Has enough been done to tackle incitement to genocide?

[Scirocco]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cze5w2wd4x0o

Do you approve of a two-state solution? Do you think it is reasonable for Jews to have a country of their own anywhere in the world?

Well, there's quite a bit of denial of statehood going on in the Occupied Territories at the moment, and the Knesset recently voted to oppose any two-state solution. "From the river to the sea" has been used as a slogan for elected poitical representatives' vision of a single-state solution which requires the completion of the erasure of Palestine.

https://conquer-and-divide.btselem.org/

At the moment, no. But in the long term, with a new Israeli leader and enough cast-iron guarantees from the international community that the security of Israel would be protected and defended, yes.

@Miffylou it's not just Netanyahu. From 77 members, 68 voted against a Palestinan state. That should tell you all you need to know.

It is a false notion that is presented on here, that only Netanyahu and a couple of ministers are extremists.

@Miffylou Netanyahu rejects a two state solution.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68045247

Last July the Knesset voted against it.
www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/france-pans-knesset-vote-against-palestinian-state-ben-gvirs-visit-to-temple-mount/

Of course they don’t want one at the moment. What country would want a neighbouring state ruled by people who have repeatedly vowed to wipe them from the face of the earth? People who came over the border to cold-bloodedly murder, torture, rape and abduct civilians?

It's very telling that no-one will answer this question.

Do I 'approve'? My individual approval probably doesn't matter one bit to the terrorists and warmongers who have put a lot of effort into sabotaging the prospect, but yes, I think a two-state solution is probably the only feasible path to a sustainable end to hostilities. It wouldn't be easy, but the costs of the alternatives would be horrendous.

The erasure of Palestine would not bring peace. It would just stain the land and history with more innocent blood when more than enough has been spilled already. Palestinians would not be safe in a single state governed by the current Israeli government or their likely successors, and the treatment of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories clearly shows what would happen if they were subjected to that situation. The creation of a single state with no overall state religion would defeat part of the reason for Israel's existence - to be a Jewish homeland - and that wouldn't be acceptable to the many people who need that security and legitimately call Israel home. So, there are two groups of people, both of whom have valid reasons to call a land home and who have different prerequisites for safety and security which involve maintaining different national identities. So, a two-state solution is really the only feasible route to achieve that.

And what people will want to continue to live under brutal illegal violent occupation? Which the Palestinians have, under the Israeli occupation for decades.

I mean the same could be said of Palestinians, why would they want a neighbouring state with people who think they have a right to steal their homes, to murder, abduct and torture their children, to restrict their access to food and water etc etc. Israel haven't been sat on their hands treating Palestinians with respect, they have been breaking international law for decades in their treatment of them.

If you bothered to notice, that question was not asked openly but aimed at one poster who has replied.

Have a bit of patience. I can only type so fast. I've now posted an opinion so feel free to go ahead and say how terrible a person I must be or whatever because I think international law and human rights should matter for everyone.

What about before Oct 7 as Israel was not working towards a two state solution then either?

From The Times of Israel 8 Oct 2023
https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/
( my bolding)

For years, the various governments led by Benjamin Netanyahu took an approach that divided power between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank — bringing Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to his knees while making moves that propped up the Hamas terror group.

The idea was to prevent Abbas — or anyone else in the Palestinian Authority’s West Bank government — from advancing toward the establishment of a Palestinian state

Oh, your comment has reminded me that you still haven’t replied to my hypothetical question to you. I’ll repeat it for you.

Let’s just assume a hypothetical situation. Suppose that countries such as the US and the UK stopped selling weapons to Israel and the surrounding Arab countries then collaborated to launch an outright attack with the declared aim of wiping Israel off the map. (I’ll be generous and refrain from adding "and killing all Jews", which is an avowed aim of Hamas and some other Muslim leaders.)

If that happened, would you support a proposal for the rest of the international community to support Israel and fight against the Arab coalition? Or would you be happy for Israel to be destroyed, leaving no majority Jewish state anywhere in the world?

I’ve already said that I loathe Netanyahu and that a two-state solution woukd require a new Israeli leader.

I'm not answering your ridiculous fantasies. I find the use of these made up scenarios are frequently being used to justify Israel breaking International law and to minimise the actual reality of what is happening right now. I find it appalling and refuse to take part.

Come off it. It's not just Netanyahu. If Israel had wanted a two state solution at any point we'd have had one by now. And the state wouldn't have allowed and supported the continued violent theft of Palestinian land which continues to this day.

Why on Earth would I say that? That makes no sense at all. It'd be helpful if people could stop projecting.

People have been jumping in all over the place answering questions not addressed to them and giving unsolicited opinions so I didn't think there'd be an issue. Refusing to answer is an answer in itself.

They don't only allow it. The isrseli government sanctions the theft of Palestinian land itself. It comes directly from the government and they spend millions of shekels in establishing illegal settlements in direct violation of international law.

I cannot answer for anyone else, and my opinion is not of any consequence, but I support Israel in its continued existence.

I do not support what Israel has been doing to Palestinians through illegal settlements and stealing Palestinian land, or the disproportionate destruction of Gaza, and killing there; or in general the reign of control by the extremist dishonest Prime Minister, and those whom he obeys so as to stay in power. None of this will bring Israel security.

It had barely been 20 minutes before the question was answered to the poster it was addressed to, that's hardly refusing to answer is it? Are you new to mumsnet?

Well, this wasn't asked of me, but here is my answer.

Firstly, I think there is a distinction to be made between defensive support of an ally and faciitation of aggression against a civilian population. I would have supported a targeted, intelligence-led, ideally jointly coordinated and overseen operation, carried out within international law, against the terrorist organisation responsible for pretty much the worst terrorist atrocity since 9/11 (even knowing that people and places I care about would have been in harm's way). I also think international laws and limits should be applicable for all and that governments should not expect to be given weapons by countries who claim to uphold those standards without also being expected to adhere to those in the use of the resources made available. So, I don't think governments should say "fend for yourself", but I also don't think they should be giving a free pass when it comes to international law.

In your hypothetical situation, a country and its civilian population would be at risk of harm and potentially destruction. Regardless of whatever went before, the right thing to do would be to protect the innocent population at risk. Just as innocent Palestinians do not deserve to die because of the heinous actions of the people in power, nor do innocent Israelis deserve that fate because of whatever acts of the leadership in your scenario led to the international community stopping military assistance in the scenario.

I would point out that neighbouring Arab countries have been involved in trying to protect Israel. When Iran launched missiles and drones, countries helped their neighbour. It would be likely that a defensive coalition to protect the existence of Israel would also include other countries in the region and that even countries which might 'keep out of' actual direct interventions might contribute in other ways. Israel is not alone and will not be alone. Its government should still be expected to conduct itself in accordance with basic ethical and legal standards though.