Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 53

Thread: Why there's no hope of peace in Israel

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. Top | #1
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    26,534
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    123,286
    Rep Power
    99

    Why there's no hope of peace in Israel

    https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/...t-on-long-term

    Quote Originally Posted by article
    Also mostly consistent across generations, though by a much narrower majority, was rejection of permanent peace with Israel. Asked if a two-state solution should be “the end of conflict with Israel,” just 34% of young West Bank respondents answered yes; the proportion was even lower among older residents (25%).
    What's the point in making an agreement that most of the people plan to not honor?

  2. Top | #2
    Veteran Member Arctish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    4,572
    Archived
    4,540
    Total Posts
    9,112
    Rep Power
    68
    This was interesting:

    GAZANS LESS POLITICIZED

    One startling difference did emerge from this survey—not between generations, but between West Bankers and Gazans. Respondents were asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed with this provocative statement: “The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is mostly just for politicians or old people, and I simply don’t think about it very much.” In the West Bank, only one-quarter agreed even “somewhat” with that proposition, but in Gaza, the figure doubled to 52%. Also surprising was the parity between younger and older residents on this seemingly age-related question.

    The explanation for these highly counterintuitive findings almost certainly lies in the fact that Gazans have had little daily contact with Israelis since the 2005 withdrawal of soldiers and settlers. Their situation is a sharp contrast to conditions in the West Bank, where Israeli soldiers, settlers, and checkpoints are a constant reminder of the conflict.
    Maybe if the Israelis went back to their side of the 1967 borders and stopped interfering with Palestinians going about their everyday business, there'd be a similar moderation of opinion in the West Bank.

  3. Top | #3
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Tri Cities, WA
    Posts
    94
    Archived
    176
    Total Posts
    270
    Rep Power
    44
    Quote Originally Posted by Arctish View Post
    This was interesting:

    GAZANS LESS POLITICIZED

    One startling difference did emerge from this survey—not between generations, but between West Bankers and Gazans. Respondents were asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed with this provocative statement: “The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is mostly just for politicians or old people, and I simply don’t think about it very much.” In the West Bank, only one-quarter agreed even “somewhat” with that proposition, but in Gaza, the figure doubled to 52%. Also surprising was the parity between younger and older residents on this seemingly age-related question.

    The explanation for these highly counterintuitive findings almost certainly lies in the fact that Gazans have had little daily contact with Israelis since the 2005 withdrawal of soldiers and settlers. Their situation is a sharp contrast to conditions in the West Bank, where Israeli soldiers, settlers, and checkpoints are a constant reminder of the conflict.
    Maybe if the Israelis went back to their side of the 1967 borders and stopped interfering with Palestinians going about their everyday business, there'd be a similar moderation of opinion in the West Bank.
    Nah, that's just crazy talk! Seriously, right now Israel is it's worst enemy.

  4. Top | #4
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    26,534
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    123,286
    Rep Power
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by Arctish View Post
    Maybe if the Israelis went back to their side of the 1967 borders and stopped interfering with Palestinians going about their everyday business, there'd be a similar moderation of opinion in the West Bank.
    Maybe if they pulled back to the 67 borders they would get what they got back then--continual attacks. Why should it be different this time around?

  5. Top | #5
    Veteran Member Arctish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    4,572
    Archived
    4,540
    Total Posts
    9,112
    Rep Power
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Arctish View Post
    Maybe if the Israelis went back to their side of the 1967 borders and stopped interfering with Palestinians going about their everyday business, there'd be a similar moderation of opinion in the West Bank.
    Maybe if they pulled back to the 67 borders they would get what they got back then--continual attacks. Why should it be different this time around?
    The evidence provided in your link indicates otherwise. Not that it matters.

    Netanyahu is hell bent on expanding Israeli sovereignty to the Jordan River. Evidence that withdrawing from the West Bank and limiting the daily contact between Palestinians and Israelis would decrease the militancy of the younger generation is irrelevant because he doesn't care about that. He wants the land and resources, and figures Israel will eventually beat the Palestinians into submission.

  6. Top | #6
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    26,534
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    123,286
    Rep Power
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by Arctish View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Arctish View Post
    Maybe if the Israelis went back to their side of the 1967 borders and stopped interfering with Palestinians going about their everyday business, there'd be a similar moderation of opinion in the West Bank.
    Maybe if they pulled back to the 67 borders they would get what they got back then--continual attacks. Why should it be different this time around?
    The evidence provided in your link indicates otherwise. Not that it matters.

    Netanyahu is hell bent on expanding Israeli sovereignty to the Jordan River. Evidence that withdrawing from the West Bank and limiting the daily contact between Palestinians and Israelis would decrease the militancy of the younger generation is irrelevant because he doesn't care about that. He wants the land and resources, and figures Israel will eventually beat the Palestinians into submission.
    What in the link gives you that idea?

    As for the younger generation--they've been brainwashed to militancy for their entire life. Why should things get better??

  7. Top | #7
    Veteran Member Arctish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    4,572
    Archived
    4,540
    Total Posts
    9,112
    Rep Power
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Arctish View Post

    The evidence provided in your link indicates otherwise. Not that it matters.

    Netanyahu is hell bent on expanding Israeli sovereignty to the Jordan River. Evidence that withdrawing from the West Bank and limiting the daily contact between Palestinians and Israelis would decrease the militancy of the younger generation is irrelevant because he doesn't care about that. He wants the land and resources, and figures Israel will eventually beat the Palestinians into submission.
    What in the link gives you that idea?
    The part I quoted and commented on.

    As for the younger generation--they've been brainwashed to militancy for their entire life. Why should things get better??
    You didn't read the article in your OP all the way through, did you?

  8. Top | #8
    Contributor PyramidHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    RI
    Posts
    5,065
    Archived
    4,389
    Total Posts
    9,454
    Rep Power
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/...t-on-long-term

    Quote Originally Posted by article
    Also mostly consistent across generations, though by a much narrower majority, was rejection of permanent peace with Israel. Asked if a two-state solution should be “the end of conflict with Israel,” just 34% of young West Bank respondents answered yes; the proportion was even lower among older residents (25%).
    What's the point in making an agreement that most of the people plan to not honor?
    Why should the Palestinians honor it? There should be one state: Palestine. Before Israeli Zionists teamed up with British military power to invade and settle there, it was Palestine. They didn't ask the inhabitants of Palestine if they were okay with somebody setting up a nation in their backyard, they just decided in 1917 that Zionist settlers were entitled to it. Thirty years later, they handed a politically neutered Palestine over to the UN, after Israel had established a firm presence there and the prior denizens were brutalized into submission. What possible justification is there for anything other than a solution of precisely one state, Palestine? What reason could there be for Palestine to honor any terms that include the legitimacy of an invading and occupying aggressor as equal to the victims of their aggression?

  9. Top | #9
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Burnsville, MN
    Posts
    3,422
    Archived
    2,911
    Total Posts
    6,333
    Rep Power
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by PyramidHead View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/...t-on-long-term

    Quote Originally Posted by article
    Also mostly consistent across generations, though by a much narrower majority, was rejection of permanent peace with Israel. Asked if a two-state solution should be “the end of conflict with Israel,” just 34% of young West Bank respondents answered yes; the proportion was even lower among older residents (25%).
    What's the point in making an agreement that most of the people plan to not honor?
    Why should the Palestinians honor it? There should be one state: Palestine. Before Israeli Zionists teamed up with British military power to invade and settle there, it was Palestine. They didn't ask the inhabitants of Palestine if they were okay with somebody setting up a nation in their backyard, they just decided in 1917 that Zionist settlers were entitled to it. Thirty years later, they handed a politically neutered Palestine over to the UN, after Israel had established a firm presence there and the prior denizens were brutalized into submission. What possible justification is there for anything other than a solution of precisely one state, Palestine? What reason could there be for Palestine to honor any terms that include the legitimacy of an invading and occupying aggressor as equal to the victims of their aggression?
    The justification is that the people of Israel are there now. Whether there should be one state or two, everyone deserves a right to go where they please, access quality education and medical care, seek employment without discrimination, and import/export as is economically useful for the nation(s); that they are expected to buy and pay for land in a way common to all persons in their nation(s), and that they have representation in their government consummate to their existence rather than ethnic or religious background.

    People need to seriously be forced to get over the rampant fucking racism and religious divisiveness, through strong educational and economic reforms. Kicking people out, any people, is not a winning proposition. The way forward is to let people in, not push people out.

  10. Top | #10
    Contributor PyramidHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    RI
    Posts
    5,065
    Archived
    4,389
    Total Posts
    9,454
    Rep Power
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhyn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PyramidHead View Post

    Why should the Palestinians honor it? There should be one state: Palestine. Before Israeli Zionists teamed up with British military power to invade and settle there, it was Palestine. They didn't ask the inhabitants of Palestine if they were okay with somebody setting up a nation in their backyard, they just decided in 1917 that Zionist settlers were entitled to it. Thirty years later, they handed a politically neutered Palestine over to the UN, after Israel had established a firm presence there and the prior denizens were brutalized into submission. What possible justification is there for anything other than a solution of precisely one state, Palestine? What reason could there be for Palestine to honor any terms that include the legitimacy of an invading and occupying aggressor as equal to the victims of their aggression?
    The justification is that the people of Israel are there now. Whether there should be one state or two, everyone deserves a right to go where they please, access quality education and medical care, seek employment without discrimination, and import/export as is economically useful for the nation(s); that they are expected to buy and pay for land in a way common to all persons in their nation(s), and that they have representation in their government consummate to their existence rather than ethnic or religious background.
    Wow. So if I move into your house without your consent, you should be willing to entertain a two-occupant solution for your dwelling? I would just have to say "Well, I'm here now, and I deserve a place to live, so..."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •