Hacker News Reader

> Israel, as it it currently constituted (based on 1967 borders) is not a viable state if the West Bank is a hostile entity with a standing army, and funded to a similar extent as Hezbollah. The West Bank bulges into Israel and effectively cuts the country in half and places all strategic targets within shelling distance.

This is exactly the same argument that Russia has been using to annex territories such as Crimea; "it's strategically important for us" isn't really sufficient justification for mass murder, and - on a purely geographic point - talking about the West Bank doesn't justify anything to do with Gaza, which is geographically separate.

And why the 1967 borders rather than the 1948 ones?

> Iran funnels hundreds of millions of dollars in arms to militia groups.

This is the side that's not really been raised enough in this whole discussion. If Israel's war is with Iran, why is that war not being carried out in Iran? Does this have something to do with the fact that Iran is 1000km away from having a land border with either Israel or Palestine?

The work that has been going on for the past month is systematically destroying every known air defense asset of the Syrian government (and securing a key mountain peak with newly entrenched ground troops) in order to have a permanent air corridor with which to strike Iran.

The Israeli F-35s can get through right now, but they have limited payload and have to rely on slightly dicey refueling arrangements. With Syria under Israeli air cover, they can run tankers right up to western Iran and strike anywhere in the country.

Repeated, unilateral Israeli aggression is the status quo in the region.

>This is exactly the same argument that Russia has been using to annex territories such as Crimea

The rhetoric may be superficially similar, but facts on the ground aren't. The Russian state is not under an existential threat in the same way that Israel would be with Hezbollah in the north, and a similar entity in the West Bank and Gaza. Israel is a tiny nation with a tiny population. Russian and Israel's security issues are simply not comparable.

>talking about the West Bank doesn't justify anything to do with Gaza, which is geographically separate

They are linked, and highlight the core problem to Israel - namely - disengagement does not work with a hostile entity.

Israel in 2005 disengaged from Gaza. It wasn't a full disengagement as Israel still exerted control over the airspace and territorial water, but it also wasn't nothing and it was an olive-branch and a big opportunity. Instead it resulted in a Hamas electoral victory, and rocket attacks, and a circle of retaliatory actions from Israel and Hamas. Imagine a world, where post-disengagement there were no attacks from Gaza, no preparation for war and smuggling of weapons into Gaza by Hamas - by this point, where would we be? Would Israel still maintain the same kind of blockade? I just don't think so. I truly believe it would be a model for permanent peace and Palestinian statehood.

>And why the 1967 borders rather than the 1948 ones?

I mentioned 1967 borders, because as best as I can gather, that is the current Palestinian position. Although it isn't clear exactly what the Palestinian position is as Palestinians do tend to maintain some level of ambiguity on this point.

> If Israel's war is with Iran, why is that war not being carried out in Iran?

It goes the other way actually - Iran is at war with Israel. Iran is using proxies, Hamas, and Hezbollah to strike at Israel.

Palestinians aren't even trusted by their Arab brethren, and they expect to be given the benefit of doubt.

> Imagine a world, where post-disengagement there were no attacks from Gaza ...

Imagine a world where pre-disengagement there's no radicals on either side. Imagine a world where Israel works with people displaced in 1948-1967, and utilizing its overwhelming economic advantage finds acceptable solutions to defuse the problems, instead of supporting more land grabs.

The big gestures (like withdrawing from Gaza) are of course important, but we still must not mistake cause for effect, or the outliers for the baseline.

We tried that. Got a bunch of rockets shot at us.

Because the Palestian cause is not about the welfare of the Palestinian people. The Palestinian cause is about establishing an Arab state to displaced the Jewish state.

> I mentioned 1967 borders, because as best as I can gather, that is the current Palestinian position.

The Hamas position (as best I can figure it) is the dissolution of the Israeli state entirely and Palestine restored. Whether you consider that the Palestinian position is open.

The Israeli position (as best I figure it) is to do whatever it takes to be unassailable - everything else is second order.

There are much more moderate positions throughout both sets of people, but I feel like they're the defining ones because they drive the violence (and subsequent retaliation)?

Open to arguments against

> The Hamas position (as best I can figure it) is the dissolution of the Israeli state entirely and Palestine restored.

Not restored, as Palestine in what is today Israel's area was never an independent country.

>This is exactly the same argument that Russia has been using to annex territories such as Crimea; "it's strategically important for us" isn't really sufficient justification for mass murder, and - on a purely geographic point - talking about the West Bank doesn't justify anything to do with Gaza, which is geographically separate.

Russia is the largest country on earth, whereas the distance from the West Bank to Tel-Aviv is like 5 miles.

This roughly like arguing that owning a personal nuke is no different from owning a firecracker. The scale of the threats are separated by several orders of magnitude.

>And why the 1967 borders rather than the 1948 ones?

Because the Palestinians rejected the 1948 borders, started a war, and then lost. Incidentally they also rejected the 1967 borders by starting a war in 1973 and losing that one too, but the consensus around those borders is at least a bit more solidified so people still pretend they're meaningful rather than null-and-void.

>This is exactly the same argument that Russia has been using to annex territories such as Crimea;

How many times have Ukranian terrorists murdered a bunch of Russian athletes at the Olympics? Or hijacked a 3rd nation plane carrying Russian tourists and then murdered them? How many bombings have Ukranian extremists carried out in Europe, targeting Russian tourists?

They are not the same arguments.

At all.

It is the same argument because whatever terrorism the victims of occupation engage in, or whatever terror groups exist among a much larger population of the occupied, is not an excuse to break international law.

Russia also made a number of excuses to annex the territories, the USA also fabricated a web of lies to justify their illegal invasion into Iraq. Criminals often lie or justify their crimes in any number of ways. None of which makes their crimes right. There are no exceptions to international law for fighting terrorism.

I know this isn't the time or place, but international law doesn't exist.

Well, it does but only by the consent of the participant and participants can withdraw their consent at any time, arbitrarily.

It's like how international treaties become worthless the second one party decides they don't want to abide by them anymore.

So, any time someone mentions "international law" I kinda just smirk a little bit and make the "jerking off and then ejaculating" motion with my hand.

The actual smallest country on earth, Tuvalu, can tell the UN to eat a bag of dicks and ignore every single plea to obey "international law" and the only remedy is embargo, begging, or the cruise missile.

Wait, does Ukraine have a long established history of military attacks against Russia?

Only during periods of Russian occupation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmelnytsky_Uprising

Why is demilitarization always a unilateral affair? Has this solved anything in the past 50+ years?

It should be either be bilateral militarization (a miniaturized MAD if you will - similar with the Korean peninsula I guess), or bilateral demilitarization and extensive UN force deployment.

There is an international perspective on the borders that I think should be mentioned. I think it is also worth mentioning that most people who live now in West Bank and the broader Palestine area were not consulted in how power and might is distributed, whether they benefit or suffer from it.

Should they?

> The West Bank bulges into Israel and effectively cuts the country in half and places all strategic targets within shelling distance.

That’s why the peace before 1967 was so important. But Israel ended it and was left with a mess that now all young people are drafted into service.

Egypt implementing a blockade triggered the 1967 conflict. It didn't come from nowhere. Then that was followed up by yet another war against Israel in 1973.

Taking over the west bank is not at all an acceptable response to something happening in Egypt's domain. Keeping the west bank is also not reasonable. Not sure why you would bring that up.

> "trust us that if you give us full, un-fettered independence, then we will not be a hostile entity"

I don't agree, that's an optimistic view of things. Most Palestinians (Hamas for sure, Abbas as well) never agreed to give up on the 'Right of Return' so its not really independence in a 2 state solution that they're looking for, it's the abolishment of Israel.

That's part of the problem as well - it's not exactly clear what the Palestinian position is - partly because I think they see things like 'right of return' (which is completely unacceptable to Israel) as bargaining chips to trade for something during negotiations.

The right of return is a human right which some Palestinians have according to international law. Whether it is acceptable or not for Israelis should not be a consideration. Majority rule was also completely unacceptable to white Rhodesians. But the international community correctly assessed this to be because of racist grounds and thus not worthy of consideration.

Palestinians might negotiate away the right of return at some future date, but any deal which denies them that right will be a human rights violation and thus court material to be reversed at an even later future. But regardless, what Israelis think is not of concern, and should not be a concern.

Great, why don't we start with the United States which is the richest most privileged country in the world?

"Mexican Cession (1848): The most significant event was the Mexican-American War (1846-1848). Mexico lost the war, and through the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, it was forced to cede a vast amount of territory to the United States. This territory included present-day California, Nevada, Utah, most of New Mexico and Arizona, and parts of Colorado, Wyoming, Kansas, and Oklahoma. Texas had already declared independence from Mexico in 1836 and was annexed by the U.S. in 1845, a major cause of the war."

"Displacement and Dispossession: While the treaty promised to protect the property rights of Mexicans who stayed, in practice, many lost their land through legal maneuvering, fraud, or outright violence. This forced displacement would have driven some south to Mexico."

Whatever doesn't belong to Mexicans surely belongs to Indians.

Sounds like a good place to start. After that - Australia and Canada. Once that's done let's do Israel.

There are land-back movements in the US. In addition, all native Americans have US citizenship. If Israel gave citizenship, equal rights, and the right of return to all those that were displaced since the 1940s and their descendents, then I imagine a one-state solution would be possible and a lasting peace could be achieved.

> In addition, all native Americans have US citizenship.

Yeah easy to do since almost all of them were exterminated. Why shouldn't all their old lands be brought back to them? Why do they have to settle in a few tiny reservoirs?

What about all Mexicans ? Plenty of them would like to move to the U.S, and as we saw some of them have legitimate territorial claims - why won't you allow them - are you pro apartheid? Because that's what the word means - separation. Let me guess - it's way easier to abolish other people's countries than your own for the sake of impossibly high morals right? It's way harder when you have actual skin in the game.

Whataboutism is not an effective rhetoric device, and is unlikely to win any arguments nor to convince anyone. We can also talk about Tibetans who were annexed but not displaced, we can talk about Chagossians who were displaced but given citizenship. We can talk about Japanese Americans who were displaced, given the right of return, and payed reparations (in my opinion too small of a reparation). And we can even talk about Cyprus, I‘m not very well versed in that history, but I’m sure there is something to talk about there.

Point is human rights have been violated in multiple occasion throughout history, all around the world. We can talk about any of those all day, but it won‘t get us anywhere. Point is also that Israel is one of the current violator of human rights, and deserves to be called out as such, irregardless of other human rights violations throughout history. But the main point is Palestinians deserve to have their human rights, which they have been denied for 77 years, and are still being denied.

> Whataboutism is not an effective rhetoric device, and is unlikely to win any arguments nor to convince anyone.

At the very least it would be nice to hear that hypocrisy runs deep for many many people without actual skin in the game whose ancestors have done the worst things imaginable. They have to give up on nothing, but can feel morally superior by helping 'end colonialism' by ending Israel.

As for Palestinian human rights - they can get the right of return to the Palestinian state without destroying the Jewish state. But no, that's not good enough, the only way to create 100% justice is to 100% eradicate Israel in your eyes and in most Palestinians eyes. This religious/ideological principle has brought tremendous suffering to the region with not much to show for it.

You are arguing with a strawman. All we are saying is that Palestinians that were displaced after the 1948 terror campaign which created Israel, that it is their right to return to their homeland. It is indisputable that they have this right, and that denying them that right is indeed a human right violation that ought to be stopped.

Whatever happens to a supposed Jewish state should not be a concern. Jewish residents of the area have their human rights as well, but what they don’t have a right to is a demographic majority, a racial supremacy, etc., and any policy which aims to maintain a jewish demographic majority or a racial supremacy is illegitimate.

> The 1948 terror campaign which created Israel

That's a very one sided view of a war that included many massacres and ethnic cleansing of the Jewish population as well

Forced displacement is a recognized crime against humanity. Israel forcibly displaced these people, refusing their right of return is a crime.

Israel repeatedly and systematically kicks Palestinians out of their homes and grants those homes to Jewish settlers.

They are able to do this in large part because Palestine is not a recognized state.

The longer they prevent Palestine from getting statehood, the more dunams of land they can steal.

I don't disagree with you, but will comment.

There is a justifiable argument for Israel to occupy the west bank and/or the Gaza strip (whether one agrees or not is another matter that I will not get into). Settling it is another matter entirely, and this action is what causes so much grief.

But what Palestinian supporters continuously fail to grasp is that every time Israel has tried to give (and there were many attempts in the 1980s and 1990s), bad actors have caused violence. This violence was a huge cause in support shifting to right-wing parties in Israel.

The tragedy is that a plurality of Palestinians would otherwise love to have a peaceful (two state or otherwise) solution, but the "bad" ones are well funded by outsiders, in particular Iran. If a Gandhi/Martin Luther King/Nelson Mandela figure emerged, they'd almost certainly be killed by Hamas,Hezbollah,etc.

But at the end of the day, there's no way the extreme elements of either side will agree to a permanent and dignified peace, because even if it would work it would mean the end of either of them (and Israeli PM was assassinated by a far-right Jewish nationalist).

I'm sympathetic to both sides myself. I'm sympathetic to Israel's position, need for security, and the fact that hostility against them is a given. I'm also sympathetic to the fact that the Palestinian people were pushed off their land, often with violence to a level that can fit the definition of genocide, during Israel's independence and subsequent annexations.

But there will never be a true peace so long as the extremists on both sides have as much power as they do. I know most Iranians are fed up with their government. My Iranian colleagues all are commenting that even devoutly religious Iranians back home are getting fed up. A lot of this is a house of cards, so I guess we'll see.

The fact that we use the term "Settling" and "Settlers" is kind of grotesque. These places are occupied, by Palestinians, who have to be ethnically cleansed (with varying degrees of violence) in order to establish new Israeli Jewish settlements. This is done with Israeli Jewish soldiers, a hundred thousand of whom now patrol hundreds of enclaves and all major routes through the West Bank.

Isreali and US right-wing leaders find a hostile Iran to be extremely politically convenient, and the military-industrial complex that they share with each other and with centrist parties just wants a reason to keep existing. People talk about a potential "War with Iran", but in reality we've given them maybe a dozen different diplomatic casus belli in the past decade, in part to deter them from political moderation.

That's how the term is used in the U.S. as well, when history classes describe "settlers" who wiped out the Native Americans who lived here through genocide, germ warfare, regular ol' warfare and displacement. I think in general when one sees the word "settlers" one should assume the worst.

> military-industrial complex that they share with each other and with centrist parties just wants a reason to keep existing.

This is so freakin' true. I feel like, if world peace ever reared its ugly head Americans would whine, "but jobs!" because of the hit it would give the military-industrial complex.