Israel: When the Drums of War Have Reached a Fever Pitch

[Darzin]

44 minutes ago, A True Kaniggit said:

Would anything in negotiations ever convince Israel to abandon/withdraw the settlements in the West Bank?

If not, then I guess increased conflict is inevitable.

I think a lot of people in Israel are very comfortable with the status quo. There is concern of rockets hitting Tel Aviv if they give up the highground in West Bank and also expelling half a million people would be nonstarter electorally. Plus many though by no means all Israelis feel it is their right to live in heartland of ancient Israel which is where the West Bank is now. The status quo has worked out ok for Israel for 50 years and I don't think there is that much motivation for changing it. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

23 minutes ago, A True Kaniggit said:

Would anything in negotiations ever convince Israel to abandon/withdraw the settlements in the West Bank?

If not, then I guess increased conflict is inevitable.

The honest answer is IDK. I know how I would approach it, but I would be in the moderate crowd that would probably get ignored.

The starting point is what I've brought up a few times: a Jewish state. If you are advocating for a path that logically leads to the end of that, good luck ever solving the issue. I'm not very ideological on a lot of Israeli issues, but that's a hard red line for me, and for those who don't understand why I'd suggest they really spend a lot more time reading about the long, long, long history of atrocities committed against Jews and then start to empathize with why they might want a small piece of sovereign land for themselves. It can feel like everyone basically hates us for just existing, and that is a narrative that spans thousands of years. 

[Bael's Bastard]

10 minutes ago, A True Kaniggit said:

Would anything in negotiations ever convince Israel to abandon/withdraw the settlements in the West Bank?

If not, then I guess increased conflict is inevitable.

It is generally understood the main blocs near Jerusalem will be retained by Israel in return for other lands. Other than that, most PMs have been ready to cede 93-97% of WB and the rest from lands in Israel. Barak even offered them religious control over the Temple Mount, Judaism's holiest site. Olmert offered even more of the WB than Barak. The rejection of Barak's offer and answer with the Second Intifada pretty much killed the Israeli left's optimism that peace was near. The election of Hamas by Gaza and WB Palestinians, then seizure of Gaza by Hamas pretty much sealed that feeling for the foreseeable future. Settlements are really the least issue. Many can be evacuated  especially further from Jerusalem. The idea that they are an obstacle to peace ignores that the entire peace process, and handing over of much of WB to Palestinian security forces, occurred after Israel not only built many settlements but annexed Jerusalem. The real obstacle is the Palestinian demand of a "right of return" of millions of refugees not into a WB/Gaza Palestinian state, but to the Israeli state. Israel will never accept it. And Palestinians justified refusing Barak and Olmert's offers because they would not accept a "right of return" into Israel.

[A True Kaniggit]

Blah. I keep on having to start over on my post because of responses. 40 minutes, then I'll reply to all. I need another drink before I start typing again.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

21 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said:

It is generally understood the main blocs near Jerusalem will be retained by Israel in return for other lands. Other than that, most PMs have been ready to cede 93-97% of WB and the rest from lands in Israel. Barak even offered them religious control over the Temple Mount, Judaism's holiest site. Olmert offered even more of the WB than Barak. The rejection of Barak's offer and answer with the Second Intifada pretty much killed the Israeli left's optimism that peace was near. The election of Hamas by Gaza and WB Palestinians, then seizure of Gaza by Hamas pretty much sealed that feeling for the foreseeable future. Settlements are really the least issue. Many can be evacuated  especially further from Jerusalem. The idea that they are an obstacle to peace ignores that the entire peace process, and handing over of much of WB to Palestinian security forces, occurred after Israel not only built many settlements but annexed Jerusalem. The real obstacle is the Palestinian demand of a "right of return" of millions of refugees not into a WB/Gaza Palestinian state, but to the Israeli state. Israel will never accept it. And Palestinians justified refusing Barak and Olmert's offers because they would not accept a "right of return" into Israel.

Which again gets to the heart of everything, will Israel remain as a Jewish state? If your answer is "no," then there's nothing to discuss. And that's before you consider that some on the other side of the table have openly said they want to make Israel a Jewish minority state so they can just rid them from the region, with violence being the preferred method among many. 

[A True Kaniggit]

39 minutes ago, Darzin said:

I think a lot of people in Isreal are very comfortable with the status quo. 1) There is concern of rockets hitting Tel Aviv if they give up the highground in West Bank and 2) also expelling half a million people would be nonstarter electorally. Plus many though by no means all Isrealis feel it is their right to live in heartland of ancient Isreal which is where the West Bank is now. The status quo has worked out ok for Isreal for 50 years and I don't think there is that much motivation for changing it. 

1) Unless I'm completely in an alternate universe,  Israel is the premier military power in the area. If Israel ever gave up the Golan Heights in an attempt for peace, but rockets were later fired at Tel Aviv, the Israelis could easily retake them if they felt like it, no?

2) Pay these people money to move. Capitalism right? What's $125,000 from the international community for each to relocate in the grand scheme of things? 125,000 x 500,000 = 62,500,000,000

30 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

The honest answer is IDK. I know how I would approach it, but I would be in the moderate crowd that would probably get ignored.

The starting point is what I've brought up a few times: a Jewish state. 1) If you are advocating for a path that logically leads to the end of that, good luck ever solving the issue. I'm not very ideological on a lot of Israeli issues, but that's a hard red line for me, and for those who don't understand why I'd suggest they really spend a lot more time reading about the long, long, long history of atrocities committed against Jews and then start to empathize with why they might want a small piece of sovereign land for themselves. It can feel like everyone basically hates us for just existing, and that is a narrative that spans thousands of years. 

1) Negative. I'm not advocating that. I'm advocating abandonment of settlements in the West Bank (Say the settlers got monetary compensation by the international community to relocate) in return for peace.

27 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said:

It is generally understood the main blocs near Jerusalem will be retained by Israel in return for other lands. Other than that, most PMs have been ready to cede 93-97% of WB and the rest from lands in Israel. Barak even offered them religious control over the Temple Mount, Judaism's holiest site. Olmert offered even more of the WB than Barak. The rejection of Barak's offer and answer with the Second Intifada pretty much killed the Israeli left's optimism that peace was near. The election of Hamas by Gaza and WB Palestinians, then seizure of Gaza by Hamas pretty much sealed that feeling for the foreseeable future. Settlements are really the least issue. Many can be evacuated  especially further from Jerusalem. The idea that they are an obstacle to peace ignores that the entire peace process, and handing over of much of WB to Palestinian security forces, occurred after Israel not only built many settlements but annexed Jerusalem. The real obstacle is the Palestinian demand of a "right of return" of millions of refugees not into a WB/Gaza Palestinian state, but to the Israeli state. Israel will never accept it. And Palestinians justified refusing Barak and Olmert's offers because they would not accept a "right of return" into Israel.

No idea about this. 

Don't know enough about this "right of return" thing. Does it only include people who used to live in Israel but left when the first war began? Or also their decedents? How many of them are still around who left originally?

[A True Kaniggit]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

Which again gets to the heart of everything, will Israel remain as a Jewish state? If your answer is "no," then there's nothing to discuss. And that's before you consider that some on the other side of the table have openly said they want to make Israel a Jewish minority state so they can just rid them from the region, with violence being the preferred method among many. 

Would it make Israel a Jewish minority state if it only included people who left at the start of the conflict?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 minute ago, A True Kaniggit said:

Would it make Israel a Jewish minority state if it only included people who left at the start of the conflict?

It's too complicated to really say at this point, and that's not what's at play. First "the start of the conflict" is pointless. To think of it in other terms, just look at U.S.-Iranian relations. The former can point to the late 70's and scream foul. Likewise, the latter can point to the mid 50's and say the U.S. and the UK fucked everything up first. Iran has a fair point, but their concerns are typically ignored by the West, or at least us in the states. Our European brothers and sisters have been a but more thoughtful on the subject.

[Darzin]

1 minute ago, A True Kaniggit said:

1) Unless I'm completely in an alternate universe,  Israel is the premier military power in the area. If Israel ever gave up the Golan Heights in an attempt for peace, but rockets were later fired at Tel Aviv, the Israelis could easily retake them if they felt like it, no?

2) Pay these people money to move. Capitalism right? What's $125,000 from the international community for each to relocate in the grand scheme of things? 125,000 x 500,000 = 62,500,000,000

I'm not talking about the Golan Heights those have been annexed to Israel and the people there made citizens. I'm talking about the high ridges  of the West Bank. I've seen it argued by several Israelis that Israel cannot leave the West Bank because the security threat is to great and even that a frontier is needed on the Jordan River. If you want to get a sense of how more rightwing Israelis think about these things lurk on r/Israel for a while. But there are a fair protion of people who argue leaving the West Bank would open Israel up for destruction but annexing it would bring in too many Arabs.

I actually think the fault of this lies with how the West Bank as been managed since 1967. Israel has had the power since then they could have annexed what they wanted and formed the rest into a Palestinian State by fiat but allowing the settlements to spring up has made a solutions almost impossible. Sure you could pay the settlers to leave but that requires the will to do so, and a lot of people feel the settlers are perfectly within their rights to settle. Eventually something will have to give but for now both options of withdraw from the West Bank or annex the West Bank are not going to happen. 

[A True Kaniggit]

OK. I know it may not feel like it, but I think we are gaining ground towards a ASOIAF Israeli/Palestinian Peace Treaty. The minds here can do better than Jared Fucking Kushner I'm sure. (JFK ?)

 

1) Israeli must remain a Jewish majority state.  (There is a "right to return" issue here apparently. Who would be eligible and what would be the number likely to accept?)

2) 500,000+ Israeli settlers should leave Palestinian territory. (Monetary incentives perhaps? You'd think most would agree. Die hards who refuse to leave must remain as citizens in the new Palestinian State)

3) Israel security. Okay, not the Golan Heights. I was wrong about that, @Darzin meant the high ridges in the West Bank. I think my point still stands. Israel could sacrifice that land in return for a peace treaty, knowing they could retake it if necessary in response to an attack due to their superior military.

4) I'd assume the West Bank and Gaza strip must be united in some way. Aside from the Berlin Airlift drama, West Berlin had a supply route through East Germany to gain supplies. I'd assume an interstate connecting the two with the exits being Palestinian territory should fit the bill.

Edit: 

5) Jerusalem. I'd suppose at this stage it would have to be the capital of both countries.

 

[Darzin]

I mean I thought that was all workable too @A True Kaniggit that all seems reasonable right? But then I talked with some actual Israelis and got a lot of pushback. Post that list on r/Israel and see how much traction it gets. I think that while both sides have committed atrocities the power inbalance is such that Israel is pretty comfortable with the status quo. The get to settle Judeah and Samaria (The West Bank) while not giving the local residents citizenship and controlling the high points and the Jordan valley. Also to many Israelis the takeover of Gaza by Hamas is proof positive that withdrawal is not a good solution.

But I think that what you proposed is a very reasonable fair solution if the parties involved could actually agree. I think your point about Israeli power is also a good one as Israel is by far the most powerful country in the region.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

57 minutes ago, A True Kaniggit said:

 

5) Jerusalem. I'd suppose at this stage it would have to be the capital of both countries.

 

Well this opens up the idea of a three state solution, one which I like to bring up, but tends to be ignored quickly.

Quote

4) I'd assume the West Bank and Gaza strip must be united in some way. Aside from the Berlin Airlift drama, West Berlin had a supply route through East Germany to gain supplies. I'd assume an interstate connecting the two with the exits being Palestinian territory should fit the bill.

Uniting the West Bank and Gaza Strip seems like a bad idea and only invites more violence. Israel should probably acquire Gaza and secede the West Bank with a mix of Israeli and international funds to help build it up quickly. Israeli settlements in the West Bank should be given to the Palestinians with the Israeli government covering those private costs. That was their fuck up anyway. I wish Jordan could offer up a bit of land to help ease some of the complications, but that's always been tricky as well and they should expect generous compensation for doing so. If regional and international dollars would flow in, some wheels could be greased to just get the issue off of the international table. 

[DMC]

58 minutes ago, A True Kaniggit said:

OK. I know it may not feel like it, but I think we are gaining ground towards a ASOIAF Israeli/Palestinian Peace Treaty. The minds here can do better than Jared Fucking Kushner I'm sure. (JFK ?)

 

Jed Bartlet already solved this, even at the expense of giving Leo McGarry a heart attack.

[A True Kaniggit]

30 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Well this opens up the idea of a three state solution, one which I like to bring up, but tends to be ignored quickly.

Uniting the West Bank and Gaza Strip seems like a bad idea and only invites more violence. Israel should probably acquire Gaza and secede the West Bank with a mix of Israeli and international funds to help build it up quickly. Israeli settlements in the West Bank should be given to the Palestinians with the Israeli government covering those private costs. That was their fuck up anyway. I wish Jordan could offer up a bit of land to help ease some of the complications, but that's always been tricky as well and they should expect generous compensation for doing so. If regional and international dollars would flow in, some wheels could be greased to just get the issue off of the international table. 

What happens to the Gaza population in this scenario? #1 is Israel must remain a Jewish majority state. Google says a little over 2 million people live in Gaza.

 

[A True Kaniggit]

41 minutes ago, DMC said:

Jed Bartlet already solved this, even at the expense of giving Leo McGarry a heart attack.

Meh. I've already admitted I'm not omnipotent.

I'll look up these references later. Too tired right now.

Here's some Japanese Anime anti war music. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtW529XbOyU

Edit: English Cover/Translation version- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9G9CPZ8Zd7k

 

 

[DMC]

7 minutes ago, A True Kaniggit said:

Meh. I've already admitted I'm not omnipotent.

I'll look up these references later. Too tired right now.

These references are of the highest order, trust me.

[A True Kaniggit]

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

These references are of the highest order, trust me.

Dammit.

I am hitting my second wind.

And I did take tomorrow off of work.

The references must needs be sought after and understood tonight.

Give me 30 minutes.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

29 minutes ago, A True Kaniggit said:

What happens to the Gaza population in this scenario? #1 is Israel must remain a Jewish majority state. Google says a little over 2 million people live in Gaza.

 

That's why I said relocation can't be off the table. Relocate to the WB, Israel surrenders all settlement developments and keeps building in the new Palestinian state as they* determine necessary. And spare no expense. This act should be a great offer of peace. Schools, hospitals, general infrastructure and economic development. 

The global community should assist as well as it would ideally speed things up and create further harmony in an otherwise mistrusting situation. 

ETA: *by they I mean the Palestinians if that wasn't clear. 

[A True Kaniggit]

28 minutes ago, DMC said:

These references are of the highest order, trust me.

A quick look reveals it's a West Wing reference. I regret to inform you I haven't watched it yet. I didn't look into specifics, but if there is a hilarious video I must see before I die, you need to provide the link. I do plan on watching The West Wing at some point in the next 20 years, but there is always the chance I'll get run over by a snap chatting teen before then.

21 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

That's why I said relocation can't be off the table. Relocate to the WB, Israel surrenders all settlement developments and keeps building in the new Palestinian state as they* determine necessary. And spare no expense. This act should be a great offer of peace. Schools, hospitals, general infrastructure and economic development. 

The global community should assist as well as it would ideally speed things up and create further harmony in an otherwise mistrusting situation. 

ETA: *by they I mean the Palestinians if that wasn't clear. 

500,000 for 500,000 perhaps? All at the same monetary compensation.

(Or an increased number out of Gaza if they are willing to leave for the cash) 

Though I agree the offer of continued infrastructure spending in the West Bank after withdrawal would be a tantalizing carrot. 

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, A True Kaniggit said:

A quick look reveals it's a West Wing reference. I didn't look into specifics. If there is a hilarious video I must see before I die, you need to provide the link.

Nah, no hilarious video.  It's just me being a dork - it was a main storyline in the end of the 5th/beginning of 6th seasons.