Settlements are of course wrong, but I don't really see any concrete action that Israel could take other than removing settlements. Even if they did that the fundamental facts on the ground wouldn't change. I don't see how they lift the blockade and any 2 state solution seems a nonstarter.

  > Settlements are of course wrong

I hear this often, by never an explanation of what is wrong with Israelis building houses in the West Bank. You'll also note that League of Nations (and UN) mandates can not change the laws of the lands they administer - then can only issue temporary orders (usually limited to three years). So British orders are not valid in the holy land today. Likewise, military occupation (Jordanian, Israeli) also can not change the laws but rather can issue temporary orders. So the law of the land in the West Bank even today remains Ottoman law, modulo "temporary" Israeli military orders that are actually renewed (for the most part) every three years or so.

Ottoman law since the 1850's stated that anyone who settles land (houses, farms, factories) owns it - Muslims and Jews and Christians alike. Their goal was to increase the population of the near-desolate holy land (which they called Greater Syria), and collect more taxes. Those laws still stand today, for better or for worse. There is nothing "illegal" about Israeli citizens building homes in the West Bank. What would be illegal would be if the Israeli state were to transfer its citizens - international law is binding on states, not citizens. But citizens moving is not banned by any international law, and settlement of the West Bank is actually encouraged by the laws in the West Bank dating over 150 years, because nobody since has had the authority to change those laws.

This is incredibly disingenuous and makes you appear to be an extremist very carefully and deliberately posing as a well meaning naïf to spread lies.

Apparently I should explain my opinion more clearly.

You are all through this thread. You have detailed opinions of the history of the area, and you are clearly aware that the ground reality is that Israel makes and enforces the laws in the West Bank, and that the Israeli military has supported Israeli people in driving the existing Palestinian residents off their land, and either destroying existing Palestinian homes and infrastructure then building their own homes, or simply moving into the forcibly confiscated homes. It is extraordinarily misleading to pretend a) that you believe that the actual law in the West Bank is that of the Ottoman Empire that no longer exists or b) that you believe Israeli settlers being friendly locals who are simply following Ottoman law and developing empty land.

You also, with your demonstrated familiarity with the history of the area, must be aware of the military-enforced eviction from and demolition of Palestinian homes and farms, and the restrictions on Palestinian people preventing them from moving out of the occupied West Bank. There is no person on earth who knows this history, is capable of arguing on Hacker News, and also needs an explanation of why forcibly driving people from their homes under military occupation in order to replace them with people of a different religion/ethnicity/nation is bad. There are, unfortunately, a number of people who simply disagree with this moral position - and it appears you are one of them, and that you are attempting to convince other less informed people that this is not what is happening by lying about it.

  > Israel makes and enforces the laws in the West Bank, and that the Israeli military has supported Israeli people in driving the existing Palestinian residents off their land, and either destroying existing Palestinian homes and infrastructure then building their own homes, or simply moving into the forcibly confiscated homes.

I understand that there is a very prominent lobby to present property disputes as Jews stealing Palestinian homes. I'm willing to discuss this. Present to me each case of "Jews stealing Palestinian homes" and I will do my best to research the circumstances of each one individually. I'll invest the time in that, and maybe I'll learn something. But from what I've seen, each property dispute as an individual dispute could be debated either way. I will admit that there does exist inconsistencies in rulings regarding property disputes between Jews and Arabs. But I do not think that those inconsistencies are any more prominent than judicial inconsistencies in other areas without regard to the nationality of the parties.

  > It is extraordinarily misleading to pretend a) that you believe that the actual law in the West Bank is that of the Ottoman Empire that no longer exists or

Actually, yes, I do believe that the basis of the laws in the West Bank are Ottoman. That was even explained to me by an anti-settler movement whose tours to the West Bank I took a few times to learn about the West Bank. The organization is called Breaking the Silence, I encourage you to take their tour and learn about the area.

  > b) that you believe Israeli settlers being friendly locals who are simply following Ottoman law and developing empty land.

No, I do not think that Israeli settlers are just friendly locals. They are, for the most part, following Ottoman law where applicable and developing by and large mostly empty land. But yes, without a doubt some settlers do encroach on Arab villages. I won't deny that, I won't lie. But the media attempts to portray that as being the 99% case when it's far closer to the 1% case if that. For what it's worth, the Breaking the Silence group made me aware of some areas, such as near Hebron, where Arabs are encroaching on Jewish settlements. And the Arabs are far, far more violent than the Jews - even the Arabs will tell you this. Settler violence exists, but Arab violence against the settlers is far far more common. Don't take my word for it, ask any Arab that lives in the West Bank. I have asked, and I continue to talk with them despite the events of the past two months.

No, Breaking the Silence is arguing what law should be enforced - not pretending that the Israeli military law doesn’t actually exist.

> Settlements are of course wrong, but I don't really see any concrete action that Israel could take other than removing settlements.

It could do a lot in the West Bank (where the fully or partially PA administered territory is divided into 166 non-contiguous regions), and anything there xould be done in a way that it looks like a win for the Fatah-led PA, weakening the perception that Hamas and its violence is the only entity capable of delivering for the Palestinian people, undermining Hamas politically.

OTOH, the whole reason Israel fostered Hamas during the direct occupation of Gaza was to create an Islamist competitor for the more secular and sympathetic to non-Muslim states PLO, and the reason they've (and government ministers have said this explicitly) continued to support them in between periods of active conflict is to deflect pressure for peace and a two-state solution, so there’s zero chance of the Netanyahu government doing this.

Agree Israel could do a lot more in the West Bank (or maybe try just not being there...), but the present conflict is the result of attacks launched from Gaza, the area Israel fully withdrew from in the early 2000s. Gazans freely voted for Hamas for the first time shortly afterwards (which was the last time Hamas permitted them to vote). Ironically, polls for the time suggest that many of the Gazan voters who switched to Hamas did so as a protest against corruption and authoritarian trends in their Fatah govt and believed Hamas should have changed its core position to actually consider negotiating a peace settlement with Israel, but it's a pretty clear example that even drastic unilateral Israeli action (they did remove their settlements in that area... after the changes of government necessary to force it through) need not lead to peaceful outcomes.

Israel and especially its present governing coalition is not blameless for the situation (and nor are Palestinian factions and some of their supposed allies blameless for Israel's tendency to keep electing governing coalitions more interested in projecting power than continuing peace processes), but it's a lot more complicated than Israeli govts wanting Hamas to be a thing and nobody else in the region having agency. Undoing tacit support for an Islamist alternative to the PLO in the 1970s isn't really a policy option (if it is, someone should give the undo button to the US for Afghanistan!), that happened because there was open conflict long before Hamas and Netanyahu, and apparent diplomatic wins for the PLO did them absolutely no good in the noughties when Palestinians could still choose whether or not to vote for therm

I think I agree with that. Which is the PA should be boosted and rewarded with increased freedom and autonomy as a counter example to Gaza. As it stands right now Israel is almost rewarding being more intransigent.

The PA have no legitimacy with the majority of Palestinians especially in Gaza. Israel tried to ignore the vote that brought Hamas's political wing into power in Democratic elections in Gaza, and supported what was essentially a coup by the PA. But, the Palestinians rose up against the PA and its Israeli backers and reclaimed control of Gaza.

Funny since Israel originally supported (including arming) Hamas* hoping the religious Hamas would split the populations support for more secular nationalist movements in Palestine. But, you can be both religious and nationalist.

*Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood; Hamas grew out of the Muslim Brotherhood.

They are arguing for rewarding the West Bank, not for supporting the PA in Gaza.

> As it stands right now Israel is almost rewarding being more intransigent.

Not almost. The far right Israel factions (Netanyahu, Likud, etc.) have actually repeatedly encouraged and cultivated Hamas. They benefit far more from the polarization that Hamas brings than a mild and moderate PA who is willing to work diplomatically, because then that increases pressure on those far right Israelis to also be more temperate, which goes against their goals.

Would you want a two State solution with people eager to chop off your head and abduct and rape your children? I cannot even imagine what that would be like. They removed the settlements and settlers from Gaza, over a decade ago. And where did the attack come from?

> Would you want a two State solution with people eager to chop off your head and abduct and rape your children?

No, obviously the genocidal factions (Netanyahu and his right-wing allies, Hamas, at least as currently and historically led) will have to be displaced from power for a two-state solution to come into being.

Netanyahu could be displaced in elections. But how could Hamas be displaced?

In elections, too, if Israel didn't obstruct deals made between the PA and Hamas for all-Palestine elections (which include voting by Palestinians in those areas outside of Israel proper that remain under Israeli administration, so Israeli cooperation is required.)

International "Support" should be clear that settlements in the West Bank are a deal breaker, and that a sovereign West Bank should be recognized internationally. I can only hope Israel ousts Bibi after this, as it's clear evidence that occasional violence in Gaza is NOT a workable system, and the settlements in the West Bank by groups of people that are largely considered extreme right and have not a lot of sympathy from most other Israel citizens aren't helping either.

The Israeli govt can and should halt establishing new settlements or expanding existing settlements, especially when expansion is zero-sum with further displacement (e.g. Hebron). It can also enforce the criminality of extrajudicial settler violence.

Agreed any real solutions are a nonstarter in current situation, but a lack of imagination or will about how to move forward just further normalizes the illegality of it all.

If I'm Israel as long as Hamas controls Gaza I would support a blockade. If Hamas formally accepts a 2 state solution then I would change my opinion, but as it stands now the Israeli government has a responsibility to protect its citizen which to mean means limiting the ability of Hamas to acquire weapons.

If I'm Hamas I see zero incentive to concede anything when Fatah has been infinitely more diplomatic and in return has received squat.

Israel's policies caused Hamas, they have plenty of options that don't involve a giant starving ghetto but they choose not to exercise them. In particular: negotiate a resolution with Fatah, then provide Fatah with military support in ousting Hamas from Gaza (e.g. providing them with guns and access to the Gaza strip in the first place). Israel starving Gaza and keeping their economy permanently dead will only feed Hamas's victim narrative and enrage off Gaza's population more.

> There's no need to protest when people agree with their government.

Yet there's large protests in countries that aren't allied with the US or Israel, when no such protests were forthcoming in other analogous scenarios. And there were scarce protests in the US against Saudi Arabia's campaign in Yemen despite US alliance.

I do agree that your thesis is a partial explanation, but it is far from a full explanation. There's two other things going on.

Among Western leftists and minority groups, Israel is a symbol. It's perceived as the last vestige of Western/White colonialism. A symbol of someone with white skin punching down on brown skinned people. It harkens back to the reason that your ancestor was forced (either literally or by material circumstance) into the US in the first place, and why you are living today under systemic racism. Defeating this placeholder is therefore an important milestone in restoring their sense of historical justice. Needless to say this is oversimplified given how many Israeli Jews are indigenous to I/P or were ethnically cleansed from the surrounding MENA area and forced into the I/P area, but people do legitimately hold that dichotomous oppressor/oppressed worldview.

Among Muslim countries, this is an ethnoreligious blood feud. Assad killing Muslims doesn't cause the same anger because it's within the same identity group. So it's a classic case of identity divisions leading to disparate anger. I'm massively oversimplifying here, there are many other factors, but it's part of what's behind the energy.