Anti Semitism to increase after the government sides with Islamists

@SmallDFartyCarNRG ,

‘That is where the global view on Israel and Judaism is at a cross-roads and for many has been crossed’

This sentence is somewhat chilling, where you equate Israel and Judaism as if they were the same thing.

And there you cross the road to antisemitism.

WTF are you talking about?

Well, there is no point discussing further if it is never one party at fault and no logical thinking is taking place.

@Newbutoldfather, "I am not sure which are more dangerous. I suspect the latter as they tend to be better educated and more influential".

Once again, not sure I agree, apologies. I think the better educated advocates for Palestinian rights do distinguish between the two. I think the ones who conflate the two tend to be less educated and knowledgeable.

That's the only thing you found chilling about that post?

I just want to go back to the title of this thread. The implication that the only people who would oppose the grotesque state- backed violence of the Settlers are 'Islamists'. And yes it's very clearly state backed, I didn't hear this from a social media post or from Hamas, or from a 'left wing' newspaper or broadcaster. I heard this from an Israeli rabbi who works with Palestinians in the West Bank. At an event at my rabbi's house.

The title also suggests every Palestinian is an 'Islamist' (and aside from ordinary, non extremist Muslims, there are many Christian Palestinians in the West Bank who are not spared the violence either)

So yeah, not a fan of that attitude.

Which is pretty much what you did when I brought facts into your previous post.
Palestians didn't even want the West Bank when offered to them, let alone a 2 state solution.

Hamas's charter, the government voted in by the people, is to destroy all Jews.
And yet in your opinion, it's only Israel and Jews who have bought hate on themselves.

Oh, and there is no genocide BTW.

Of course, it's the rest of the world that is wrong.
No point "discussing" this further if one side can do no wrong.

Are you suggesting that Israel made a genuine offer of land and a two state solution, pre 1967 borders, to the Palestinians?

@Squeezingwildoranges ,

It wasn’t far off. It was close to the same amount of land and included well over 90% of the combined West Bank and Gaza. I can see, in some ways, ideologically why Arafat rejected it but, on the other hand, can you imagine how much better it would have been for the Palestinians had it been accepted?

Yasser Arafat was a kleptocratic ruler, worth anything between $300 mio (Forbes) and $1.3 bio (Mossad) when he died. He had the same problem Netanyahu does now. His role in a peaceful Palestine might have been an inmate, prosecuted for fraud.

Which offer are you referring to?

Camp David offer.

That was a bullshit offer which wouldn't have been any different to what the West Bank is now. I could go into the details. But I think I'll let an Israeli Minister say it best. To quote Shlomo Ben Ami, Israel’s Foreign Minister and lead negotiator at Camp David, "Camp David was not the missed opportunity for the Palestinians, and if I were a Palestinian I would have rejected Camp David, as well". He later admitted that the Israeli objective was to create a situation of permanent dependency for the Palestinians. That's why I specified "genuine offer".

You neglect to mention the Russians.
It was in Arafat's interest to refuse the offer, keeping Russia happy and Israel pre-occupied with it all.

I'm saying what I said before, Palestinians have turned down offers of a 2 state solution many times.
Since 1947 actually.

Many times? I can think of one other, Olmert's bullshit offer. Which others are there.

And before.

The 1939 White Paper proposed one state for both peoples, limiting Jewish immigration to 75k over 5 years ( a drop in the ocean compared to how many were subsequently slaughtered in Europe ) and restricting Arab land sales to Jews. It would have been an Arab state with Jews in it.

The Mufti rejected it because he didn't want Jews there at all.

Theres rather a pattern of terrible Palestinian leadership rejecting each offer as each offer gets worse and worse... and Palestinian life gets worse and worse...

You'd think there was a lesson to be learned.

The argument that the 1939 White Paper was a clean offer of statehood rejected out of pure spite completely distorts history.

From the Palestinian perspective, Britain had promised them independence. Why should an indigenous population be forced by a colonial power to surrender portions of their promised future country to waves of European immigration, simply because of British geopolitical maneuvering. No population on earth would willingly accept a foreign empire dictating that they should simply give up land they had been promised. Additionally it wasn't a concrete treaty anyway. It was a conditional policy which would have delayed independence for another decade. Given Britain's long track record of broken promises in the region, the Palestinian population had zero reason to trust that independence would ever actually materialize.

More importantly, if rejecting the White Paper is proof of bad leadership, then you have to apply that standard to both sides. The Zionist leadership under Ben-Gurion also completely rejected the 1939 White Paper and launched an armed insurgency against the British to fight it.

Lol you think it wasn't poor leadership from Al Hussaini all through that period? The offer was as clean as any of that time. You think Palestinians wouldn't be way better off now had they accepted any of the offers made over the last 100 years? You think any plan has worked out well for them?

Of course the Zionists rejected it!!! They got no state, contrary to the Balf Dec, they'd live with an Arab majority with whom there was already increasing violence, and the cap on immigration would have signed the death warrant for many Jews in Europe.

It was vastly more advantageous to the Palestinian Arabs than the Palestinian Jews.

You are so keen to completely absolve anyone Palestinian for any responsibility, yet so keen to hold every single Israeli morally culpable.

I hope you see it one day, I really do.

Btw your last post reads like AI.

You really believe the Israelis ever had any intention of living with the Palestinians? I do not believe you do any more than I do or anyone else who knows about the history of the conflict. Plan Dalet did not finish, it is still ongoing.

I do think the Jews need a safe Jewish homeland and that, regardless of how it came into being, everyone needs to accept Israel is here to stay.

I do think the Palestinians were hard done by and have a legitimate grievance.

There is also the reality on the ground, that has to be recognised.

So, how do you reconcile the above?

The international community should put pressure on Israel not to expand and further. They have no need of it and it is illegal under international law. Everyone needs to start talking seriously about a comprehensive and permanent two state solution. That should include Israel withdrawing from some more recent settlements. They have done this before.

Maximalist demands about sharing the land equally and Palestine having an army are pointless and a distraction. You might as well say that Native Americans should share New York 50/50 and raise an army. It’s just not going to happen.

Equally, Israeli maximalist demands of settling Gaza or the West Bank should be strongly deterred by the western world. There is no realistic argument for them gaining this land.

Israel needs to understand that encouraging trade and joint venture with a (quasi) independent (as in no army) Palestine is the best way to ensure no terrorism and an end to perpetual army service for their youth. Rich people who cooperate with each other are unlikely to fight. Look at the EU, a war seems almost inconceivable now.

And maybe one day there could be a voluntary union between Palestine and Israel and one army for all. Seems idealistic, but who would have thought about Germany and France discussing a joint army in 1946. These things take time and realism.

Does ‘the rest of the world’ have an unanimous opinion?

Increasingly everyone else is in agreement on genocide, yes.
We visited Nurnberg last year and there is a very clear definition.
Genocide is the intentional and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. 1]
According to the United Nations Genocide Convention of 1948, the crime of genocide involves specific acts committed with the explicit intent to destroy these protected group

76k people counts.

Those 76K people include combatants. Do they count? Are you sad about them dying?

Hamas is paying pensions to 50K 'war widows' btw.

The death toll also includes non-conflict related deaths (15-18K), executions by Hamas and tribal wars, and Palestinians killed by misfired rockets, IED boobytraps and landmines. Thought to be in the thousands.

The only evidenced genocide that has taken place in this conflict was Oct 7th in Israel.

Genocide is the intentional and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.

That is exactly what Palestinians intentionally did that day. It doesn't matter that only 1200 people were slaughtered or that other international citizens were slaughtered just because they were in Israel.

The actions of the IDF in Gaza could not be termed as genocide, no matter how loosely you want to apply the definition.

Sane people, not blinded by hate, can see that.

Sane people not blinded by hate... righto, ones who can see on the news and know their own mental health is stable aren't your definition of sane and Israel's actions aren't blinded by hate. Of course.

As I said if one side is always right then there is no discussion. You have answered the OP with it will never be a Jewish issue or an Israeli one, they are faultless. Everyone else has it wrong.