Given the treatment the members of the various Abrahamic faith's have given each other over history, I'm not sure if that is an inducement, flowery euphemism for a mortal threat, or something somewhere in between.
Quite a non-realistic view of history and people's behavior. People will do bad things regardless of (and in-spite of) religion, and we have seen it (WWI/II, the massacres of the Uyghurs, the Holocaust, etc.). Humans are bloody creatures after all.
I've been working around the region for the past 10 years. Ran from Hizballah rockets, Israeli bombs, and Hamas intelligence. The governments on all sides suck donkey balls, but the Palestinian people are definitely the ones getting shafted and it would be neighborly if the Israeli people weren't such ignorant dicks about it.
The reality is that Israelis firmly believed in a two state solution and offered an agreement that was signed and accepted, called Oslo. Fast forward to today. Israelis believe in a two state solution, but don't believe someone exists with whom to bargain. Isrseli Arabs have long since given up caring. Regional powers outside of Iran have stopped caring.
I really hope there's peace soon, or at least in my lifetime. But the current detente is one that could carry on forever with few people noticing.
They believed in the solution very much but kept (effectively) annexing more and more land. People don't mention it, but the Israelis have a huge economic incentive in keeping things exactly as they are- the idea that "there is nobody on the other side" is an excellent excuse to grab more and more land.
I understand that this might not be the openly agreed-upon motivation for the status quo; but Israel is in an incredible conflict of interest because the reality is that the conflict benefits many of its citizens immensely.
There isn't a lot of value for that land, other than it's relative proximity to central region. Israel would be better served, and it would be cheaper to simply build up in the north - very much one of the two national strategies in place.
It sucks - but the reality is that Israel doesn't have anyone to negotiate with. The West Bank had a leader until recently, and Gaza is very much not an option. Making peace elsewhere is what's left, and it'll leave the PA behind eventually.
When Israel launched a counterattack against the Arab armies within its border, it then secured land from the then Transjordan borders. A similar event happened in the war with Syria.
Similarly, Israel's learned from its own history. In only one case (1976, Egypt) has peace been achieved by giving back land. This isn't a door Israel is willing to open again, having been burned (and yes, part of the burning) repeatedly.
No, there aren't. When someone has appropriated something he doesn't have a legitimate right to, the first, rightful thing to do is to give it back. It doesn't matter to whom, there is no need for agreements, and there's nothing that can be asked in return, because the fault is on the one who has misappropriated that something. Period. It is really that simple, and the reality is that Israel has no intention of giving back anything, otherwise it wouldn't have built cities on it.
This, without even going into the fact that you cannot ask for peace as a precondition for repairing the situation that is causing a large part of the conflict.
Should Jordan return to the non-Hashemites? When are all Australians leaving to their Aboriginees? When is Russia returning Siberia? How about Finland to the Nenets? Or the Samy receiving Norway, Sweden, and parts of Russia?
This is the problem with going down this path.
Ah, ok, if might is right then we're fine. Of course you cannot complain if someone else exercises this rule in a more local way: I might explode a bus, then I'm right to do it. I might throw rockets, then I'm right in doing so. I might get into your house and shoot you without being caught, so I'm right. I might think that my nation has the means to exterminate entire populations to establish some "vital space", then I'm right (and this was exactly H's reasoning).
Of course since a long time people have concerned themselves with devising rules that reduce as much as possible the occasions for conflict and disagreement. The law is nothing else than a system of rules designed to minimize grievances, starting from the observation that whoever has being wronged tends to seek satisfaction in every possible way, usually exercising violence.
So the standard is that Israel will keep doing what it pleases, people will still argue that it is completely wrong and needs to be stopped, and in the end if someone throws a nuclear weapon over the country we'll just shrug our shoulders and say- 'hey, might is right, that's how the world goes'. Is this the world you want?
Could it be better, absolutely. Many of us are working to change that. But today one can go to Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Netanya, and pretty much all the cities and see Arabs and Jews. We converse, we live together, we call each other cousins. But let's never pretend it's not equal - that's what we're striving towards, together.
Now, it can be accused of not being a peace partner. It can be accused of creating negative conditions. It can be accused of murders. But ethnic cleansing is at best untrue, and baiting at worst.
> For the most part (emphasis most) conflict hasn't been started by Israel.
Well, so now you're abandoning the "might is right" thing and returning to a sane moral argument, by talking about responsibilities and faults? Excellent. So what should Israel do with those territories that has misappropriated? Don't you think that the precondition for ending a dispute about a stolen good is to return it?
I'm neither abandoning, nor condoning the stance. I'm merely stating that this is how conflicts are resolved.
Not anymore. It has special status. National state law lowered status of Arabic and lowered status of all non-Jewish (as in religion) citizens.
Further, it explicitly says that "Nothing in this article shall affect the status given to the Arabic language before this law came into force.". This means that there are ZERO changes to Arabic as it applies to anything in the country. To wit, I a Jewish citizen in Israel can request services in Arabic should I choose to do so. Arabs in Israel request services in Arabic and Hebrew depending on comfort levels.
The Athenians offer the Melians an ultimatum: surrender and pay tribute to Athens, or be destroyed. The Athenians do not wish to waste time arguing over the morality of the situation, because in practice might makes right—or, in their own words, "the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must".
The Melians argue that they are a neutral city and not an enemy, so Athens has no need to conquer them. The Athenians counter that if they accept Melos' neutrality and independence, they would look weak: Their subjects would think that they left Melos alone because they were not strong enough to conquer it.
The Melians argue that an invasion will alarm the other neutral Greek states, who will become hostile to Athens for fear of being invaded themselves. The Athenians counter that the Greek states on the mainland are unlikely to act this way. It is the islands in the Aegean Sea that are more likely to take up arms against Athens.
The Melians argue that it would be shameful and cowardly of them to submit without a fight. The Athenians counter that it is only shameful to submit to an opponent whom one has a reasonable chance of defeating. There is no shame in submitting to an overwhelmingly superior opponent like Athens.
The Melians argue that though the Athenians are far stronger, there is still a chance that the Melians could win, and they will regret not trying their luck. The Athenians counter that this argument is emotional and short-sighted. If the Melians lose, which is highly likely, they will come to bitterly regret their foolhardiness.
The Melians argue that they will have the assistance of the gods because their position is morally just. The Athenians counter that the gods will not intervene because it is the natural order of things for the strong to dominate the weak.
The Melians argue that their Spartan kin will come to their defense. The Athenians counter that the Spartans don't have enough at stake in Melos to risk an intervention, noting that Athens has the stronger navy.
The Athenians express their shock at the Melians' lack of realism. They reiterate that there is no shame in submitting to a stronger enemy, especially one who is offering reasonable terms. The Melians do not change their minds and politely dismiss the envoys.
There's literally a Wikipedia category for Israeli children that were murdered.
If you murder a child, then "it is reasonable to assume, that his father, his grandfather, his older and younger brothers will hold a grudge, so to speak."
Let me know if you see a point to this conversation, because I don't see it.
What part of "it's illegal to appropriate someone's land even after an aggression" you don't understand?
And it's illegal for a reason, not because the international community is evil. Also, what aggression specifically gave Israel permission to settle hundreds of thousands of people in the West Bank in the last 20 years?
> Israel has repeatedly offered to give it back for peace
Peace comes after Israel has returned what has misappropriated, not before. This seems pretty obvious to me. Even more obvious is that if Israel had any intention to give the land back in any foreseeable future, it wouldn't have built entire f.....g cities on it!
Seriously, I can't understand if you're trying to deceive only me or yourself too.
So is your position that Jews are not allowed to live in certain places on this planet? Tell me more.
And how do they feel about returning the territories they have illegally annexed or occupied- the Golan heights, East Jerusalem and much of the West Bank?
Because otherwise "peace" just means enjoying what you stole without fear of consequences.
Plenty of Israelis would happily vote to trade some or all of those regions for stable alliances with their neighbors.
After the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, that dream was never going to happen though.
Israelis largely care about national security. If you could assure them that giving up those regions would guarantee peace, you would win an election.
Eh. Are you sure you thought this through? There are about 800 thousand Israelis living in occupied and annexed territories. That's 10% of the country. Do you think they would vote to leave their homes? That people would be happy to see house and land prices skyrocket?
Come on, let's not kid ourselves: land is monstrously valuable, Israelis are reaping enormous gains from the occupation. You're pretending it's indifferent, that Israelis just want peace. But for the meanwhile they'll just keep getting more free land, thank you very much.
> We can go on creating a great country for the Israeli Arabs, Jews, Druze and Christians
So you're arguing for the one-state solution. You do realize that that means the end of the nature of Israel as a "Jewish state" (definition that was just sanctioned in the law), and that a democracy in which half of the citizens are Palestinians is going to fundamentally change the nature of the country?
Wait, are you saying that they would not vote for Israel's government?
And how would this "autonomy" be different from full sovereignty? And in case it were different, to which superior body would this autonomy be subjected? And who would have democratic control of this superior body?
Because if the answers are respectively 'different', 'Israel' and '(current) Israeli citizens', then what you're talking about is proper, institutionalized apartheid.
The situation now is that vast parts of the West Bank are ultimately under Israel's control- Israel can decide to appropriate portions of land and build on it, build infrastructure for the exclusive use of settlers, and deploys the army to protect Israeli squatters from Palestinians trying to retrieve their possessions. Of course the settlers are allowed to vote for Israel's government, while the non-Israeli Palestinians living all around them have no rights and cannot vote for the government that has these powers on their land. This is de facto apartheid.
You're saying that this is "not far from" the ideal solution for you, and you'd be happy to turn it into apartheid de jure?
This problem can be easily solved: let everybody out, don't let anybody in, don't let them vote (as it happens with Israelis living in other countries). We did it twice: Sinai peninsula and Gaza Strip, we can do it again.
But this is very small problem. The real one is return of 2-5 millions of Palestinian refugees. Integrating them into Israel society would take time and effort.
70% would. Government would.
>Israelis are reaping enormous gains from the occupation.
Some israelis. Most just pay for it, not getting anything in return.
> 70% would. Government would.
Please. Stop and think. There are countries who had their youth decimated in atrocious wars to conquer portions of new territory proportionally smaller then the one Israel is occupying almost without damage.
This cavalier attitude you're showing is part of the self deception of Israelis in regards to the occupation. They keep building cities in land that doesn't belong to them, but refuse to admit they're actually reaping any benefit. That the country is becoming substantially larger and more spacious. That there is space- or there will be some time in the future- for more industries, more fields, more suburbs, more people to come and live in Israel- the people Israeli leaders keep inviting to move from France, from the UK, from the US.
But of course this would be an admissions that Israel is reaping some unjust benefit. That it might want peace, but it also wants to keep what it gained. That peace is a negative, because it implies an end to the progression of appropriations.
No, such a rule doesn't exist. Seems more like "an eye for an eye" than any form of civilized law.
Is it that surprising that a tour guide is just an ordinary person who may have some bad opinions?
https://jewishweek.timesofisrael.com/ethiopian-jews-once-hai...
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-32813056
https://www.newsweek.com/2016/10/07/why-ethiopian-jews-israe...