the theft of land and the gradual ethnic cleansing of non-Jews from that land, that's why the do it, and every Jew who lives in occupied land is benefitting by their possession and economic exploitation of stolen land.

Barely three months into the year, 2024 has already seen a record amount of West Bank land declared as state-owned property. In addition, figures dating from 2018 to 2023 show that the Civil Administration has remapped approximately 24,000 dunams (5,900 acres) of state-owned land, most of them in areas deep in the West Bank

Source: Haaretz


Source: IMEU

Every settler living on occupied land by definition is benefitting and the rightful owners bear the cost. So tell me, why is an illegal settler entitled to live in safety from attack? The Israelis are not entitled to attack Palestinians and steal this land yet they do, all the time, year in year out, why should they not be attacked? why should they not be forced out back to their own territory?

If Israelis are willing to take it upon themselves to attack, to burn, to vandalize and even kill so they can steal land, then I think it's completely equitable for the Palestinians to do likewise in order to try and put a stop to this illegal occupation and theft and reclaim their land.

If Israel doesn't want violence like Oct 7th then stop provoking it by enabling settler vigilantes to roam free, and cease the occupation.

The sick zionist regime is doomed, they want to expand by stealing land and at the same time demand to be safe from attacks, I have never seen such sheer stupidity and arrogance combined, they suffer from an exaggerated self importance but they are criminals, racists and have nobody to blame for this state of affairs but themselves.

[KurtFF8]

Huh, yes the parties to this conflict definitely did exist before 1948. What are you talking about?

You're just claiming up is down at this point and now you're making objectively false bizarre claims. Are you okay?

Israel as a state was created in 1948. So it, by definition, didn't exist prior to 1948.

Every single Palestinian group involved in this current conflict was founded after 1948. Your claim makes zero sense and you're wrong.

It is an objective fact that you are wrong.

[wat0n]

There are of course examples of people not benefitting from the occupation the vast majority are Palestinians. But many do benefit from it else there wouldn't be an occupation. If the Zionist regime did not gain some benefit from the illegal occupation why on earth would they even continue with it?

Oh sure, one benefit Israel gets is not handing the West Bank to islamists. Israelis learned that unilateral withdrawals won't bring peace or moderation by themselves.

We both know the answer, it is land, the theft of land and the gradual ethnic cleansing of non-Jews from that land, that's why the do it, and every Jew who lives in occupied land is benefitting by their possession and economic exploitation of stolen land.

Source: Haaretz


Source: IMEU

Every settler living on occupied land by definition is benefitting and the rightful owners bear the cost. So tell me, why is an illegal settler entitled to live in safety from attack? The Israelis are not entitled to attack Palestinians and steal this land yet they do, all the time, year in year out, why should they not be attacked? why should they not be forced out back to their own territory?

If Israelis are willing to take it upon themselves to attack, to burn, to vandalize and even kill so they can steal land, then I think it's completely equitable for the Palestinians to do likewise in order to try and put a stop to this illegal occupation and theft and reclaim their land.

If Israel doesn't want violence like Oct 7th then stop provoking it by enabling settler vigilantes to roam free, and cease the occupation.

The sick zionist regime is doomed, they want to expand by stealing land and at the same time demand to be safe from attacks, I have never seen such sheer stupidity and arrogance combined, they suffer from an exaggerated self importance but they are criminals, racists and have nobody to blame for this state of affairs but themselves.

So why can't we apply exactly the same standard for Israel ensuring the return of property owners to places like Jerusalem and Hebron again?

Are you sure you want to go through this route? Because the Israeli settlements are just what imposed return looks like, and also show how idiotic the binational state pipe dream is.

You're just claiming up is down at this point and now you're making objectively false bizarre claims. Are you okay?

Israel as a state was created in 1948. So it, by definition, didn't exist prior to 1948.

Every single Palestinian group involved in this current conflict was founded after 1948. Your claim makes zero sense and you're wrong.

It is an objective fact that you are wrong.

This would presume that the State of Israel itself isn't simply the continuation of previously existing institutions. One reason why Israel won in 1948 is that the Zionists, through the Jewish Agency, had been building the infrastructure of a proto-state long before the British left.

Likewise, the PLO and other Palestinian armed groups are simply new iterations of past institutions like the Arab Higher Committee, which then morphed into the Egypt-controlled All-Palestine Government.

What's your point here?

[KurtFF8]

This would presume that the State of Israel itself isn't simply the continuation of previously existing institutions. One reason why Israel won in 1948 is that the Zionists, through the Jewish Agency, had been building the infrastructure of a proto-state long before the British left.

Likewise, the PLO and other Palestinian armed groups are simply new iterations of past institutions like the Arab Higher Committee, which then morphed into the Egypt-controlled All-Palestine Government.

What's your point here?

The state of Israel is not a continuation of the British Mandate of Palestine if that's what you're implying. You would be wrong to assume that.

Yes the Zionist movement had been aiming to achieve said state and finally did. But the state did not exist, and once it came into existence, it was not merely a continuation of the paramilitary and terrorist organizations that preceded it.

And again you're wrong about the PLO. They are not a continuation of previous organizations.

The real question is what's your point? Why are you trying to pretend that this conflict predates all of the parties involved in the conflict? The only thing I can think is that you want to frame it as some sort of inherent conflict between ethnicities and religions instead of what it actually is: a conflict between a nation state and a population they seek to control that is situated in a specific geopolitical context that has little to do with the organizations you're referencing.

[wat0n]

The state of Israel is not a continuation of the British Mandate of Palestine if that's what you're implying. You would be wrong to assume that.

I literally did not say that.

Yes the Zionist movement had been aiming to achieve said state and finally did. But the state did not exist, and once it came into existence, it was not merely a continuation of the paramilitary and terrorist organizations that preceded it.

The government itself was formed from the Jewish Agency, which was also the representative of the Yishuv. The IDF was formed from the Haganah. Plenty of other state institutions predate the existence of the state itself.

And again you're wrong about the PLO. They are not a continuation of previous organizations.

Literally established by the Arab League, which had in turn recognized the aforementioned All-Palestine Government.

The real question is what's your point? Why are you trying to pretend that this conflict predates all of the parties involved in the conflict? The only thing I can think is that you want to frame it as some sort of inherent conflict between ethnicities and religions instead of what it actually is: a conflict between a nation state and a population they seek to control that is situated in a specific geopolitical context that has little to do with the organizations you're referencing.

I'm not pretending anything, in fact you are - you are pretending there's no continuity between what happened in 1947 and what happened in 1948, as if the State of Israel and its institutions were founded by spontaneous generation or something. That's not how state building works.

[KurtFF8]

I literally did not say that.

You literally did:

This would presume that the State of Israel itself isn't simply the continuation of previously existing institutions.

The government itself was formed from the Jewish Agency, which was also the representative of the Yishuv. The IDF was formed from the Haganah. Plenty of other state institutions predate the existence of the state itself.

These are institutions that ultimately set up the state. But the state itself is a distinct entity and of course the nature of being a state transformed it from being a group of terrorist paramilitary organizations into a nation state. Thus a very different thing.

Literally established by the Arab League, which had in turn recognized the aforementioned All-Palestine Government.

Right, so it in other words came into existence well after 1948.

I'm not pretending anything, in fact you are - you are pretending there's no continuity between what happened in 1947 and what happened in 1948, as if the State of Israel and its institutions were founded by spontaneous generation or something. That's not how state building works.

Nope, you're just having reading comprehension issues then. Yes there is a context for understanding how the state came into existence, as is the case with any nation state in the world. But the entities that are currently in conflict didn't exist pre-1948 in any meaningful way. Like I said, you're simply trying to project a much older history onto a context where it isn't relevant.

[Sherlock Holmes]

One reason why Israel won in 1948 is that the Zionists, through the Jewish Agency, had been building the infrastructure of a proto-state long before the British left.

How can something that did not exist, be said to "win" at anything? There was no Israel UNTIL 1948. The British and others had already promised to support Arab independence in Palestine if the Arabs would force the Ottomans out in 1916. This was accomplished but Britain betrayed the Arabs.

The betrayal was that it had been secretly colluding with nationalist Zionists to instead setup a Jewish state in Palestine by splitting it in two, at a time when Jews were a small minority (about 11% of the population).

Over the subsequent thirty years Jewish immigration was encouraged (most Jewish immigrants at this time had no connection with Palestine, they were from European countries and spoke European languages and were an integral part of European culture, music and science) and Zionist extremism began to grow, the Arabs (who had been betrayed in 1916) could see full well what the colonial powers had been planning and of course tensions rose. There was a fear that a nationalist extremist state was going to be declared who's borders were to be defined and imposed by the colonial powers in collusion with the Zionists.

During that thirty years Zionism mutated from a general desire for a safe haven for Jews into a fanatical Jew supremacist nationalism. Most Jews at the time were not Zionists but the fanaticism was such that passive Jews were persecuted if they did not support nationalism, schools were setup teaching racist theories about Arabs and Palestinians, terrorism was adopted and Jews and non-Jews alike were targeted violently by the Zionist groups.

Naturally non-Jews, especially those who feared becoming trapped within the eventual borders of the new Jewish state, began to resist and thwart the Zionists.

The entire project was made possible and pushed forward by the British, had they not betrayed the Arabs and then supported Jewish nationalism it is likely we'd have had a Palestinian government setup in which every person be they Jew, Arab, Muslim, Christian, had a vote in a new democratic state of Palestine.

[wat0n]

You literally did:

None of which was British.

These are institutions that ultimately set up the state. But the state itself is a distinct entity and of course the nature of being a state transformed it from being a group of terrorist paramilitary organizations into a nation state. Thus a very different thing.

So? Does it suddenly mean the conflict didn't start before 1948?

Right, so it in other words came into existence well after 1948.

The state, not the conflict.

Nope, you're just having reading comprehension issues then. Yes there is a context for understanding how the state came into existence, as is the case with any nation state in the world. But the entities that are currently in conflict didn't exist pre-1948 in any meaningful way. Like I said, you're simply trying to project a much older history onto a context where it isn't relevant.

No reading comprehension issues here, this still doesn't explain how exactly is that there was no conflict before 1948.

How can something that did not exist, be said to "win" at anything? There was no Israel UNTIL 1948. The British and others had already promised to support Arab independence in Palestine if the Arabs would force the Ottomans out in 1916. This was accomplished but Britain betrayed the Arabs.

The betrayal was that it had been secretly colluding with nationalist Zionists to instead setup a Jewish state in Palestine by splitting it in two, at a time when Jews were a small minority (about 11% of the population).

Over the subsequent thirty years Jewish immigration was encouraged and Zionist extremism began to grow, the Arabs (who had been betrayed in 1916) could see full well what the colonial powers had been planning and of course tensions rose. There was a fear that a nationalist extremist state was going to be declared who's borders were to be defined and imposed by the colonial powers in collusion with the Zionists.

During that thirty years Zionism mutated from a general desire for a safe haven for Jews into a fanatical Jew supremacist nationalism. Most Jews at the time were not Zionists but the fanaticism was such that passive Jews were persecuted if they did not support nationalism, schools were setup teaching racist theories about Arabs and Palestinians, terrorism was adopted and Jews and non-Jews alike were targeted violently by the Zionist groups.

Naturally non-Jews, especially those who feared becoming trapped within the eventual borders of the new Jewish state, began to resist and thwart the Zionists.

The entire project was made possible and pushed forward by the British, had they not betrayed the Arabs and then supported Jewish nationalism it is likely we'd have had a Palestinian government setup in which every person be they Jew, Arab, Muslim, Christian, had a vote in a new democratic state of Palestine.

You're contradicting itself - this exactly illustrates how the conflict began, with the opposing promises made by the British.

[Sherlock Holmes]

You're contradicting itself - this exactly illustrates how the conflict began, with the opposing promises made by the British.

I've said repeatedly that the whole problem is rooted in what the British did, they bear a huge part of the blame.

[wat0n]

I've said repeatedly that the whole problem is rooted in what the British did, they bear a huge part of the blame.

Do you agree then the conflict did not start in 1948?

[KurtFF8]

None of which was British.

Right, because Israel didn't exist before 1948.

So? Does it suddenly mean the conflict didn't start before 1948?

It did not start before 1948, correct. The current conflict is not related to the conflict between the terrorist groups that would eventually become the IDF and the British State.

The state, not the conflict.

None of the current states/militant organizations/etc involved in today's conflict existed prior to 1948. It doesn't make any sense to claim they did.

No reading comprehension issues here, this still doesn't explain how exactly is that there was no conflict before 1948.

There were unrelated conflicts in 1948 between different entities that no longer exist if that's what you're referencing. Since you seem to be quite confused still, why don't you clarify what exactly it is about today's conflict that you think predates 1948.

You're contradicting itself - this exactly illustrates how the conflict began, with the opposing promises made by the British.

What the British did certainly set the context for how the new Israeli state and various other nation states/militant organizations would behave and act. Most of those organizations have long since ceased to exist. The current belligerents in the active military zone did not exist prior to 1948, so I'm not sure what you're on about here.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Do you agree then the conflict did not start in 1948?

That depends wholly upon how one defines "the conflict". Today's conflict is that we have Israel violating international law and violating the 1948 partition while being financed by the US to the tune of billions per year with jets, bombs, tanks, guns and the Palestinians being trapped in Gaza as it gets bombed and the people starved and land stolen from them and checkpoints everywhere and roads built that only Jews can use and home being demolished and settlers attacking people and so on.

That's a summary but that's "the conflict" I see today and how it started is frankly secondary, it needs fixing and fast.

[wat0n]

^ this is the continuation of the pre-1948 conflict, a different stage if you want to see it that way.

Right, because Israel didn't exist before 1948.

No, because the Zionist institutions were not controlled by the British.

It did not start before 1948, correct. The current conflict is not related to the conflict between the terrorist groups that would eventually become the IDF and the British State.

It's the direct continuation of it - just another phase.

Even the Palestinians would agree with this idea.

None of the current states/militant organizations/etc involved in today's conflict existed prior to 1948. It doesn't make any sense to claim they did.

Their precursors did.

There were unrelated conflicts in 1948 between different entities that no longer exist if that's what you're referencing. Since you seem to be quite confused still, why don't you clarify what exactly it is about today's conflict that you think predates 1948.

I'm not confused, I'm just showing you're full of shit. Some of the grievances of the present-day conflict originate from before 1948.

What the British did certainly set the context for how the new Israeli state and various other nation states/militant organizations would behave and act. Most of those organizations have long since ceased to exist. The current belligerents in the active military zone did not exist prior to 1948, so I'm not sure what you're on about here.

Refounding an institution doesn't mean it suddenly appeared from nowhere. The current actors are direct counterparts of the pre-1948 actors I mentioned earlier, on both sides.

[KurtFF8]

^ this is the continuation of the pre-1948 conflict, a different stage if you want to see it that way.

Nope!

No, because the Zionist institutions were not controlled by the British.

Who claimed they were? What predates Israel is the British Mandate of Palestine.

It's the direct continuation of it - just another phase.

Even the Palestinians would agree with this idea.

All Palestinians agree with this? Explain that one.

Their precursors did.

It's only you claiming that there is a direct lineage between the contemporary entities that didn't exist in 1948 and other organizations that did. Hamas, for example, wasn't founded until 1987.

I'm not confused, I'm just showing you're full of shit. Some of the grievances of the present-day conflict originate from before 1948.

Here's where your point starts to fall apart. "Some of the grievances"

Refounding an institution doesn't mean it suddenly appeared from nowhere. The current actors are direct counterparts of the pre-1948 actors I mentioned earlier, on both sides.

No one claims that Israel appears "from nowhere." It appeared from the context of the conflict in Europe and the zionist movement of the time. I hope you don't mean Israel was "refounded" rather than "founded" in 1948 of course. The idea that it was a "re" founding of a previous entity is ahistorical and false.