Towards a sustainable peace

Yes, plenty of people. Your average Joe as well as government officials. That's the beauty of a democracy - lots of different voices that are heard and can oppose the insanely extremist views of a vocal minority

So is it your view that the more belligerent right wing elements of Israel society (the settlers, politicians such as mentioned above, IDF who shoot at children for lobbing stones) are challenged effectively?

In a normal democracy a government Minister calling for ethnic cleansing would be sacked.

"Well some of their senior ministers are apparently calling for ethnic cleansing. Is anyone arguing against them?"

Yes, plenty of people. Your average Joe as well as government officials. That's the beauty of a democracy - lots of different voices that are heard and can oppose the insanely extremist views of a vocal minority.

I think a lot depends on the economic fortunes of the Palestinian people. If by some means the economy can be grown and advantage taken of better educational opportunities then in the long term you may have a more positive picuture
The blockade pretty much wrecked Gazas economy. Not sure how that would improve if they remain under Israel’s control (which seems inevitable at this point).
With regards to education my understanding is that there is no real issue with this.

Going forward there has to be a decoupling of the jihadist mindset that undoubtedly had a role in the October 7th attacks and this will require a cultural change in the Palestinian territories where extremism is called out and shunned.
I’m not sure calling Hamas out and shunning them would have achieved anything to be honest. People who caused them problems probably just disappeared.

Similarly if there are extremist views on the Israeli side there should be those that argue against them in a democratic manner
Well some of their senior ministers are apparently calling for ethnic cleansing. Is anyone arguing against them?

Revealed: how US residents are funding illegal settlements in the West Bank

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/23/crowdfunding-us-residents-fund-settlements-west-bank

If you want to donate here is the link
https://www.oneforisrael.org/

The proposed removal from Gaza is in line with de facto Israeli government policy on the West Bank. This is enabled by Israeli governments over decades, and actively supported by the IDF.

https://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2023/october/ethnic-cleansing-in-the-west-bank

Nothing new here...business as usual...

Well, they are both senior government ministers so..
**
While I’m aware that Israels government are right wing and presumably pro settler(?)I don’t really know how senior individual people are or how mainstream their ideas are. If most of their politicians are like Gvir and Smotrich then that’s a bit scary.

From what you’ve said it doesn’t sound like they do intend to remove the Palestinians from Gaza but take control of it or just continue messing it around. Doesn’t sound like a massive change of MO so not sure if it will stop the terrorism.

@theoldweirdalbion the statement from the Israeli defence minister that I posted clarifies that Israel does not intend to re-settle Israeli civilians in Gaza. Which is contrary to what Ben Gvir and Smotrich were both saying.
A positive point one could say

Yeah that’s what I meant

@HeidiInTheBigCity I better watch the full speech, thanks for the heads up

Well, they are both senior government ministers so ...

That is, to be fair, not really the whole story and not quite the whole story of what Gallant actually said (watched his press conference live, earlier).

Trying to recall from memory, it was something along the lines of:

• Yes, Palestinians to be in charge - specifically of civil(!!!) affairs [read: this specifically excludes security].
• Specifically to the point of "security", he also stated that Israel will reserve the right to operate militarily within the Gaza Strip if and when it pleases.
• He also, specifically, said this would be "Palestinians who are not hostile to Israel" and speaks about "local commitees" as well as international involvement by both Arab and non-Arab powers.
• Furthermore, he essentially engaged in an attempt at damage control opposite his fellow cabinet members openly calling for ethnic cleansing.

Now, to take a deliberately uncharitable(!!!) view, what this might mean - again, deliberately not being kind in my interpretation:

• Essentially, no Palestinian unity will be accepted!
• Recipe for disaster (for Palestinians): "if you want some power, you better help us enforce the occupation".
• This is, essentially, the West Bank model - there is a reason why the Palestinian Authority is so hated by West Bank Palestinians. It is exactly that: they are seen as "having sold out and helping to enforce the occupation in exchange for a little personal clout" - this is especially true for Mahmud Abbas.
• Except, in this case, it is even sort of worse: when the PA was established, Yasser Arafat was PLO chairman and became president. He ended up loosing a lot of support on the back of this - but, at the very least, he entered into the whole thing as a respected figure and on the back of something that had not been "tried, tested, and found to be a recipe for divide and conquer" when he did. Anyone who agrees to this deal now will not enjoy these benefits.

Long story short: "worst case scenario" interpretation is "recipe for Palestinian in-fighting", followed by "see, we told you they were horrible, violent people!"

@theoldweirdalbion the statement from the Israeli defence minister that I posted clarifies that Israel does not intend to re-settle Israeli civilians in Gaza. Which is contrary to what Ben Gvir and Smotrich were both saying.
A positive point one could say

Tbf Ben Gvir and Smotrich have been mentioned on this board before and it sounds like both are considered extremists so maybe they aren’t the best example. As I’m not Israeli it’s difficult to know what the views expressed by the various politicians /parties really are.

I wasn't sure what would be the best thread to add this to but as it was being discussed on here today I will repost on here. There has been alot of inflammatory comments made by some politicians with extremist views, which has been criticised by the US, the UN and the EU. I believe this statement may be to clarify Israel's position on the matter which is not to re-occupy Gaza.

From the Guardian
Palestinians to be 'in charge' of Gaza after war ends, says Israeli defence minister Israel’s defence minister, Yoav Gallant, has said that there will be no Israeli civilian presence in Gaza and Palestinian bodies will be “in charge” of the territory after the war ends.
In a statement by his office, reported by Reuters, Gallant said Hamas would no longer control Gaza and Israel would reserve its operational freedom of action. He was quoted as saying:
Gaza residents are Palestinian, therefore Palestinian bodies will be in charge, with the condition that there will be no hostile actions or threats against the State of Israel.”

Perfectly aware ... I posted this to the wrong thread (this one).

Context was rather "puzzling choice seeing as - apart from the Epstein issue - he also has absolutely no track record in international law".

He's in the news for the wrong reasons at the moment with the whole Epstein thing. May not be relevant though.

Erm, Palestinians are an Arab nation - sort of like Lebanese, Egyptians, or Iraqis!

The confusion might stem from the fact that, in Israel in particular, you sometimes hear "Arabs" instead of "Palestinians" - this, for that matter - is somewhat ideologically loaded in that the terminology is often used to deny that there is such a thing as a distinct Palestinian identity at all. On the other hand, there are Arab people within the area who do not necessarily identify as part of the Palestinian people - many Beduins, for example.

But, as for your question: Bethlehem, Ramallah, and Jerico are all cities on the occupied West Bank - they are not only clearly Palestinian, they are also all so-called "area A" under Oslo, i.e. supposedly Palestinian-administered.

Nazareth is located within Israel proper (1948 borders) but is inhabited, predominantly, by members of the Arab-Palestinian minority within Israel.

So, apparently, it would seem to be Malcolm Shaw - not Dershowitz - representing Israel at the ICJ hearing next week - or at least this is what several sources are reporting.

A way less puzzling choice than Dershowitz, if true, in that he is, in fact, specialised in international law.

Is Bethlehem what you would call 'Palestinian' or would you call it 'Arab'? What about Nazareth, Ramallah, Jericho? I think it's all a mighty mixture. And, yes, I could weep for it all.
It's good to have a thread which is trying to think constructively.

Israel’s National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir on Monday called for promoting “a solution to encourage the emigration of Gaza’s residents” and the re-establishment of Israeli settlements in the Gaza Strip
That sounds like ethnic cleansing to me.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/qatar-and-kuwait-join-condemnations-of-ben-gvir-and-smotrich-for-advocating-displacement-of-gazans/

Israel’s National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir on Monday called for promoting “a solution to encourage the emigration of Gaza’s residents” and the re-establishment of Israeli settlements in the Gaza Strip.

His comments came the day after far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich also called for the return of settlers to Gaza, adding that Israel should “encourage” the territory’s approximately 2.4 million Palestinians to leave.

There is a lot of misunderstanding of the position of Palestine and the West Bank. Unfortunately it is not as clear cut as many would believe and it is very important to understand the history on both sides. Israel have occupied the West Bank since 1967 prior to which it was ruled by Jordan, so a free Palestinain state ruled by Palestinians has never really existed
Yes but Israel didn’t exist before 1948. That didn’t stop it coming into being.

There are also many Arabs living within the borders of Israel and there are many cities in Israel with areas that could be described as predominantly Arab. Likewise, there are Jews living in the West Bank, many of whom can claim historic roots pre-dating their expulsion by Jordan and the Jordanian occupation of the area.
I am not really surprised to learn that both the Israeli/Jewish and Arab/ Palestinian people have links to the land since both have lived there for generation's 🤷‍♀️So there are Jewish people with links to what is now the West Bank or Gaza and Arabs within links to what is now Israel.

But either they all live together in the same country (which would be Israel I suppose, I don’t know how realistic that would be) or the land originally intended for Palestine will have to be given to the Palestinians. This would mean Israel relinquishing quite a bit of land (including East Jerusalem) though it is land they are occupying to be fair.

I would have thought the bigger problem would be potential security threats. Given that the Palestinians have no state, a wreaked economy, barely any real government and have been under the control of either terrorists or Israel whats to stop it all descending into chaos?

If this conflict has taught me one thing, it is that the UN is ineffectual and potentially corrupt and I have therefore lost all faith in it's ability to deal with the situation in the middle east.

There is a lot of misunderstanding of the position of Palestine and the West Bank. Unfortunately it is not as clear cut as many would believe and it is very important to understand the history on both sides. Israel have occupied the West Bank since 1967 prior to which it was ruled by Jordan, so a free Palestinain state ruled by Palestinians has never really existed.

There are also many Arabs living within the borders of Israel and there are many cities in Israel with areas that could be described as predominantly Arab. Likewise, there are Jews living in the West Bank, many of whom can claim historic roots pre-dating their expulsion by Jordan and the Jordanian occupation of the area.

I am totally against settlor violence (or any other violence), but it is important to remember that not all settlors are violent or necessarily living illegally. In my simplistic view, Jews should be allowed the freedom to live in Palestine in the same way that Arabs can live in Israel.

Historic borders can be fought over ad-infinitum but in our modern world we should be striving to allow people from all religions and backgrounds to be able to live together harmoniously. Whilst I accept that borders must exist to allow for Governments to administer their own areas, the whole concept of displacing people needs to be relinquished to history. If Arabs wish to live in Israel they should be welcomed and vice-versa.

In the long-term, Gaza itself is probably not sustainable with the high population density of recent years. Just by way of example, the water gathering restrictions that seem so draconian were brought about with good intentions - to avoid the individual harvesting of rainwater impacting on the salinity of the water supply. Unfortunately, like with many well-intentioned policies, it was misunderstood and ineffectual. Desalination is not a viable long-term option for a large population.

Gaza will never have the natural resources to survive so its only realistic lifeline would be through trade and ideally that would need to come from the sea as it's people would not want to be dependent on either of its former occupiers, Israel or Egypt. Historically other small maritime states have achieved this (Singapore, Monaco etc), but it takes significant wealth and I can't see where this would come from - another wealthy state looking for a remote outpost? Gaza seems an unlikely choice. I struggle to see how even a free Gaza can free itself from the confines of its geography.

Those are good points, @Trulywonderful .

In terms of settlers and people who returned to what had been their homes, I think there could be options to explore and discuss as part of peace negotiations. Compensation and relocation packages for people willing to relocate. Rights of residence / settled status processes so that people could remain in their homes within the recognised borders of Palestine and remain Israeli citizens. Appeals/exemption processes for cases where people feel disproportionate harm would be caused by relocation. It's never nice to think about people being told they have to leave their homes, so it would be important to have consideration of how this affects the individuals actually living in the occupied territories as well as the people evicted from there or living under threat there.

I absolutely think we need external peacekeeping and oversight. Of the two main government/leadership powers in Palestine, one is being dismantled and cannot be in power when this ends and the other is taking a real political hammering too, and likely won't be in any sort of position to rebuild. An external entity could help establish and maintain border security and improve relations, and reduce the risk of further hatred between both countries. They would need to be impartial and independent, so that both countries could be satisfied that the negotiated and agreed limits would be enforced justly.