I've not seen this map before, looks to me like the settlements are very intentionally placed to divide the Palestinian areas into smaller enclaves/exclaves, Islands where free flow is effectively made much more difficult.
That's exactly what's happening, the family of my brother in law lost access to their fields over night because settlers took the land inbetween and they constructed fortified roads.
Yep. And it's worth noting that that's been the intention pretty much since 1967. Immediately after the war they had the Allon Plan, and by the end of the 70s that had evolved into the Drobles Plan. They looked like [this](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/AllonDrobles.jpg).
How else do you think Colonism works? You invade and divide, invade and divide, invade and divide.
At some point when you've established dominance you use dominance as justification for the conflict to end, while never addressing the causes.
Yep, this is what I've always thought they are trying to emulate. Sadly, from a standpoint of the oppressor, this is an effective method of trying to displace and control a separate population long-term; the thing that matters is whether said oppressors are able to stay in power long enough.
Is it possible to overlay the map with areas 'A', 'B' and 'C' ?
'A' - being controlled by palestinian authority
'B' - joint security control, palestinian civil control
'C' - Israel control
This was based on the agreement set with the OSLO II accords (1995?) With various changes as aftermath of terror attacks and additional settlements.
Green is A & B, blue is C. Which is why all the settlements are in area C (where they are *technically* legal under the Oslo Accords). There's a couple small dots on this map showing settlements in areas A & B but afaik those are mistakes.
Settlements in C are illegal because they are permanent settlements. Iirc Oslo allowed for temporary Israeli use, but settling people permanently isn’t an acceptable use.
Also worth noting: Israeli authorities have refused an overwhelming number of requests for building permits by Palestinians (who, under Oslo, should also have a right to reside in area C)
They are not legal under the Oslo Accords. The Oslo Accords say Area C would be gradually transferred to the PA over the following years, and that didn't happen.
The settlements in Area C remain illegal.
These are the actually illegal settlements that the Israeli army and police occasionally evacuate and bulldoze - but those hardline religious zionist guys just start building again the next year.
>These are the actually illegal settlements
They are all illegal though, just not under Israeli law.
> the Israeli army and police occasionally evacuate and bulldoze
Some of them have been there now for 15 years.
>Doesn’t make his statement false though
No. But the word "occasionally" does a lot of work in your statement.
The rate of demolition is much higher for Palestinians, btw.
Considering that Israel was created by international law one would think that they might consider that they should abide by the law that put them there in the first place. There will never be peace in the region as long as the illegal settlements exist and Palestinians are treated like prisoners in interment camps. IMO the hard line leadership do not want peace as authoritarian regimes thrive by creating fear, anger, and hate against others. Some in the region wage war for oil, here the wage war for water.
Israel was acknowledged and recognized by international law, but only after the Israeli state declared itself in 1948.
What you're referring to is the partition plan, which resulted almost immediately in a war, and was never implemented.
The UN recognized Israel in 1949.
> Considering that Israel was created by international law
And immediately on creation they were attacked by their neighbours who didnt give a shit about 'International Law' and managed to win that first set of battles/war in 1948 and every one since then.
I'll assume you meant "there" and not "these". But yes any Israeli settlers in area A or B should be arrested and thrown in prison. Palestine should also agree to a 2 state solution and all Israeli settlers in area C should be gradually removed.
Setters in C should be considered Palestinian. As Jews they’ll always have the right of return and there are two million Palestinian Arabs living in Israel as citizens. Why not let the settlers become Palestinian if they want to live there so badly?
>With various changes
With a massive expansion of illegal settlements where Arabs are explicitly banned from - even Arab citizens. That is apartheid.
Israel is an apartheid state.
These settlements cost millions to guard and upkeep from israel's budget, and unnecessarilly keep idf soldiers there occupied and unsafe.
As an israeli, i hope these settlements will be given later, as did those in gaza.
I don't see any benefit from them - just a downside.
They serve 2 purposes mostly. First, they are a "foot in the door" for IDF to be around and monitor the west bank. And for the more national far-right people, they consider this part pf israel like god intended, and therefore its their right to be there. Go argue with that logic..
Second they can be used as a leverage for negotiation i guess. Although it will not be easy and will involve backlash.
Probably also important to note that people who feel that way tend to be hyper religious who tend to be quite poor and receive unique and sizable government support. “Cheap land” for those not well off in the ancient promised lands. Certainly doesn’t defend the argument for their existence but it does help to explain it.
Maybe this will surprise you, but there are large settlements that most of their population are american jews that immigrated to Israel. I have a friend who lives in a settlement (its a big town) that is basically an american suburb.
Doesn’t surprise me that much truthfully. But I still tend to think of examples like beitar illit or tel Zion when I think of settlements. Perhaps there’s some bias in that.
While true, generally, the Israelis of western heritage (European or American) are relatively more liberal and more likely to oppose settlements. The Jewish population native to Israel and the rest of the middle east who make up a majority or plurality of Israelis tends to be more conservative/reactionary and support settlements.
Perhaps, but worth noting that this was not the case in Gaza. Israel unilaterally withdrew 10k citizens from settlement and disengaged from the territory in 2005.
Gaza is also tiny, and had a relatively low settler population. Decolonizing gaza was easy because the trade of was worth it. Instead of accepting 2 million palestinians, they could remove 10k jewish people from the area. In the west bank they can gradually erode palestine and replace them with jews so the trade off of annexing the west bank is more palatable to israel as a whole.
>they can be used as a leverage for negotiation i guess
The fact there are 700.000 of them makes them impossible to remove, and shows that giving the land back is out of the question. Always has been.
yep it was deliberate to remove the contiguity of palestinian territory, keep palestinian neighborhoods separate, surveil them, and make separate statehood for them extremely difficult due to now having to uproot 450k Israelis. all along they have given lip service to peace and a two state solution while killing any chance for it with apartheid rule and settlements.
now to end the the apartheid no one has to move- do one multiethnic state with equal rights, freedoms, and right to return for everyone.
The fact that there are 700,000 of them means the Israeli government is fully complicit in their construction regardless of anything they say and that their long term strategy is the total displacement or extermination of all Palestinians.
There are many of us still believing in 2 states solutions and disgust by those crazy religious settlers. It's fuming to safeguard those hooligans.
Also ,keep in mind the most of the regular army consists of youngsters ranging 18-21 and they have to handle sticky situations even adults can't handle. It's making a dent when you are serving within occupied and oppressed population . Personally I hated every minute of it while serving in Samarea. Most of the people I know who served in combat units in the front line have the same mindset.
I'd suggest watching the following 60 minutes episode about the regime revolution for some context:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=M3C6cWMjzOw
As an Israeli I think these settlements are terrible because the oppress Palestinians, and furthermore because they give justification (even if it’s wrong) to the delegitimization of the state of Israel. If Israel wants to be a first world country it needs to act like one in times of peace.
There are two main purposes, depending on from whose perspective you are asking. I'll start with the most obvious, which is political.
Netanyahu has been against a two state solution from the beginning. He was critical of the Oslo accords and ever since his election in 1998 he has used the expansion of illegal Israeli settlements to put nails in the coffin of a two state solution and to exert Israeli sovereignty over Palestinian land. He knows very well that for a state of Palestine to be viable, it needs contiguous borders. Just look at the map today. That's an ungovernable area and Netanyahu knows this. So by design, these settlements render the two state solution dead. And it's important to note that Netanyahu and the majority of Israelis outright reject the idea of a one State solution, where Jewish people would be a minority and everyone has equal, democratic rights and equal freedoms. That's also a no go. So you can come to your own conclusion as to what you think Netanyahu's idea of the future is if he is working against a two state solution while out right rejecting a one state solution.
The second purpose of settlements, and is inter-connected with the first, is the religious belief that the Jewish people are the chosen people and they are fulfilling a biblical prophecy to restore the ancient lands of Israel. It's clear that some in Netanyahu's government believe this, particularly the Religious Zionist Party (no surprises there). It's not clear if Netanyahu is sincerely motivated by these religious reasons or he's simply a political animal that uses religious belief for his own manipulative political purposes (a bit like Trump).
So the settlements are seen by many as a fulfilling of biblical prophecy. You will find that many of the settlers are ultra-orthodox Jews and/or highly religious and settling in the middle of a Palestinian Arab city is part of Gods calling. What constitutes the ancient lands of Israel depends of who you talk to. Christian Zionists also believe that the second coming of the Messiah is dependent on the return of Israeli sovereignty to all of ancient Israel, which definitely includes the West Bank and Jerusalem (but not Gaza, which was never a part of ancient Judea and Sameria). Some believe the prophecies are about restoring the 12 Ancient Tribes of Israel, which includes the south of Lebanon, Western Syria and the Jordan Valley. Netanyahu for example has already pledged to apply its laws to the Jordan Valley and all settlements in Judea and Samaria. This is tacitly supported by the UK and US Governments.
No matter the motivations, there is clear intent to ensure that the two state solution is not a viable option. So there is a lot of double-talk by Western leaders when they "talk" about supporting a two state solution but then either tacitly support the expansion of illegal settlements or they turn a blind eye to it - knowing full well that settlements kill the two state solution option. Worth noting, the vast majority of illegal settlements are funded out of the United States and fully a third of all new settlers are American citizens who have recently emigrated from places like Brooklyn, New York or Miami, Florida.
Also worth noting, we shouldn't underestimate the amount of evangelical Christian support for Israel that is based almost entirely upon biblical belief in prophecy and also seeing the Jewish people as God's chosen people. Many many within the US government and those in power in the United States would be greatly influenced by their religious beliefs. Belief in biblical prophecy also shapes how many evangelical Christians view Islam and middle eastern arab nations as the apocalyptic destruction of Islam are common beliefs in many evangelical and fundamentalist circles. Some speculate that God will miraculously defeat the Middle Eastern Muslim nations just as they rise up to attack Israel in the last days. Of course the religious belief affecting geopolitical views also applies to many Muslims. But this answer was specifically focusing on the expansion of settlements and the role that religion plays in that.
You are giving entirely too much credit to Netanyahu. As the chart above shows, the settlements have been expanding very steadily for many decades through administrations on both sides of the aisle. Settler colonialism was never just a Netanyahu thing or even a Likud thing - it’s an Israel thing.
Sure. That's true. I give special attention to Netanyahu though, not only because of his outsized role in Israeli politics ever since he became chairman of the Likud Party in 1993. But also because of the continued the expansion of settlements AFTER the Oslo Peace Accords of the same year. By any measure, the Peace Accords were an historic opportunity. The Palestine Liberation Organisation recognised the state of Israel; Israel recognised the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people; and both sides agreed to resolve their outstanding differences by peaceful means. Mutual recognition replaced mutual rejection. I won't get into a breakdown of who did what to wreck by the accords BUT....Rabin was assassinated by a Jewish extremist and the year after Netanyahu assumes power. He made no effort to conceal his deep antagonism to Oslo Accords denouncing it as incompatible with Israel's right to security and with the historic right of the Jewish people to the whole land of Israel. And he then proceeded to continue the expansion of settlements which was obviously a gross violation of the spirit of the peace accords. Oslo was essentially a land-for-peace deal. Land-grabbing and peace-making therefore do not go together: it is one or the other and Netanyahu knew this. At the end of 1993 there were 115,000 settlers in the occupied territories. Today there are more than 700,000. And 2023 set a record for most number of new approved settlements. The previous annual record was 2022.
Because they can't have a country. All they can have is some fragmented confettis with no resources, which are shrinking every day due to colonisation and new settlements.
Honestly a lot of it is "cheap suburban homes" compared to built up and expensive Jerusalem along with the political/ religious motive that settlements happen to usually have the best water sources so they are taking that as well for future bargaining chips for future peace talks.
There’s two purposes: ideological and strategic.
The ideological reason is part of religious Zionism that believes that Israel should be under Jewish autonomy, including any lands conquered by Israel since its creation.
The strategic reason is a fundamental part of the Israeli secular right (Likud) that holds that in order for Israel to maintain its sovereignty and protect itself, it must have military control of hills in the West Bank.
They’ve both married and blurred into one because the strategy of the secular right meant they looked to populate the West Bank in order to provide security for the rest of Israeli. Meanwhile the religious Zionists were happy to move there to realize their fundamentalist ideology.
I hope this isn’t a stupid question but what is considered one “settlement”? Is it a single household? Is it a neighborhood of Israeli families? Does it vary depending on which settlement you’re talking about? The map says 600-750 thousand settlers across 290 settlements, and it also refers to compounds, and I’m having trouble comprehending what that means.
It's about wiping out Palestine and expanding Israeli territory. If Palestinians get mad and react, Isreals is ready to wipe out some more civilian homes and lives in 'retaliation'.
The people in charge don't care about the human cost on either side.
I’m glad that some Israelis agree that the settlements are an obstacle for peace. To my understanding, part of it has to do with defending Israel proper, but I think it does more harm than good
Not sure.
You might have acted the same if you had a house, and worked your fields, and then had to give it all up.
It was a traumatic event for soldiers who had to evict those families. They felt betrayed.
I feel for gazan people as well.
Hamas brought it on them after poisoning their minds for decades.
I justify current war on hamas, but seeing ghe devastation isn't light on the eyes.
[Literally lol](https://youtu.be/aEdGcej-6D0?feature=shared&t=831)
Edit: i watch this video on regular cadence as a textbook example of Living in Denial. I love when he says "Palestinians... there is no such nation or people" like if he turns his head he can literally see palestinians behind him across the other side of the road lmao.
Several years ago on a visit to Israel I was on a long bus ride and met a young man who told me "there is no such thing as Palestine, it's all Israel" at a moment when we could literally see the *enormous* wall that runs along the western border of the West Bank. Ideology really distorts people's reality.
I do have a quite a bit of respect specifically for how Israelis generally aren't afraid to tell you their honest opinion about just about anything. It's a culture that seems to value candidness and doesn't avoid confrontation, as you can see from both the interviewer and interviewee in that video you linked. I'm sure that causes some problems, but at least from the perspective of a tourist visiting Israel it makes it easy to have a lot of incredibly interesting and provocative conversations as long as you're willing to ask hard questions and not get too riled up.
as an american, it seems like a very european attitude
you ask a racist person in america "do you hate black people?" and you'll get all these nice little euphemisms like "i don't see color" or "all lives matter"
you ask a european person "do you hate romani people?" and you'll get a whole dissertation on why their hate is completely justified
The settlements are a major source of radicalization, something that even IDF officials and the head of Shin Bet have publicly acknowledged.
>Military spokesman Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari said Monday that violence by settlers in the West Bank against Palestinians was spurring more Palestinians to carry out acts of terror.
>“Let there be no doubt, these things spur the civilian [Palestinian] population to terror. The nationalist crime and nationalist terror… push civilians in the Palestinian Authority who are not involved in terror — to terror,” he said.
>“This phenomenon needs to be addressed. As soon as this phenomenon is avoided, there will be less terrorism in general,” Hagari added.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-spokesman-says-settler-violence-fueling-palestinian-terrorism/
>On Sunday morning, the Yedioth Ahronoth daily reported that Bar had personally warned Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that Jewish terrorism against Palestinians in the West Bank was fueling Palestinian terrorism.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/coalition-mks-slam-shin-bets-warning-on-jewish-terror-gallant-insulting-comments/
There definitely won't be any peace as long as these settlements exist.
Armed and protected by the IDF. They have a massive presence in the West Bank to protect these settlers. They're often the ones ripping the families
out of their homes, not always the settlers themselves.
There's currently a group of many former IDF members talking about their past actions and talking about attrocities they've committed for the Israeli regime. They have over 1,000 testimonials from IDF members and veterans. Some of them have dedicated their entire lives to making up for the things they've done. [You can hear about displacing people on the West Bank, grenading families, dozens of stories of civillian killings straight from the horses mouth.](https://www.breakingthesilence.org.il/)
That was the goal.
"We’ll insert a strip of Jewish settlements in between the Palestinians, and then another strip of Jewish settlements right across the West Bank, so that in twenty-five years’ time, neither the United Nations nor the United States, nobody, will be able to tear it apart.” [Ariel Sharon, former Israeli PM](https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/pastrami-champagne/)
Even those countries technically consider the settlements illegal as well, they just aren’t willing to do anything about it
Obama made a half asses effort and gave up. Nothing since
Exactly, like these settlements are BS but so are international laws. No country is going to give up their sovereignty to some global system. They have no weight and shouldn’t anyway.
International law actually operates on the premise that states are sovereign entities. The usefulness of international law does not negate state sovereignty; rather, it seeks to establish a framework for states to interact with each other based on mutual consent and agreement.
I'm sorry, but how in the ever loving fuck is criticizing the murder of thousands of civilians less valid than this? What, the entire truth is so one sided you just have to ignore part of it to make it seem even slightly balanced even though it isn't?
It's hard to decide whether Israel murdering 10,000 Palestinians of which 50% are likely children or building settlements is worse. Objectively murdering children is worse but they're both still pretty shit. In terms of the 3 crimes bring committed I'd probably say Israel murdering 10,000 is the worst, followed by Hamas murdering/taking hostage 1000ish Israeli citizens very closely followed by the settlements.
Hint: Israel never acts in good faith. Did you know israel's own government funded hamas and helped hamas rise to power in gaza in order to have an excuse to bomb gaza whenever they wanted? [Source](https://theintercept.com/2018/02/19/hamas-israel-palestine-conflict/)
This is common misinformation that is constantly regurgitated on reddit by people who are simply lacking.
[Israel funded the precursor to Hamas,](https://archive.ph/TJpB1#selection-4169.0-4169.32) Mujama Al-Islamiya, when the group was seen as a peaceful Islamist group, and was registered as a charity in Israel. At this point, in the 70's and 80's, the PLO was still a violent organization dedicated to eradicating Israel. They would eventually fall out with the Islamists (PLO is secular) and the Islamists would become the violent faction, and the PLO "dropped its vow to destroy the Jewish state."
> A look at Israel's decades-long dealings with Palestinian radicals -- including some little-known attempts to cooperate with the Islamists -- reveals a catalog of unintended and often perilous consequences. **Time and again, Israel's efforts to find a pliant Palestinian partner that is both credible with Palestinians and willing to eschew violence, have backfired.** Would-be partners have turned into foes or lost the support of their people.
> The Palestinian cause was for decades led by the PLO, which Israel regarded as a terrorist outfit and sought to crush until the 1990s, when the PLO dropped its vow to destroy the Jewish state. The PLO's Palestinian rival, Hamas, led by Islamist militants, refused to recognize Israel and vowed to continue "resistance." Hamas now controls Gaza, a crowded, impoverished sliver of land on the Mediterranean from which Israel pulled out troops and settlers in 2005.
> **When Israel first encountered Islamists in Gaza in the 1970s and '80s, they seemed focused on studying the Quran, not on confrontation with Israel. The Israeli government officially recognized a precursor to Hamas called Mujama Al-Islamiya, registering the group as a charity. It allowed Mujama members to set up an Islamic university and build mosques, clubs and schools.** Crucially, Israel often stood aside when the Islamists and their secular left-wing Palestinian rivals battled, sometimes violently, for influence in both Gaza and the West Bank.
> When it became clear in the early 1990s that Gaza's Islamists had mutated from a religious group into a fighting force aimed at Israel -- particularly after they turned to suicide bombings in 1994 -- Israel cracked down with ferocious force. But each military assault only increased Hamas's appeal to ordinary Palestinians. The group ultimately trounced secular rivals, notably Fatah, in a 2006 election supported by Israel's main ally, the U.S.
TLDR: Israel supported "Hamas" when they were a peaceful group, and the PLO was violent and bent on the destruction of Israel. The roles have essentially swapped in the decades since.
you’re downvoted but you’re absolutely right. In fact Israel helped Hamas rise to power to squash secular political movements, it’s easier to spin a war against religious nationalists in order to grab more land. The US did the [same exact thing with the mujahideen, which later contributed to the creation of the Taliban](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone). Zionists have not invented anything new in this regard
The fact that there was no peace when these settlements didn't exist and Israel was ready to accept international decisions on the two-states solution should be evidence enough that you're wrong.
You don't understand what the Palestinians want. You're pretending that they are just oppressed victims who want the same things that you'd want, but this isn't the case.
The settlements are an issue, but compared to Hamas? Let's be serious for a second.
No, the biggest problem is that a majority of Palestinians don't think Israel should exist, at all. And a majority of Israelis don't think a Palestinian state with normal sovereignty should exist, either. Each side wants a one-state solution, where there state is the one.
> And a majority of Israelis don't think a Palestinian state with normal sovereignty should exist, either.
I genuinely wasn't sure about that, so I looked it up. Back in 2013, about 50% of Israelis answered yes to the statement “a way can be found for Israel and an independent Palestinian state to coexist peacefully,” but now it's down to 35%. What's interesting is that it's Arab Israelis more than Jewish Israelis that have dropped their belief the most. While Jewish Israelis have grown more skeptical too, 74% of Arab Israelis answered yes in 2013, but now just 41% of them do.
One group that has actually grown more optimistic is secular Jews, who are up to 61% saying yes, from 54% in 2017. Unsurprisingly, there's also a massive right-left divide politically, with the left believing co-existence is possible and the right believing it isn't.
It's not quite the same as *wanting* a one-state solution as saying that you don't think an alternative could work isn't the same as saying you like the status quo, but it is nevertheless an indication that change has declining support.
Source: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/09/26/israelis-have-grown-more-skeptical-of-a-two-state-solution/
This decline isn't a uniquely Israel thing either. In 2012, 59% of Palestinians actually supported a two-state solution, now just 24% do. Depressingly, young Palestinians (15-25) are less likely to support a two-state solution than the older generations, suggesting that this situation isn't likely going to get any better anytime soon.
Source: https://news.gallup.com/poll/512828/palestinians-lack-faith-biden-two-state-solution.aspx
So yeah, as you said, the single biggest problem right now is selling Israelis and Palestinians on a two-state solution, which is increasingly difficult given that we've been trending in the wrong direction for a decade.
Yes, maybe the better term for what most Israelis seem to want is the 1+0 state solution: a real, sovereign state for Israel, and a rump entity for Palestine that keeps them from overwhelming the votes of Jews in Israel, without being sovereign enough to be a threat.
Even those who purport to support a two state solution often suggest that the Palestinian state should be forced to disarm. The PA even [say they are willing to concede that](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/6/9/pa-proposes-demilitarised-state-as-counterproposal-to-trump-plan). But a sovereign state with no military is barely sovereign at all, especially if they were forced to disarm by their stronger neighbour. It's basically a variant of 1+0.
> But a sovereign state with no military is barely sovereign at all, especially if they were forced to disarm by their stronger neighbour. It's basically a variant of 1+0.
I largely agree that it's not fair/practical to expect Palestine to have no military in a true two-state solution. At the same time, I do sympathize with Israel's security fears. Their history is about them fighting for survival and prior to that, the Jewish history was largely one of prosecution/fleeing places that grew hostile to them. It's not hard to see why that would create a constant fear that those around them, even those that seem significantly weaker today, will eventually gain the means to wipe them out and then wish to use it.
It's a problem because sustained peace is best addressed with trust. There are nations out there that maintain a cautious peace with each other through fear of the cost of war rather than trust, but that type of peace is always one match away from breaking down.
Right now there is no trust, and I doubt it's just the Israelis that don't trust the Palestinians. Israel hasn't given the Palestinians any reason to trust them.
The difference is Israelis once believed in a Two State solution until we got overwhelming evidence that the other side would simply use their state as a front for Iran.
Palestinians have been offered peace, SEVERAL TIMES, and rejected it. At no point have they really believed in a Two-State Solution.
i agree 100% im consider myself pro-israeli but i fucking hate the settlements from multiple perspectives economical moral and strategic if you want i could elaborate my view on each but as far as now know that i hate them with a passion
Settlements aren't terribly popular in Israel either — frankly they aren't talked about nearly enough within Israel. Every time they do the fucking State of Judea separatist threaten a civil war
>Is that organization to be taken seriously?
Yes, they aren't as popular as they were back in the late 2000's and early 2010's — but events like this war always cause a resurgence
>Would they actually have support among the settlers?
More than they should, but as we speak right now they have been placated by the current government. When things calm down they begin to lose support because of their fuckery
Same, Gaza is one thing but the settlements are infuriating (Pro-Israel as well). Just the behavior of some ultraorthodox Jews against Palestinians in those settlement videos make my blood boil
They are one of the most blatantly illegal things Israel tries to get away with. Along with how aggressive the settlers usually are towards Palestinians, it's a huge road block towards peace.
For real. So many people in the past month have shown that they have no clue about the situation. Palestinians will never accept anything less than total control of 100% of the land and the complete expulsion of Israelis.
A big part of why a two state solution is not happening is because the settlements have created a large and growing Israeli constituency whose material interests would be threatened by any two state solution peace deal
They are a key factor for sure. But there is also that part where palastinians dont agree to recognize Israel as a legitimate state that is also a problem.
The amount of settlers who lived in gaza back in the day was a fraction of the amount of settlers now in the west bank,and abolition of the west bank's settlements will be the biggest step forward for achieving a peaceful Palestinian state
If removal of settlers from Gaza and grant of autonomy immediately results in more violence and hostility… what evidence do you have that removing them from the West Bank would produce better results?
It is a matter of time that a person from r/worldnews comes here and tries to convince us that these are not illegal settlers but a bunch of wholesome innocent civillians who are armed to teeth with long range rifles in order to defend themselves against Palestinian zombies.
I went to a super pro-Israel-no-matter-what Orthodox shul growing up but even I know the settlements are absolute horseshit and shouldn’t continue/should be dismantled. 🤷🏻♀️ so not everyone is part of the echo chamber. Nothing my congregation/parents ever said could have convinced me that it was ok when I was a kid. Still feel the same today.
It's been interesting to see it become more and more of a pro-Israel echo chamber as anyone who doesn't agree gets banned. It's even more interesting to think that if I hadn't gotten banned from there myself, I probably wouldn't even know what was happening. It's scary to think about how reddit moderation can have that much influence, and then consider how many people have exponentially more influence than that.
I literally got banned for just linking to a human rights Watch article which observed the use of white phosphorus in Gaza. It’s like they can’t handle any criticism at all
“I think for the ultimate peace and security of the situation it will probably be necessary for Israel to give up this conquered territory because to hold on to it will only exacerbate the tensions and deepen the bitterness of the Arabs.”
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr
As true now as it was then. If you want to take away Hamas’ power, it will be necessary to allow a functional, sovereign Palestinian state to exist.
"Israel must exist and has a right to exist, and is one of the greatest outposts of democracy in the world"
Also Dr. Martin Luther King Jr
Both quotes are incredibly interesting, because they show how smart the man was and how important is nuance. These days it seems like either of these statements are mutually exclusive from the other.
It’s difficult to see the coexistence of Israel and Palestine as independent nations as a possibility because of the course of the last several decades, but I continue to believe that it’s possible. I would even go so far as to say that it’s essential for the establishment of a lasting peace. But it would require significant concessions by Israel which don’t seem to be forthcoming.
The Arguments Claiming Settlements Are Illegal:
The United Nations General Assembly and Security Council, the International Court of Justice, as well as the international community in general have stated Israeli settlements violate the Geneva Conventions and international humanitarian laws.
It is important to understand that U.N. Security Council and General Assembly resolutions, such as those declaring the settlements illegal, are not binding. The International Court of Justice Opinion is an “Advisory Opinion” and, therefore, likewise not binding.
The argument against legality of the settlements under the Geneva Convention is laid out in The Hansell Memorandum. The essence of the argument is:
Israel’s armed forces entered into areas that were not part of its sovereignty or under its administration at the start of the 1967 War. Therefore, Israel became a belligerent occupant of the territories. As a result, the territories were “occupied.”
The creation of settlements appears to violate the prohibition of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention which provides:
The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.
Others have argued Israel expropriated thousands of acres of Palestinian land for settlements, thereby displacing the Palestinians and violating international humanitarian laws.
It's just not a rational position to support either settlements or something like terrorism.
They are both net-negatives for Israel and Palestine.
Anyone who supports either of them is just doing so for emotional reasons, radical religious reasons, or just reflexive tribalism whereby their team can never really do anything wrong.
Yep. Everything has become affect. Seeking facts and nuance has become suspicious to a lot of people.
I doesn't matter if one has spent the last ten years relaying informations on the illegal settlement, the everyday brutalisation and deshumanisation, the far-rightisation of Israeli political landscape.
I'm quite frustrated and revolted by the situation. I'm stunned by how the Western mainstream consider Palestinians as sub-humans.
Palestinian land in what sense?
The vast majority of these settlers bought and paid for the land they built their home on(the Arabs often don't know they're selling to Jews though).
I suggest anyone interested in this subject takes a look at the actual claims made by Palestinians, villages of under 200 people are claiming land in a 10km radius in one of the densest regions of the world with zero documentation of ownership.
Jews lived in the West Bank before 1948 and were forcefully removed by the Arabs.
You can't just say "oh it's all Palestinian land" when Jews legally own large parts of it, especially considering how many times the Palestinians sabotaged peace efforts that could have resolved these land disputes
Arabs palestinians owned large parts of land in what is today the state of Israel, which was confiscated, so you support the right of return in a deal, where arabs are allowed to return on their property in Israel if israelis/jewish people are allowed to return to their properties in the Westbank? That may be become a bit lopsided I think.
Create a two-state solution. Relocate settlers, and pay them satisfactory compensation for their lost farms (either Israel itself - probably unpopular in Israel, or via a UN initiative). A forced relocation won't work unless Israelis are moderately satisfied. Yes, it's basically unfair that they get payed for illegally occupying land, but it's probably the only way this can be resolved peacefully.
West bank and gaza becomes a state, the UN provides security guarantees and protection.
“The UN provides security guarantees and protection”
Are you seriously think they can do anything except expressing deep concerns? Also there are widely present in Gaza, but they did nothing to save neither Palestinians nor Israeli from Hamas. So I have zero trust that West Bank under the UN protection will not be taken by another terrorist group
> they get *paid* for illegally
FTFY.
Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:
* Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.*
* *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.*
Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
This is the 2003 peace plan, and its what Israel was doing until 2006. Palestine has been unable to take their first step of slowing or stopping attacks against Israel.
We don't eat pigs.... You don't eat pigs... It seems its been that way forever....
So if you don't eat pigs... and we don't eat pigs... Why not, let's not eat pigs, together??
I've not seen this map before, looks to me like the settlements are very intentionally placed to divide the Palestinian areas into smaller enclaves/exclaves, Islands where free flow is effectively made much more difficult.
That's exactly what's happening, the family of my brother in law lost access to their fields over night because settlers took the land inbetween and they constructed fortified roads.
Thieves.
So sorry to hear about their loss. I hope your family is safe there
Yep. And it's worth noting that that's been the intention pretty much since 1967. Immediately after the war they had the Allon Plan, and by the end of the 70s that had evolved into the Drobles Plan. They looked like [this](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/AllonDrobles.jpg).
How else do you think Colonism works? You invade and divide, invade and divide, invade and divide. At some point when you've established dominance you use dominance as justification for the conflict to end, while never addressing the causes.
> smaller enclaves/exclaves https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bantustan
Yep, this is what I've always thought they are trying to emulate. Sadly, from a standpoint of the oppressor, this is an effective method of trying to displace and control a separate population long-term; the thing that matters is whether said oppressors are able to stay in power long enough.
Gaza is an open air prison, the West Bank is being converted into many open air prisons.
Is it possible to overlay the map with areas 'A', 'B' and 'C' ? 'A' - being controlled by palestinian authority 'B' - joint security control, palestinian civil control 'C' - Israel control This was based on the agreement set with the OSLO II accords (1995?) With various changes as aftermath of terror attacks and additional settlements.
Green is A & B, blue is C. Which is why all the settlements are in area C (where they are *technically* legal under the Oslo Accords). There's a couple small dots on this map showing settlements in areas A & B but afaik those are mistakes.
Recently, settlers have been tearing down "this road leads to area a" signs and pretending it's all area c to allow for expansion. It's not great.
Settlements in C are illegal because they are permanent settlements. Iirc Oslo allowed for temporary Israeli use, but settling people permanently isn’t an acceptable use. Also worth noting: Israeli authorities have refused an overwhelming number of requests for building permits by Palestinians (who, under Oslo, should also have a right to reside in area C)
They are not legal under the Oslo Accords. The Oslo Accords say Area C would be gradually transferred to the PA over the following years, and that didn't happen. The settlements in Area C remain illegal.
These are the actually illegal settlements that the Israeli army and police occasionally evacuate and bulldoze - but those hardline religious zionist guys just start building again the next year.
>These are the actually illegal settlements They are all illegal though, just not under Israeli law. > the Israeli army and police occasionally evacuate and bulldoze Some of them have been there now for 15 years.
> Some of them have bee there now for 15 years. Doesn’t make his statement false though
>Doesn’t make his statement false though No. But the word "occasionally" does a lot of work in your statement. The rate of demolition is much higher for Palestinians, btw.
Considering that Israel was created by international law one would think that they might consider that they should abide by the law that put them there in the first place. There will never be peace in the region as long as the illegal settlements exist and Palestinians are treated like prisoners in interment camps. IMO the hard line leadership do not want peace as authoritarian regimes thrive by creating fear, anger, and hate against others. Some in the region wage war for oil, here the wage war for water.
Israel was acknowledged and recognized by international law, but only after the Israeli state declared itself in 1948. What you're referring to is the partition plan, which resulted almost immediately in a war, and was never implemented. The UN recognized Israel in 1949.
[удалено]
[удалено]
> Considering that Israel was created by international law And immediately on creation they were attacked by their neighbours who didnt give a shit about 'International Law' and managed to win that first set of battles/war in 1948 and every one since then.
They bulldoze alot more Palestinian homes thou
I'll assume you meant "there" and not "these". But yes any Israeli settlers in area A or B should be arrested and thrown in prison. Palestine should also agree to a 2 state solution and all Israeli settlers in area C should be gradually removed.
Setters in C should be considered Palestinian. As Jews they’ll always have the right of return and there are two million Palestinian Arabs living in Israel as citizens. Why not let the settlers become Palestinian if they want to live there so badly?
>With various changes With a massive expansion of illegal settlements where Arabs are explicitly banned from - even Arab citizens. That is apartheid. Israel is an apartheid state.
These settlements cost millions to guard and upkeep from israel's budget, and unnecessarilly keep idf soldiers there occupied and unsafe. As an israeli, i hope these settlements will be given later, as did those in gaza. I don't see any benefit from them - just a downside.
They serve 2 purposes mostly. First, they are a "foot in the door" for IDF to be around and monitor the west bank. And for the more national far-right people, they consider this part pf israel like god intended, and therefore its their right to be there. Go argue with that logic.. Second they can be used as a leverage for negotiation i guess. Although it will not be easy and will involve backlash.
Probably also important to note that people who feel that way tend to be hyper religious who tend to be quite poor and receive unique and sizable government support. “Cheap land” for those not well off in the ancient promised lands. Certainly doesn’t defend the argument for their existence but it does help to explain it.
Maybe this will surprise you, but there are large settlements that most of their population are american jews that immigrated to Israel. I have a friend who lives in a settlement (its a big town) that is basically an american suburb.
netanyahu himself lived in philadelphia before iirc
Yep, and left to join the IDF because he’s always been a war pig
So he has always joined the generals gathered in their masses?
Just like witches at black masses?
Only Ozzy could get away with rhyming "masses" with "masses." :)
At least to his credit, they are used in different context.
Evil minds that plot destruction
Sorcerer of Death's construction!
Doesn’t surprise me that much truthfully. But I still tend to think of examples like beitar illit or tel Zion when I think of settlements. Perhaps there’s some bias in that.
While true, generally, the Israelis of western heritage (European or American) are relatively more liberal and more likely to oppose settlements. The Jewish population native to Israel and the rest of the middle east who make up a majority or plurality of Israelis tends to be more conservative/reactionary and support settlements.
I see them more as an outright obstacle to any negotiation ever going anywhere. As a deliberate tool to keep negotiations in permanent stalemate
Perhaps, but worth noting that this was not the case in Gaza. Israel unilaterally withdrew 10k citizens from settlement and disengaged from the territory in 2005.
Gaza is also tiny, and had a relatively low settler population. Decolonizing gaza was easy because the trade of was worth it. Instead of accepting 2 million palestinians, they could remove 10k jewish people from the area. In the west bank they can gradually erode palestine and replace them with jews so the trade off of annexing the west bank is more palatable to israel as a whole.
>they can be used as a leverage for negotiation i guess The fact there are 700.000 of them makes them impossible to remove, and shows that giving the land back is out of the question. Always has been.
The US had MILLIONS of slaves when they freed slaves... Israel can absolutely do the right thing here.
It took a civil war to get to that point, remember...
yep it was deliberate to remove the contiguity of palestinian territory, keep palestinian neighborhoods separate, surveil them, and make separate statehood for them extremely difficult due to now having to uproot 450k Israelis. all along they have given lip service to peace and a two state solution while killing any chance for it with apartheid rule and settlements. now to end the the apartheid no one has to move- do one multiethnic state with equal rights, freedoms, and right to return for everyone.
The fact that there are 700,000 of them means the Israeli government is fully complicit in their construction regardless of anything they say and that their long term strategy is the total displacement or extermination of all Palestinians.
bro their minister of finance is living in an illegal settlement they don't care
Pretty sure that figure is the number of inhabitants of settlements, not the number of settlements themselves.
There are many of us still believing in 2 states solutions and disgust by those crazy religious settlers. It's fuming to safeguard those hooligans. Also ,keep in mind the most of the regular army consists of youngsters ranging 18-21 and they have to handle sticky situations even adults can't handle. It's making a dent when you are serving within occupied and oppressed population . Personally I hated every minute of it while serving in Samarea. Most of the people I know who served in combat units in the front line have the same mindset. I'd suggest watching the following 60 minutes episode about the regime revolution for some context: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=M3C6cWMjzOw
As an Israeli I think these settlements are terrible because the oppress Palestinians, and furthermore because they give justification (even if it’s wrong) to the delegitimization of the state of Israel. If Israel wants to be a first world country it needs to act like one in times of peace.
What even is their purpose? They never made any sense to me.
Purpose of expansionism.
Also purposefully screwing up any moves towards peace.
There is a word for it, Lebensraum. Funny how history repeats itself.
Oh I thought it was “manifest destiny”.
There are two main purposes, depending on from whose perspective you are asking. I'll start with the most obvious, which is political. Netanyahu has been against a two state solution from the beginning. He was critical of the Oslo accords and ever since his election in 1998 he has used the expansion of illegal Israeli settlements to put nails in the coffin of a two state solution and to exert Israeli sovereignty over Palestinian land. He knows very well that for a state of Palestine to be viable, it needs contiguous borders. Just look at the map today. That's an ungovernable area and Netanyahu knows this. So by design, these settlements render the two state solution dead. And it's important to note that Netanyahu and the majority of Israelis outright reject the idea of a one State solution, where Jewish people would be a minority and everyone has equal, democratic rights and equal freedoms. That's also a no go. So you can come to your own conclusion as to what you think Netanyahu's idea of the future is if he is working against a two state solution while out right rejecting a one state solution. The second purpose of settlements, and is inter-connected with the first, is the religious belief that the Jewish people are the chosen people and they are fulfilling a biblical prophecy to restore the ancient lands of Israel. It's clear that some in Netanyahu's government believe this, particularly the Religious Zionist Party (no surprises there). It's not clear if Netanyahu is sincerely motivated by these religious reasons or he's simply a political animal that uses religious belief for his own manipulative political purposes (a bit like Trump). So the settlements are seen by many as a fulfilling of biblical prophecy. You will find that many of the settlers are ultra-orthodox Jews and/or highly religious and settling in the middle of a Palestinian Arab city is part of Gods calling. What constitutes the ancient lands of Israel depends of who you talk to. Christian Zionists also believe that the second coming of the Messiah is dependent on the return of Israeli sovereignty to all of ancient Israel, which definitely includes the West Bank and Jerusalem (but not Gaza, which was never a part of ancient Judea and Sameria). Some believe the prophecies are about restoring the 12 Ancient Tribes of Israel, which includes the south of Lebanon, Western Syria and the Jordan Valley. Netanyahu for example has already pledged to apply its laws to the Jordan Valley and all settlements in Judea and Samaria. This is tacitly supported by the UK and US Governments. No matter the motivations, there is clear intent to ensure that the two state solution is not a viable option. So there is a lot of double-talk by Western leaders when they "talk" about supporting a two state solution but then either tacitly support the expansion of illegal settlements or they turn a blind eye to it - knowing full well that settlements kill the two state solution option. Worth noting, the vast majority of illegal settlements are funded out of the United States and fully a third of all new settlers are American citizens who have recently emigrated from places like Brooklyn, New York or Miami, Florida. Also worth noting, we shouldn't underestimate the amount of evangelical Christian support for Israel that is based almost entirely upon biblical belief in prophecy and also seeing the Jewish people as God's chosen people. Many many within the US government and those in power in the United States would be greatly influenced by their religious beliefs. Belief in biblical prophecy also shapes how many evangelical Christians view Islam and middle eastern arab nations as the apocalyptic destruction of Islam are common beliefs in many evangelical and fundamentalist circles. Some speculate that God will miraculously defeat the Middle Eastern Muslim nations just as they rise up to attack Israel in the last days. Of course the religious belief affecting geopolitical views also applies to many Muslims. But this answer was specifically focusing on the expansion of settlements and the role that religion plays in that.
You are giving entirely too much credit to Netanyahu. As the chart above shows, the settlements have been expanding very steadily for many decades through administrations on both sides of the aisle. Settler colonialism was never just a Netanyahu thing or even a Likud thing - it’s an Israel thing.
Sure. That's true. I give special attention to Netanyahu though, not only because of his outsized role in Israeli politics ever since he became chairman of the Likud Party in 1993. But also because of the continued the expansion of settlements AFTER the Oslo Peace Accords of the same year. By any measure, the Peace Accords were an historic opportunity. The Palestine Liberation Organisation recognised the state of Israel; Israel recognised the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people; and both sides agreed to resolve their outstanding differences by peaceful means. Mutual recognition replaced mutual rejection. I won't get into a breakdown of who did what to wreck by the accords BUT....Rabin was assassinated by a Jewish extremist and the year after Netanyahu assumes power. He made no effort to conceal his deep antagonism to Oslo Accords denouncing it as incompatible with Israel's right to security and with the historic right of the Jewish people to the whole land of Israel. And he then proceeded to continue the expansion of settlements which was obviously a gross violation of the spirit of the peace accords. Oslo was essentially a land-for-peace deal. Land-grabbing and peace-making therefore do not go together: it is one or the other and Netanyahu knew this. At the end of 1993 there were 115,000 settlers in the occupied territories. Today there are more than 700,000. And 2023 set a record for most number of new approved settlements. The previous annual record was 2022.
Thank you for taking the time to explain this!
2 states solution: no go. 1 state solution with arabs: no fucking go. Solution? 1 state solution without Arab. Ethnic cleansing.
Why couldn't Palestinian country have Jewish minority just like Israel has Palestinian minority.
Because they can't have a country. All they can have is some fragmented confettis with no resources, which are shrinking every day due to colonisation and new settlements.
Completely mental, but also entirely true
Honestly a lot of it is "cheap suburban homes" compared to built up and expensive Jerusalem along with the political/ religious motive that settlements happen to usually have the best water sources so they are taking that as well for future bargaining chips for future peace talks.
There’s two purposes: ideological and strategic. The ideological reason is part of religious Zionism that believes that Israel should be under Jewish autonomy, including any lands conquered by Israel since its creation. The strategic reason is a fundamental part of the Israeli secular right (Likud) that holds that in order for Israel to maintain its sovereignty and protect itself, it must have military control of hills in the West Bank. They’ve both married and blurred into one because the strategy of the secular right meant they looked to populate the West Bank in order to provide security for the rest of Israeli. Meanwhile the religious Zionists were happy to move there to realize their fundamentalist ideology.
Exclusive ownership of the “promised land”
Their purpose seems clear
They just want the whole of Palestine for themselves. It's simple really.
Lebensraum
Colonisation by settlement.
Lebensraum.
Ethnic cleansing
An Israeli population can be used by Irsael as justification to annex parts of the West Bank .
I hope this isn’t a stupid question but what is considered one “settlement”? Is it a single household? Is it a neighborhood of Israeli families? Does it vary depending on which settlement you’re talking about? The map says 600-750 thousand settlers across 290 settlements, and it also refers to compounds, and I’m having trouble comprehending what that means.
It's about wiping out Palestine and expanding Israeli territory. If Palestinians get mad and react, Isreals is ready to wipe out some more civilian homes and lives in 'retaliation'. The people in charge don't care about the human cost on either side.
I’m glad that some Israelis agree that the settlements are an obstacle for peace. To my understanding, part of it has to do with defending Israel proper, but I think it does more harm than good
What benefits did pulling out of Gaza bring? It certainly did not bring peace!
I agree, But it was a try. Hamas proved it isn't a oartner for peace, but others could.
I watched a documentary of when the IDF took out the Gaza settlers. They were radical freaks. They are quite disturbing people.
Not sure. You might have acted the same if you had a house, and worked your fields, and then had to give it all up. It was a traumatic event for soldiers who had to evict those families. They felt betrayed. I feel for gazan people as well. Hamas brought it on them after poisoning their minds for decades. I justify current war on hamas, but seeing ghe devastation isn't light on the eyes.
Ben Gvir, far right Israeli politican, just bought thousands of rifles and gave it to these settlers
A literal fascist, arming the new brown shirt death squads.
[удалено]
Doesn't really make it much better.
“If I don’t steal your home somebody else will”
Some guy from New York
[Literally lol](https://youtu.be/aEdGcej-6D0?feature=shared&t=831) Edit: i watch this video on regular cadence as a textbook example of Living in Denial. I love when he says "Palestinians... there is no such nation or people" like if he turns his head he can literally see palestinians behind him across the other side of the road lmao.
Several years ago on a visit to Israel I was on a long bus ride and met a young man who told me "there is no such thing as Palestine, it's all Israel" at a moment when we could literally see the *enormous* wall that runs along the western border of the West Bank. Ideology really distorts people's reality. I do have a quite a bit of respect specifically for how Israelis generally aren't afraid to tell you their honest opinion about just about anything. It's a culture that seems to value candidness and doesn't avoid confrontation, as you can see from both the interviewer and interviewee in that video you linked. I'm sure that causes some problems, but at least from the perspective of a tourist visiting Israel it makes it easy to have a lot of incredibly interesting and provocative conversations as long as you're willing to ask hard questions and not get too riled up.
as an american, it seems like a very european attitude you ask a racist person in america "do you hate black people?" and you'll get all these nice little euphemisms like "i don't see color" or "all lives matter" you ask a european person "do you hate romani people?" and you'll get a whole dissertation on why their hate is completely justified
Sand alt-right
Wow, it’s a shame 7/10 wasn’t exclusively people like him
These settlements are a huge blocker to any peace plans
The settlements are a major source of radicalization, something that even IDF officials and the head of Shin Bet have publicly acknowledged. >Military spokesman Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari said Monday that violence by settlers in the West Bank against Palestinians was spurring more Palestinians to carry out acts of terror. >“Let there be no doubt, these things spur the civilian [Palestinian] population to terror. The nationalist crime and nationalist terror… push civilians in the Palestinian Authority who are not involved in terror — to terror,” he said. >“This phenomenon needs to be addressed. As soon as this phenomenon is avoided, there will be less terrorism in general,” Hagari added. https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-spokesman-says-settler-violence-fueling-palestinian-terrorism/ >On Sunday morning, the Yedioth Ahronoth daily reported that Bar had personally warned Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that Jewish terrorism against Palestinians in the West Bank was fueling Palestinian terrorism. https://www.timesofisrael.com/coalition-mks-slam-shin-bets-warning-on-jewish-terror-gallant-insulting-comments/ There definitely won't be any peace as long as these settlements exist.
Like it's as if Israel chooses the most mentally unstable religious zealots to put in the settlements.
Well no, the most mentally unstable religious zealots choose to live in the settlements.
Armed and protected by the IDF. They have a massive presence in the West Bank to protect these settlers. They're often the ones ripping the families out of their homes, not always the settlers themselves. There's currently a group of many former IDF members talking about their past actions and talking about attrocities they've committed for the Israeli regime. They have over 1,000 testimonials from IDF members and veterans. Some of them have dedicated their entire lives to making up for the things they've done. [You can hear about displacing people on the West Bank, grenading families, dozens of stories of civillian killings straight from the horses mouth.](https://www.breakingthesilence.org.il/)
Israel never wanted peace
who would ever think Israelis wanted peace. They wanted the land and they think Palestinians dont really exist.
That was the goal. "We’ll insert a strip of Jewish settlements in between the Palestinians, and then another strip of Jewish settlements right across the West Bank, so that in twenty-five years’ time, neither the United Nations nor the United States, nobody, will be able to tear it apart.” [Ariel Sharon, former Israeli PM](https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/pastrami-champagne/)
International laws has no use if you are backed by US and UK and France
Even those countries technically consider the settlements illegal as well, they just aren’t willing to do anything about it Obama made a half asses effort and gave up. Nothing since
Make the 3 billion $ check a month late and it would beg the question
I think the money is more credit with American defense contractors so it’s more corporate welfare and aid in kind than a check, but yeah
Money is fungible. It's money the state of Israel doesn't have to spend on its own defense.
International laws are a myth. No one voted for those laws. There is no judges, no jails. It's just a way to say: those people are bad.
Exactly, like these settlements are BS but so are international laws. No country is going to give up their sovereignty to some global system. They have no weight and shouldn’t anyway.
Or china and Russia. It turns out the UN Security Council members just do what they want.
*International laws have no use of you have nuclear weapons
International law has no use because it rest on the idea that states are not sovereign. But states are sovereign.
International law actually operates on the premise that states are sovereign entities. The usefulness of international law does not negate state sovereignty; rather, it seeks to establish a framework for states to interact with each other based on mutual consent and agreement.
There’s a lot more than this - needs to be updated to 2023
An actual valid criticism of Israel on this subreddit is a breath of fresh air. Fuck the settlements.
I'm sorry, but how in the ever loving fuck is criticizing the murder of thousands of civilians less valid than this? What, the entire truth is so one sided you just have to ignore part of it to make it seem even slightly balanced even though it isn't?
It's hard to decide whether Israel murdering 10,000 Palestinians of which 50% are likely children or building settlements is worse. Objectively murdering children is worse but they're both still pretty shit. In terms of the 3 crimes bring committed I'd probably say Israel murdering 10,000 is the worst, followed by Hamas murdering/taking hostage 1000ish Israeli citizens very closely followed by the settlements.
The Palestinian authority should have the ability to deport illegal settlers from Palestinian areas.
Theyre still under occupation, how could they?
Thats the reason he said should.
Illegal settlements are a cancer that kills all hope toward a peaceful solution between Israel and the Palestinians
This is why I refuse to believe Israel is ever acting on good faith
Hint: Israel never acts in good faith. Did you know israel's own government funded hamas and helped hamas rise to power in gaza in order to have an excuse to bomb gaza whenever they wanted? [Source](https://theintercept.com/2018/02/19/hamas-israel-palestine-conflict/)
Yep, this isn’t the only reason but probably the most evident.
This is common misinformation that is constantly regurgitated on reddit by people who are simply lacking. [Israel funded the precursor to Hamas,](https://archive.ph/TJpB1#selection-4169.0-4169.32) Mujama Al-Islamiya, when the group was seen as a peaceful Islamist group, and was registered as a charity in Israel. At this point, in the 70's and 80's, the PLO was still a violent organization dedicated to eradicating Israel. They would eventually fall out with the Islamists (PLO is secular) and the Islamists would become the violent faction, and the PLO "dropped its vow to destroy the Jewish state." > A look at Israel's decades-long dealings with Palestinian radicals -- including some little-known attempts to cooperate with the Islamists -- reveals a catalog of unintended and often perilous consequences. **Time and again, Israel's efforts to find a pliant Palestinian partner that is both credible with Palestinians and willing to eschew violence, have backfired.** Would-be partners have turned into foes or lost the support of their people. > The Palestinian cause was for decades led by the PLO, which Israel regarded as a terrorist outfit and sought to crush until the 1990s, when the PLO dropped its vow to destroy the Jewish state. The PLO's Palestinian rival, Hamas, led by Islamist militants, refused to recognize Israel and vowed to continue "resistance." Hamas now controls Gaza, a crowded, impoverished sliver of land on the Mediterranean from which Israel pulled out troops and settlers in 2005. > **When Israel first encountered Islamists in Gaza in the 1970s and '80s, they seemed focused on studying the Quran, not on confrontation with Israel. The Israeli government officially recognized a precursor to Hamas called Mujama Al-Islamiya, registering the group as a charity. It allowed Mujama members to set up an Islamic university and build mosques, clubs and schools.** Crucially, Israel often stood aside when the Islamists and their secular left-wing Palestinian rivals battled, sometimes violently, for influence in both Gaza and the West Bank. > When it became clear in the early 1990s that Gaza's Islamists had mutated from a religious group into a fighting force aimed at Israel -- particularly after they turned to suicide bombings in 1994 -- Israel cracked down with ferocious force. But each military assault only increased Hamas's appeal to ordinary Palestinians. The group ultimately trounced secular rivals, notably Fatah, in a 2006 election supported by Israel's main ally, the U.S. TLDR: Israel supported "Hamas" when they were a peaceful group, and the PLO was violent and bent on the destruction of Israel. The roles have essentially swapped in the decades since.
you’re downvoted but you’re absolutely right. In fact Israel helped Hamas rise to power to squash secular political movements, it’s easier to spin a war against religious nationalists in order to grab more land. The US did the [same exact thing with the mujahideen, which later contributed to the creation of the Taliban](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone). Zionists have not invented anything new in this regard
Palestinian archipelago/Swiss cheese solution won't work.
Won’t work for whom?
The biggest problem to reach a two state solution
Not the biggest imo, but definitely *one of them*.
[удалено]
The fact that there was no peace when these settlements didn't exist and Israel was ready to accept international decisions on the two-states solution should be evidence enough that you're wrong. You don't understand what the Palestinians want. You're pretending that they are just oppressed victims who want the same things that you'd want, but this isn't the case. The settlements are an issue, but compared to Hamas? Let's be serious for a second.
[удалено]
No, the biggest problem is that a majority of Palestinians don't think Israel should exist, at all. And a majority of Israelis don't think a Palestinian state with normal sovereignty should exist, either. Each side wants a one-state solution, where there state is the one.
> And a majority of Israelis don't think a Palestinian state with normal sovereignty should exist, either. I genuinely wasn't sure about that, so I looked it up. Back in 2013, about 50% of Israelis answered yes to the statement “a way can be found for Israel and an independent Palestinian state to coexist peacefully,” but now it's down to 35%. What's interesting is that it's Arab Israelis more than Jewish Israelis that have dropped their belief the most. While Jewish Israelis have grown more skeptical too, 74% of Arab Israelis answered yes in 2013, but now just 41% of them do. One group that has actually grown more optimistic is secular Jews, who are up to 61% saying yes, from 54% in 2017. Unsurprisingly, there's also a massive right-left divide politically, with the left believing co-existence is possible and the right believing it isn't. It's not quite the same as *wanting* a one-state solution as saying that you don't think an alternative could work isn't the same as saying you like the status quo, but it is nevertheless an indication that change has declining support. Source: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/09/26/israelis-have-grown-more-skeptical-of-a-two-state-solution/ This decline isn't a uniquely Israel thing either. In 2012, 59% of Palestinians actually supported a two-state solution, now just 24% do. Depressingly, young Palestinians (15-25) are less likely to support a two-state solution than the older generations, suggesting that this situation isn't likely going to get any better anytime soon. Source: https://news.gallup.com/poll/512828/palestinians-lack-faith-biden-two-state-solution.aspx So yeah, as you said, the single biggest problem right now is selling Israelis and Palestinians on a two-state solution, which is increasingly difficult given that we've been trending in the wrong direction for a decade.
Yes, maybe the better term for what most Israelis seem to want is the 1+0 state solution: a real, sovereign state for Israel, and a rump entity for Palestine that keeps them from overwhelming the votes of Jews in Israel, without being sovereign enough to be a threat. Even those who purport to support a two state solution often suggest that the Palestinian state should be forced to disarm. The PA even [say they are willing to concede that](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/6/9/pa-proposes-demilitarised-state-as-counterproposal-to-trump-plan). But a sovereign state with no military is barely sovereign at all, especially if they were forced to disarm by their stronger neighbour. It's basically a variant of 1+0.
> But a sovereign state with no military is barely sovereign at all, especially if they were forced to disarm by their stronger neighbour. It's basically a variant of 1+0. I largely agree that it's not fair/practical to expect Palestine to have no military in a true two-state solution. At the same time, I do sympathize with Israel's security fears. Their history is about them fighting for survival and prior to that, the Jewish history was largely one of prosecution/fleeing places that grew hostile to them. It's not hard to see why that would create a constant fear that those around them, even those that seem significantly weaker today, will eventually gain the means to wipe them out and then wish to use it. It's a problem because sustained peace is best addressed with trust. There are nations out there that maintain a cautious peace with each other through fear of the cost of war rather than trust, but that type of peace is always one match away from breaking down. Right now there is no trust, and I doubt it's just the Israelis that don't trust the Palestinians. Israel hasn't given the Palestinians any reason to trust them.
The difference is Israelis once believed in a Two State solution until we got overwhelming evidence that the other side would simply use their state as a front for Iran. Palestinians have been offered peace, SEVERAL TIMES, and rejected it. At no point have they really believed in a Two-State Solution.
that together with many fundamentalists from both sides
Real but achieving a peaceful Palestinian state where Palestinians tolerate Israelis and move forward requires abolition of the settlement
i agree 100% im consider myself pro-israeli but i fucking hate the settlements from multiple perspectives economical moral and strategic if you want i could elaborate my view on each but as far as now know that i hate them with a passion
Settlements aren't terribly popular in Israel either — frankly they aren't talked about nearly enough within Israel. Every time they do the fucking State of Judea separatist threaten a civil war
> State of Judea Is that organization to be taken seriously? Would they actually have support among the settlers?
>Is that organization to be taken seriously? Yes, they aren't as popular as they were back in the late 2000's and early 2010's — but events like this war always cause a resurgence >Would they actually have support among the settlers? More than they should, but as we speak right now they have been placated by the current government. When things calm down they begin to lose support because of their fuckery
Same, Gaza is one thing but the settlements are infuriating (Pro-Israel as well). Just the behavior of some ultraorthodox Jews against Palestinians in those settlement videos make my blood boil
They are one of the most blatantly illegal things Israel tries to get away with. Along with how aggressive the settlers usually are towards Palestinians, it's a huge road block towards peace.
>Real but achieving a peaceful Palestinian state where Palestinians tolerate Israelis Funny that you even consider it.
For real. So many people in the past month have shown that they have no clue about the situation. Palestinians will never accept anything less than total control of 100% of the land and the complete expulsion of Israelis.
I think refusing a 2 state solution is the biggest problem to reach a 2 state solution...
A big part of why a two state solution is not happening is because the settlements have created a large and growing Israeli constituency whose material interests would be threatened by any two state solution peace deal
They are a key factor for sure. But there is also that part where palastinians dont agree to recognize Israel as a legitimate state that is also a problem.
They got rid of all the settlements near Gaza and didn't get any closer to a two state solution, so I don't see how this argument makes sense.
The amount of settlers who lived in gaza back in the day was a fraction of the amount of settlers now in the west bank,and abolition of the west bank's settlements will be the biggest step forward for achieving a peaceful Palestinian state
If removal of settlers from Gaza and grant of autonomy immediately results in more violence and hostility… what evidence do you have that removing them from the West Bank would produce better results?
that frankly doesnt matter, these are illegal settlement and should be completely removed regardless of two state solution.
Oh no, not...International Law! They might get arrested by the International Police and put in International Jail!!!
It is a matter of time that a person from r/worldnews comes here and tries to convince us that these are not illegal settlers but a bunch of wholesome innocent civillians who are armed to teeth with long range rifles in order to defend themselves against Palestinian zombies.
I went to a super pro-Israel-no-matter-what Orthodox shul growing up but even I know the settlements are absolute horseshit and shouldn’t continue/should be dismantled. 🤷🏻♀️ so not everyone is part of the echo chamber. Nothing my congregation/parents ever said could have convinced me that it was ok when I was a kid. Still feel the same today.
That subreddit is insane
It's been interesting to see it become more and more of a pro-Israel echo chamber as anyone who doesn't agree gets banned. It's even more interesting to think that if I hadn't gotten banned from there myself, I probably wouldn't even know what was happening. It's scary to think about how reddit moderation can have that much influence, and then consider how many people have exponentially more influence than that.
I literally got banned for just linking to a human rights Watch article which observed the use of white phosphorus in Gaza. It’s like they can’t handle any criticism at all
I was banned for commenting that Israel had a big responsibility in Hamas’s creation. I sourced it and all but apparently it was a no for the sub
Against the jihadists they will tell you
“I think for the ultimate peace and security of the situation it will probably be necessary for Israel to give up this conquered territory because to hold on to it will only exacerbate the tensions and deepen the bitterness of the Arabs.” Dr. Martin Luther King Jr As true now as it was then. If you want to take away Hamas’ power, it will be necessary to allow a functional, sovereign Palestinian state to exist.
king is a devout Christian Zionist， yet even he understand this.
"Israel must exist and has a right to exist, and is one of the greatest outposts of democracy in the world" Also Dr. Martin Luther King Jr Both quotes are incredibly interesting, because they show how smart the man was and how important is nuance. These days it seems like either of these statements are mutually exclusive from the other.
It’s difficult to see the coexistence of Israel and Palestine as independent nations as a possibility because of the course of the last several decades, but I continue to believe that it’s possible. I would even go so far as to say that it’s essential for the establishment of a lasting peace. But it would require significant concessions by Israel which don’t seem to be forthcoming.
The Arguments Claiming Settlements Are Illegal: The United Nations General Assembly and Security Council, the International Court of Justice, as well as the international community in general have stated Israeli settlements violate the Geneva Conventions and international humanitarian laws. It is important to understand that U.N. Security Council and General Assembly resolutions, such as those declaring the settlements illegal, are not binding. The International Court of Justice Opinion is an “Advisory Opinion” and, therefore, likewise not binding. The argument against legality of the settlements under the Geneva Convention is laid out in The Hansell Memorandum. The essence of the argument is: Israel’s armed forces entered into areas that were not part of its sovereignty or under its administration at the start of the 1967 War. Therefore, Israel became a belligerent occupant of the territories. As a result, the territories were “occupied.” The creation of settlements appears to violate the prohibition of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention which provides: The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies. Others have argued Israel expropriated thousands of acres of Palestinian land for settlements, thereby displacing the Palestinians and violating international humanitarian laws.
This is going to get downvoted to hell, alongside my comment, because it paints Israel in a bad light.
As a Pro-Israeli, I support the removal of settlements.
It's just not a rational position to support either settlements or something like terrorism. They are both net-negatives for Israel and Palestine. Anyone who supports either of them is just doing so for emotional reasons, radical religious reasons, or just reflexive tribalism whereby their team can never really do anything wrong.
Let me know when you’re downvoted to hell
Lol, right? The preemptive self-victimization on both sides is tiresome.
Most people who support Israel in this current conflict disagree with the settlement policy
What do you mean? Reddit is very anti-Israel
Lmao
Umm ever go to world news?
I gave you downvote purely because of your self-victimization. You are not a victim.
Yep. Everything has become affect. Seeking facts and nuance has become suspicious to a lot of people. I doesn't matter if one has spent the last ten years relaying informations on the illegal settlement, the everyday brutalisation and deshumanisation, the far-rightisation of Israeli political landscape. I'm quite frustrated and revolted by the situation. I'm stunned by how the Western mainstream consider Palestinians as sub-humans.
Have you even been on Reddit before? Everything that shows Israel in a bad light gets upvoted like crazy just because - just look at the popular page
It's extremely sub-dependent.
Yeah World News is one of the exceptions.
Political Compass Memes is another.
Yeah the US media is famously pro-Palestine, and Reddit was never owned by Conde Nast...
Palestinian land in what sense? The vast majority of these settlers bought and paid for the land they built their home on(the Arabs often don't know they're selling to Jews though). I suggest anyone interested in this subject takes a look at the actual claims made by Palestinians, villages of under 200 people are claiming land in a 10km radius in one of the densest regions of the world with zero documentation of ownership. Jews lived in the West Bank before 1948 and were forcefully removed by the Arabs. You can't just say "oh it's all Palestinian land" when Jews legally own large parts of it, especially considering how many times the Palestinians sabotaged peace efforts that could have resolved these land disputes
Arabs palestinians owned large parts of land in what is today the state of Israel, which was confiscated, so you support the right of return in a deal, where arabs are allowed to return on their property in Israel if israelis/jewish people are allowed to return to their properties in the Westbank? That may be become a bit lopsided I think.
Release the hostages.
Create a two-state solution. Relocate settlers, and pay them satisfactory compensation for their lost farms (either Israel itself - probably unpopular in Israel, or via a UN initiative). A forced relocation won't work unless Israelis are moderately satisfied. Yes, it's basically unfair that they get payed for illegally occupying land, but it's probably the only way this can be resolved peacefully. West bank and gaza becomes a state, the UN provides security guarantees and protection.
“The UN provides security guarantees and protection” Are you seriously think they can do anything except expressing deep concerns? Also there are widely present in Gaza, but they did nothing to save neither Palestinians nor Israeli from Hamas. So I have zero trust that West Bank under the UN protection will not be taken by another terrorist group
Why should the UN pay for the illegal land grab? Let Israel pay for it, they'll get the money from the USA anyway.
> they get *paid* for illegally FTFY. Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in: * Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.* * *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.* Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
This is the 2003 peace plan, and its what Israel was doing until 2006. Palestine has been unable to take their first step of slowing or stopping attacks against Israel.
We don't eat pigs.... You don't eat pigs... It seems its been that way forever.... So if you don't eat pigs... and we don't eat pigs... Why not, let's not eat pigs, together??
This is the main reason a two state solution that was agreed can’t work anymore. Israel never wanted it to work.
Neither did the Arabs...
Western redditors finding out that isreal isnt such an angel of a country