There were slave *states* and free *states*. America was not really a "slave society", it had an antislavery majority. This is a stupid semantic dispute.
Anyway, the South was part of the US in 1850. The West Bank is not part of Israel. The motivation for what's happening in the West Bank is security. We've seen in Gaza was the alternative is. You didn't have separate roads and so on before the Second Intifada.
"The motivation for what's happening in the West Bank is security."
Are you joking? Do you listen to what the settlers themselves say? Are you aware Israel has formally annexed the largest urban center in the West Bank, which it has ruled over for two-thirds of the state's existence?
"You didn't have separate roads and so on before the Second Intifada."
Do you think you're the first apartheid apologist to blame the native people for fighting back?
---
There were slave *states* and free *states*. America was not really a "slave society", it had an antislavery majority.
It was a society with millions and millions of slaves, whose highest court had determined slaves were not citizens and had no Constitutional rights. The North condoned slavery, much like Jewish Israelis condone what Israel has done in the West Bank for the last 60 years. As the poet said, you condone it, you own it.
The main reason that Israel is in the West Bank, and has not withdrawn, is because of security. Many of the ideological settlers have their own terrible motivations, yes. But Israel has offered to leave the West Bank and sign a two-state solution several times. And again, there were settlements before the Second Intifada but no separate roads. I guess East Jerusalem is the largest urban center in the West Bank, but it's pretty small. You're right that I should clarified that this is the main reason for Israel's occupation of the West Bank. The settlement enterprise is another matter.
Jews are also native to the land. But I don't see the moral relevance of who is "native". In fact the settlers make a big deal out of the fact that Jews are native to Judea. OK that's true, so what? Doesn't mean building settlements in Hebron is a good idea. West Jerusalem, Beit Shemesh, and Beersheba are also part of Judea. Anyway I don't collectively blame entire ethnic groups. That's very messed up. I blame terrorists who target civilians and want to kill and expel the Jews in a second Holocaust. I think that this is awful.
Look I would love for Israel to leave the West Bank. Israel offered two-state solutions more than once. But the problem is if Israel leaves the West Bank, it will just become a second Gaza. We've all seen how badly the first Gaza went, after Israel removed its military and its settlements. What other options does Israel have? I don't like the settlements. But I think that staying in the West Bank is better than the alternative. Reversing settlements but keeping the IDF would be an improvement.
Your analogy to the US in 1850 is pretty bad. It would be better if America above the Mason-Dixon Line had a 20% black minority with equal rights, the South had tons of medical detectors and separate roads instituted after a lot of black terrorism, there was NEVER A SLAVE TRADE and THERE NEVER WAS SLAVERY but rather just an exodus of black people when the US is founded, after the black people attacked the white people with the support of the surrounding black countries and their leadership had just collaborated with a regime that genocided a huge fraction of white people on Earth, and oh also there was a huge exodus of white people from majority-black countries when the US was founded as well. Oh and if the South had a black majority where a majority of the population supported killing or expelling all White Americans. Also, if the US had already withdrawn from Black New Brunswick, and got an October 7 attack on villages in Maine in response from an ISIS-like theocracy that took over there and shot out of hospitals.
All of that is false. When have the Israeli offered to withdraw from the West Bank completely? Never, simply never.
The utmost limits of a settlement put forth by an Israeli government (and that informally) was 2-4 isolated, demilitarized Bantustans, covering about 16% of Palestine, with Israel controlling the water, the airspace, and the borders.
" In fact the settlers make a big deal out of the fact that Jews are native to Judea. OK that's true, so what?"
In fact, it is not true. Jews are not native to the land. Judaism is, fun fact, a religion. Members of that religion are not native to Palestine any more than all Catholics are native to Italy.
Do you know about the Clinton Parameters and about Olmert's 2008 proposal? Definitely not "2-4 isolated, demilitarized Bantustans". Anyway, Barak and Olmert were not Likud. Netanyahu, hawkish as Likudish and he is, accepted a Kerry framework calling for a solution based on '67 lines.
Uhh withdrawing from the West Bank would make another Gaza. Yes the settlements are bad and are not about security. But you are making a mistake by referring to Israel like it's a person or something. There is some lobby and faction within Israel that supports settlements, which is bad. Israel is not a monolith, but rather a parliamentary democracy with a bunch of different parties and institutions, which have varying opinions on the settlements.
I do indeed! The Clinton Parameters, from wikipedia: "the Israelis demanded a route between East Jerusalem and the Jordan River[1] (to pass by a tunnel or bridge, providing "contiguous" territory)[14] and probably an additional one from Ariel, which would cut the West Bank into pieces." Again, Bantustans all day long. CP also demanded the Palestinians, not Israel, be disarmed and helpless, and specified the IDF could go into Palestinian territory at their own discretion.
Barak refused to sign the CPs. He put it off until after the elections, which, of course, he lost badly, and Ariel Sharon rejected the CPs. No counterexample there.
The Olmert Plan was a plan for unilateral disengagement, a la. It wasn't an offer to withdraw because it wasn't an offer. And it didn't happen because the Israelis didn't do it.
Got any more?
-----
"But you are making a mistake by referring to Israel like it's a person or something."
When I refer to Israel I'm referring to the government and its policies. When I mean Zionists I say Zionists; when I mean Jewish Israelis I say Jewish Israelis.
I'm well aware there is a diversity of opinion about the settlements, but those opinions are eventually crystalized in government policy, which has strongly supported the settlers and their abuses for the past 60 years. There are, or perhaps it is more accurate to say, were, a group of Jewish Israelis called "liberal Zionists" but unlike the fanatical ethnonationalists who crushed them, they've never had any clear idea of what they wanted to achieve with the Palestinians, other than an illusory concept of "peace" where Zionists would give up nothing and still be in control but the Palestinians would happily live under the Zionist yoke.
"Look I would love for Israel to leave the West Bank. Israel offered two-state solutions more than once. But the problem is if Israel leaves the West Bank, it will just become a second Gaza. We've all seen how badly the first Gaza went, after Israel removed its military and its settlements. What other options does Israel have? I don't like the settlements. But I think that staying in the West Bank is better than the alternative. Reversing settlements but keeping the IDF would be an improvement."
Specifically about this: again, the idea Israel offered to leave the West Bank and Gaza is a myth. Look at the party platform of the ruling party, Likud: it specifically says all the land between the river and the sea is Jewish and always will be.
"What other options does Israel have?"
Goodness, so many!
As you point out, if their concern is security, they could remove the settlements and leave the IDF.
They could move from de facto to de jure annexation and give the Palestinians there citizenship and the vote.
They could offer a true two-state solution, in which the Palestinian state would control its own sovereign territory, borders, and resources, and have the right of self-defense backed up by whatever military assets they saw fit to deploy.
That would actually be far LESS likely to lead to Gaza 2.0, where Israel strove to control Gaza indirectly, not letting them build an economy, or travel, or build a capacity for self-defense. That situation was inevitably going to lead to an explosion. A truly independent Palestinian state would give the Palestinians an incentive not to go to war.
You go on to make a bunch of incorrect claims about the US in 1850, and even more grossly factually wrong claims about the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians, the status of the Palestinian citizens of Israel and the state of the West Bank under Israeli rule.
It's really difficult to help people form reasonable moral intuitions around the conflict whilst they are still in the grips of this kind of self-serving Zionist propaganda.
But, you asked how I would solve the conflict, and that's a good question. I'd bring Israel's de jure boarders in line with it's de facto boarders, establish a citizenship law including those Palestinians, and recognize and implement the right of return.
In a nutshell, I think Zionism was a bad idea and has failed, and the state of Israel needs to move past it into a future where the state defines itself as a state of all its citizens and the Jewish minority, whilst important and valued, does not claim the right to rule over the native majority.
You in 1850: "Obviously it's ridiculous to call America a "slave society" when there are free Negros in New York, Maine, even in the deep South!"
There were slave *states* and free *states*. America was not really a "slave society", it had an antislavery majority. This is a stupid semantic dispute.
Anyway, the South was part of the US in 1850. The West Bank is not part of Israel. The motivation for what's happening in the West Bank is security. We've seen in Gaza was the alternative is. You didn't have separate roads and so on before the Second Intifada.
"The motivation for what's happening in the West Bank is security."
Are you joking? Do you listen to what the settlers themselves say? Are you aware Israel has formally annexed the largest urban center in the West Bank, which it has ruled over for two-thirds of the state's existence?
"You didn't have separate roads and so on before the Second Intifada."
Do you think you're the first apartheid apologist to blame the native people for fighting back?
---
There were slave *states* and free *states*. America was not really a "slave society", it had an antislavery majority.
It was a society with millions and millions of slaves, whose highest court had determined slaves were not citizens and had no Constitutional rights. The North condoned slavery, much like Jewish Israelis condone what Israel has done in the West Bank for the last 60 years. As the poet said, you condone it, you own it.
The main reason that Israel is in the West Bank, and has not withdrawn, is because of security. Many of the ideological settlers have their own terrible motivations, yes. But Israel has offered to leave the West Bank and sign a two-state solution several times. And again, there were settlements before the Second Intifada but no separate roads. I guess East Jerusalem is the largest urban center in the West Bank, but it's pretty small. You're right that I should clarified that this is the main reason for Israel's occupation of the West Bank. The settlement enterprise is another matter.
Jews are also native to the land. But I don't see the moral relevance of who is "native". In fact the settlers make a big deal out of the fact that Jews are native to Judea. OK that's true, so what? Doesn't mean building settlements in Hebron is a good idea. West Jerusalem, Beit Shemesh, and Beersheba are also part of Judea. Anyway I don't collectively blame entire ethnic groups. That's very messed up. I blame terrorists who target civilians and want to kill and expel the Jews in a second Holocaust. I think that this is awful.
Look I would love for Israel to leave the West Bank. Israel offered two-state solutions more than once. But the problem is if Israel leaves the West Bank, it will just become a second Gaza. We've all seen how badly the first Gaza went, after Israel removed its military and its settlements. What other options does Israel have? I don't like the settlements. But I think that staying in the West Bank is better than the alternative. Reversing settlements but keeping the IDF would be an improvement.
Your analogy to the US in 1850 is pretty bad. It would be better if America above the Mason-Dixon Line had a 20% black minority with equal rights, the South had tons of medical detectors and separate roads instituted after a lot of black terrorism, there was NEVER A SLAVE TRADE and THERE NEVER WAS SLAVERY but rather just an exodus of black people when the US is founded, after the black people attacked the white people with the support of the surrounding black countries and their leadership had just collaborated with a regime that genocided a huge fraction of white people on Earth, and oh also there was a huge exodus of white people from majority-black countries when the US was founded as well. Oh and if the South had a black majority where a majority of the population supported killing or expelling all White Americans. Also, if the US had already withdrawn from Black New Brunswick, and got an October 7 attack on villages in Maine in response from an ISIS-like theocracy that took over there and shot out of hospitals.
How do you propose to solve the conflict?
All of that is false. When have the Israeli offered to withdraw from the West Bank completely? Never, simply never.
The utmost limits of a settlement put forth by an Israeli government (and that informally) was 2-4 isolated, demilitarized Bantustans, covering about 16% of Palestine, with Israel controlling the water, the airspace, and the borders.
" In fact the settlers make a big deal out of the fact that Jews are native to Judea. OK that's true, so what?"
In fact, it is not true. Jews are not native to the land. Judaism is, fun fact, a religion. Members of that religion are not native to Palestine any more than all Catholics are native to Italy.
Do you know about the Clinton Parameters and about Olmert's 2008 proposal? Definitely not "2-4 isolated, demilitarized Bantustans". Anyway, Barak and Olmert were not Likud. Netanyahu, hawkish as Likudish and he is, accepted a Kerry framework calling for a solution based on '67 lines.
https://thirdnarrative.org/palestinians-still-reject-clinton-parameters/
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/the-pa-rejects-clinton-parameters-20-years-later-opinion-658864
Uhh withdrawing from the West Bank would make another Gaza. Yes the settlements are bad and are not about security. But you are making a mistake by referring to Israel like it's a person or something. There is some lobby and faction within Israel that supports settlements, which is bad. Israel is not a monolith, but rather a parliamentary democracy with a bunch of different parties and institutions, which have varying opinions on the settlements.
I do indeed! The Clinton Parameters, from wikipedia: "the Israelis demanded a route between East Jerusalem and the Jordan River[1] (to pass by a tunnel or bridge, providing "contiguous" territory)[14] and probably an additional one from Ariel, which would cut the West Bank into pieces." Again, Bantustans all day long. CP also demanded the Palestinians, not Israel, be disarmed and helpless, and specified the IDF could go into Palestinian territory at their own discretion.
Barak refused to sign the CPs. He put it off until after the elections, which, of course, he lost badly, and Ariel Sharon rejected the CPs. No counterexample there.
The Olmert Plan was a plan for unilateral disengagement, a la. It wasn't an offer to withdraw because it wasn't an offer. And it didn't happen because the Israelis didn't do it.
Got any more?
-----
"But you are making a mistake by referring to Israel like it's a person or something."
When I refer to Israel I'm referring to the government and its policies. When I mean Zionists I say Zionists; when I mean Jewish Israelis I say Jewish Israelis.
I'm well aware there is a diversity of opinion about the settlements, but those opinions are eventually crystalized in government policy, which has strongly supported the settlers and their abuses for the past 60 years. There are, or perhaps it is more accurate to say, were, a group of Jewish Israelis called "liberal Zionists" but unlike the fanatical ethnonationalists who crushed them, they've never had any clear idea of what they wanted to achieve with the Palestinians, other than an illusory concept of "peace" where Zionists would give up nothing and still be in control but the Palestinians would happily live under the Zionist yoke.
"Look I would love for Israel to leave the West Bank. Israel offered two-state solutions more than once. But the problem is if Israel leaves the West Bank, it will just become a second Gaza. We've all seen how badly the first Gaza went, after Israel removed its military and its settlements. What other options does Israel have? I don't like the settlements. But I think that staying in the West Bank is better than the alternative. Reversing settlements but keeping the IDF would be an improvement."
Specifically about this: again, the idea Israel offered to leave the West Bank and Gaza is a myth. Look at the party platform of the ruling party, Likud: it specifically says all the land between the river and the sea is Jewish and always will be.
"What other options does Israel have?"
Goodness, so many!
As you point out, if their concern is security, they could remove the settlements and leave the IDF.
They could move from de facto to de jure annexation and give the Palestinians there citizenship and the vote.
They could offer a true two-state solution, in which the Palestinian state would control its own sovereign territory, borders, and resources, and have the right of self-defense backed up by whatever military assets they saw fit to deploy.
That would actually be far LESS likely to lead to Gaza 2.0, where Israel strove to control Gaza indirectly, not letting them build an economy, or travel, or build a capacity for self-defense. That situation was inevitably going to lead to an explosion. A truly independent Palestinian state would give the Palestinians an incentive not to go to war.
"Your analogy to the US in 1850 is pretty bad."
You go on to make a bunch of incorrect claims about the US in 1850, and even more grossly factually wrong claims about the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians, the status of the Palestinian citizens of Israel and the state of the West Bank under Israeli rule.
It's really difficult to help people form reasonable moral intuitions around the conflict whilst they are still in the grips of this kind of self-serving Zionist propaganda.
But, you asked how I would solve the conflict, and that's a good question. I'd bring Israel's de jure boarders in line with it's de facto boarders, establish a citizenship law including those Palestinians, and recognize and implement the right of return.
In a nutshell, I think Zionism was a bad idea and has failed, and the state of Israel needs to move past it into a future where the state defines itself as a state of all its citizens and the Jewish minority, whilst important and valued, does not claim the right to rule over the native majority.