[...]
I will say these two things:
(1) I believe most Israelis would like to find a solution to live in peace next to an independent Palestinian state that does not attack them. My evidence for this is Israel's history of making peace deals with neighbors and offering peace deals to various Palestinian representatives. (1)
(2) I believe most Palestinians will settle for nothing less than the utter destruction of Israel. My evidence for this is the history of intafadas, the creation and election of Hamas (who are explicit about their genocidal desires), suicide bombings, and rocket attacks. I think it will be extremely difficult for most Palestinians to ever accept Israel as a nation. (2) If you want to get a sense of how difficult it would be, just notice how difficult it is for you to accept Israel as a proper noun.
Given these two beliefs, it is not surprising I defend Israel, and I defend Israel's right to defend herself. (3) Probably most of you don't believe (1) or (2). I won't ask because I've already asked a lot of questions in previous posts and almost everyone ignores almost every one of them. This is not the way to advance any understanding of our positions. In the future, I reserve the right to reply to questions directed at me by repeating one of my previous questions that got ignored.
[...]
People refer to the "occupied territories" -- but this presupposes a certain view. Hamas believes all the land is occupied not just the "West Bank" and "Gaza." Regarding settlements being the problem, that argument would hold more weight if we didn't have the clear example of what happens when all the settlements are removed by Israel. This happened in Gaza. The reaction of the Palestinians was to elect Hamas, have an incredibly bloody civil war and then engage in years of rocket attacks into Israel. All while receiving sympathy and aid from around the world. (2)
[...]
(1) - Oh, is that so? Well, let's see - Israel has just recently had an election, which has seen Netanyahu and his Likud party retain power - so, what options has Israel actually been pursuing these last few years in order to obtain peace? It certainly isn't the one state solution. Is it the two states solution, as you claim? Netanyahu seems to disagree with you; during the campaign, he stated: "I think that anyone who moves to establish a Palestinian state and evacuate territory gives territory away to radical Islamist attacks against Israel, [...] The left has buried its head in the sand time and after time and ignores this, but we are realistic and understand", and later, during that same interview, he added that, was the Zionist Union to win the elections, "'it would attach itself to the international community and do their bidding', including freezing construction in West Bank and East Jerusalem settlements, and cooperate with international initiatives to return Israel's borders to the 1967 lines". I should add that this was not the first time he expressed these views. In fact, and to be more accurate, since as far back as 1977, the Likud party's position has always been the denial of the right of a Palestinian state to exist - with only occasional divergence.
So, what exactly is the plan here? Because, as far as I can see, the only plan that has ever been put in place is the never ending stalling of negotiations, and the advancement of the illegal settlement activity - activity which is fully funded by the Israeli state, by the way, since the settlers are actually paid to move to, and live in the occupied territories. Nothing here shows actions conductive to a two state solution - that is, assuming the objective of the two state solution is the creation of two viable, independent and autonomous states, and not the creation of one state, alongside several South African style Bantustans.
Further, how can an independent Palestinian state (you claim Israel wants) exist alongside the crushing sanctions and blockade imposed on the occupied territories? As Israeli officials themselves put it at one point, they wanted Gaza's economy, and the over 1.5 million inhabitants "on the brink of collapse without quite pushing it over the edge", and "functioning at the lowest level possible consistent with avoiding a humanitarian crisis". At one point, among the items denied entry into the occupied territory were crayons, paper, books, clothing, newspapers, baby formula and a variety of other food products, and so on - what possible justification could they have had to deny entry of any of those items? Where do you cross the line into pure and simple collective punishment of one and a half million people?
(2) - Actually, the PLO explicitly recognized Israel's legitimacy, and the two state solution as viable since 1993, and had implicitly done so to some degree years before then. Hamas, on the other hand, has tacitly accepted the right of Israel to exist since the 2006 elections (at least), and explicitly so since 2008. In fact, ever since 2006, Hamas has clearly stated that the issue of recognizing Israel wasn't their responsibility, but rather, to be left up to popular vote - a vote which they would abide by, even if the results went against their beliefs.
Now, I'm not going to defend their use of violence here - it's wrong when Israel does it, and it's wrong when Palestinians do it - but they hardly seem the irrational, genocidal actors you're trying to portrait most Palestinians to be; so, let's dig a little deeper...
The disengagement from Gaza you mentioned, in the second post I quoted, could use some more information; here's what the then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's senior adviser had to say about the plan, which goes to show its intent and predictable consequences: "The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process, and when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda", and "The disengagement is actually formaldehyde [...] It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians". Asked why the plan had been devised, he stated "Because in the fall of 2003 we understood that everything was stuck. [...] Time was not on our side. There was international erosion, internal erosion. Domestically, in the meantime, everything was collapsing. The economy was stagnant, and the Geneva Initiative had gained broad support. And then we were hit with the letters of officers and letters of pilots and letters of commandos [refusing to serve in the territories]", and "You know, the term `peace process' is a bundle of concepts and commitments. The peace process is the establishment of a Palestinian state with all the security risks that entails. The peace process is the evacuation of settlements, it's the return of refugees, it's the partition of Jerusalem. And all that has now been frozen.... what I effectively agreed to with the Americans was that part of the settlements would not be dealt with at all, and the rest will not be dealt with until the Palestinians turn into Finns. That is the significance of what we did".
In other words, it was a way to separate Gaza and the West Bank into two distinct entities, physically and politically, discard the resource poor and unwanted land of the Gaza Strip, and concentrate on annexing territory in the richer areas of the West Bank - all the while being shielded from any real peace process, indefinitely. Tell me again how Israel really wants a two state solution? Further, despite removing settlers from Gaza, the territory was never not occupied - even if no constant military presence exists within, Israel controls: the borders, airspace, coastline, infrastructure, imports and exports, and so on.
Also, if the confidential documents published in 2008 by David Rose are to be believed, the "civil war" you mentioned, or coup, which saw Hamas gaining control of Gaza, was rather the result of the US and Israel (and a few others) training, arming and preparing Fatah to perform a coup on Hamas, which failed; or, as David Wurmser, former Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief Middle East adviser, put it: "It looks to me that what happened wasn’t so much a coup by Hamas but an attempted coup by Fatah that was pre-empted before it could happen".
By the way, you brought up the "creation of Hamas" - you do realize that Hamas was initially, in no small part, nurtured and allowed to grow, by Israel, right? At the time of the First Intifada, it was seen as a force that could be used to weaken the more secular and left-leaning PLO, and thus, divide the Palestinian population and its resistance to the Israeli occupation. And on the subject of the "history of the Intifadas" you also brought up as evidence of the Palestinian desire to destroy Israel, I have to ask: do you know how the First Intifada started - why the uprising started, and what the Israeli response was? Was it because of genocidal Palestinians trying to kill Israelis?
Finally, why is Israel opposed to the Palestinian move to seek international recognition, or even better, its efforts to join and seek legal action in the ICC? Surely, this is the right path: avoiding further violence, and seeking the punishment of war crimes - both Palestinian and Israeli war crimes. How is this a threat to Israel (assuming Israel does indeed want a two state solution as you had expressed above)?
(3) - Sure, everyone has the right to defend themselves; but it takes another step to show that they have the right to defend themselves by force, and that there are absolutely no peaceful alternatives that can be taken. Given what I have mentioned in the previous points - no peace plan, continued expansion of illegal settlements, the treatment of the Palestinian population, interference with the internal Palestinian political system, separation of the West Bank and Gaza, the blockade and sanctions regime - it is my opinion that Israel is far from having demonstrated a willingness to follow a peaceful alternative, but rather, seems more willing to avoid it.
To add insult to injury, when it does use force to "defend" itself, it often does so disproportionately, and sometimes even indiscriminately; the Dahiya doctrine is a clear example, unfortunately. Here is what a leaked cable from 2008 had to say about the military strategy - it includes some comments from Gadi Eizenkot himself (the current Chief of General Staff):
" 6. Eisenkot labeled any Israeli response to resumed conflict the "Dahiya doctrine" in reference to the leveled Dahiya quarter in Beirut during the Second Lebanon War in 2006. He said Israel will use disproportionate force upon any village that fires upon Israel, "causing great damage and destruction." Eisenkot made very clear: this is not a recommendation, but an already approved plan -- from the Israeli perspective, these are "not civilian villages, they are military bases." Eisenkot in this statement echoed earlier private statements made by IDF Chief of General Staff Gabi Ashkenazi, who said the next fight in Southern Lebanon would come at a much higher cost for both sides -- and that the IDF would not hold back."
" 7. (SBU) Eisenkot stated that Damascus fully understands what the Israelis did in Dahiya, and that the Israelis have the capability of doing the same to Syria. He suggested the possibility of harm to the population has been Hizballah leader Nasrallah's main constraint, and the reason for the quiet over the past two years."
How is this not state sponsored terrorism? And was this the real reason why the latest Israeli incursion into Gaza left over 2200 people dead, the great majority of which civilian, hundreds of thousands displaced, and widespread damage to civilian infrastructure - of which they still haven't recover to this day? Or why, in a previous incursion, Israel left close to 20% of Palestinian farmland destroyed, and a good amount of it completely unusable?
Well, then let me clear something up. I'm Canadian. I've never even visited Israel. I'm neither ethnically nor religiously Jewish. I never said I was Israeli or Jewish, but people on an earlier thread assumed it because I defended a Jew's right to walk through Paris unmolested. Clearly only a Jew would have such an opinion.
You're right that I'm very hateful though. I have a visceral hatred of Nazis. It bothers me intensely that people pretend to believe the Nazis were evil on a surface level while continuing to advance their beliefs. And most people are too fucking stupid to know they're doing it.
Again, please, don't take all criticism of Israel as ignorance, or antisemitism. You have to admit there are genuine issues that Israel needs to address, and that only it can address - and by that I don't mean Palestinians don't have their fair share of the blame in all this; of course they do. And again, the alternative to that is Israel will eventually find itself isolated and under sanctions; and despite what you might think, that is not something I want to see happen.
