Israeli movements against Settlements?

[hareclive]

yesterday I had a thread deleted from the Chat section because of inflammatory negative generalisations that I made about Israelis in my opening post. the post was to discuss Louis Theroux s documentary on The Settlers.

there were claims on the thread that the Settlers of nationalist extremists and that not all Israelis support Settlements. from my POV all the Israeli spokespeople and voices I have seen and heard, DO support Settlements. it is my understanding that the vast majority of Israelis support Settlements? I think it isn't accurate to say that it isn't representative of Israelis? DW was an elected mayor and is nominated for a Nobel prize by Israeli university professors so she isn't considered a nutter by mainstream Israelis as far as I can see

other comments on the thread suggested that both sides are as bad as each other. when I tried to explore this I was given a link to an attack on an Israeli family from 2011. but what I can't find is any evidence that it is commonplace for Palestinians to want to remove all Israelis from the land. there is no national movement to do this. the spokespeople for Palestinians just talk about living in peace and having the occupation removed

tldr: I'm genuinely interested in hearing about Israeli opposition to the Settlements and occupation. and understanding what the mainstream Israeli POV is on this? because from the outside it does look like nationalistic religious extremism, at this point

Why doesn't Israel just offer to pull out all the settlers on the West Bank?
It would be an indication that they are genuinely prepared to start negotiating for peace.

The reason they don't, is because they have no intention of giving up the settlements and that is the greater part of the problem. This conflict will carry on as long as Israel continues to behave as it is currently doing, with or without Hamas.

I mean, you can't say 'not all Israelis support the settlements, just because the Israeli government does.

Then 'all Palestinians support Hamas over the 7/10 attack and hostages, because their government does'

It's a double standard.

The Israeli government supported the settlements for a long time before the 7/10 attacks, and still won elections

Ha, you're suggesting that people make any nuance with Israel?
Is this upside down world?

The vast majority of Israelis recognise that Hamas is the worst thing that happened to Gazans. They also call out settlers as often crazed religionists. You forget Israel is an open democracy where there is open media and discourse. Even written by women, gays and minorities.

Yet I see anti-Hamas protestors abused in London...by no other than...pro Palestinians.

Most posters on here cannot even begrudge a single positive statement on Israel. Suddenly all the advances of science, women's rights, minority rights, turning a desert into a modern economy are forgotten in a nanosecond.

Nowhere does one see a fair portrayal of Israel. The BBC has been caught out multiple times for taking Hamas' views as that of Gazans... Including the use of falsified data.

You have people abusing British-Jews in London for the actions of Israel, on account of shared responsibility (more likely, horrific antisemitism).

But you want to suggest Hamas needs more separation from Palestinians? Maybe they should start with their rabid supporters in the west, who routinely look for the destruction of a state and never seem to be willing to protest against Hamas.

The worst thing that happened to Palestinians is Hamas.

Settler's are fringes within Israeli society. Often extremely poor and with some crazed ideals.

The IDF and police have a terrible time in trying to find balance.

The political spectrum within Israel differs on this issue. Israel has an unusually conservative government as of today. More typically it has been labourist and quite socialist. The approach to Samaria tends to swing with political direction, but never fully in either direction.

Thinking settler's are representative of all of Israel is like saying Mormons are all Americans.

It is nonsense, but it fits in nicely with the anti Israel rhetoric.

Isn't it unfortunate that the Israeli government, prior to 7/10, were supporting Hamas to split the Palestinians politically? Very embarrassing.

And that Isreal's supporters assume that anyone condemning the illegal settlements want to see the destruction of Israel?

Most of the people I know want to see:

• a safe and secure Israel, which means recognising:

• that no matter how powerful you become, there is no solution by force to the situation with Palestine - it took the British state decades to realise this with Northern Ireland

• that peace will require recognising Palestine and reversing illegal settlements

• recognising human rights apply to people who oppose you, as well as your supporters (lessons that the US and UK learnt to their cost after the Iraq invasion) - basically 'do as I say and not as I do' doesn't work long term, no matter how powerful you are militarily

I realise it's a tricky internal political balance. But from an external perspective - in complete support of Israel's right to exist, although I have no doubt that won't be believed - the illegal settlements undermine Israel's rights, because they trample on the rights of others.

Shoot me down as much as you like, accuse me of antisemitism. I genuinely believe in Israel's right to exist.

But I also believe in the Palestinians right to exist.

If it were just a handful of settlers on the WB, that would be far less of a problem. But there are over 700,000 of them. That's not a fringe. OK, so most of them do not go out in packs and terrorise Palestinians, but they are all 700,000 of them living in a land that

1. Was never theirs, it was captured in '67
2. creates loads of friction by them being there.

So go back to Israel, or, UK takes them in as refugees and we show them how to behave like normal human beings.

The west in my view are more rabid in these views than Palestinians. The pro Palestine movement is more reactionary in the west than in the ME. After all, Israel has a very large population of Palestinians... Called Israeli-arabs. Who are educated, have equal rights, speak Arabic... Who are Palestinians. Jews were also Palestinians....Its not like Jews just arrived yesterday with a bulldozer.

Re the wider point.
I don't see any of this nuanced discourse anywhere. But of course... You do.

Only chanting of hate against Israel.

You'd think if your view is true, you'd see some Palestinian and Israeli flags together? Right?
In the same way that you saw Russian and Ukrainian flags together.

But you don't, because there is none of that. The pro Palestine movement is for the most part an anti Israel hate fest.

Hence why any nuanced views are attacked.

Ps. The idea that Hamas is some kind of Israel project is such nonsense. Of course they interacted, they are neighbours. And of course was there a policy in Israel to weaken the PA. But to blame the development of Hamas on Israel is frankly farcical. Just another blame Israel angle...Or is it a Zionist coup?

Of course there won't be Israel and Palestinian flags.

Did you see IRA and Loyalist flags before the Good Friday agreement? Do you see them now? 25 years on, not perfect years by any means, but surely better than the violence of the past?

Of course you need to dismiss me as ignorant or biased.

"was never theirs" whose was it? Surely if you can answer that you can solve the situation. The issue is that it wasn't anyones.

Because before the Arabs all invaded the new state of Israel, and in doing so they overran the land intended for another Arab state. It was Jordan who overran it, and before that it was a mandate (not a nation state) and before that it was Ottoman periphery...

When those armies then crossed into defacto Israel, they were defeated and Israel pushed back.

The reality is that the invasion the following morning of independence by all the Arab armies was a terrible ploy which many have paid the price for since - particularly anyone wanting an ethnically homogeneous Arab state.

But ultimately, until you can see there are faults on both sides, you will remain in the current cycle of attack, respond, respond, respond.

Both sides having a genuine grievance, and advancing their grievances while denying the other side also has a genuine grievance.

And so it goes on.

The people who lived there, maybe?

Who weren't part of the political entities who attacked?

Either way, the only way to peace is through talking.

Force, oppression and killing is occupation. Occupation doesn't bring peace. As found by Greater Germany.

And the British Empire...!

There for sure are.

And sadly the lack of focus on the nuances and Israel hate fest has turned israel into a real siege mentality nation. That doesn't help anyone.

My view is that only shared economy prosperity can help the situation. People with assets and good livelihoods don't use bombs.

In the north of Israel, with a high proportion of non Jews, successful business parks and employment have facilitated a peaceful multi-cultural area.

There was an Israeli billionaire who promoted that idea for Gaza - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stef_Wertheimer#:~:text=Stef%20Wertheimer%20(Hebrew%3A%20%D7%96%D7%90%D7%91%20%D7%A1%D7%98%D7%A3,in%20Israel%20and%20neighboring%20countries.

Sadly it didn't happen.

It was known for most of history as Samaria and Judea. Even the historical Arabic name is Yehudia (area of Jews, rough translation). So which part of history do you want to revert to?

So I'm not sure it's so easy to say whose land it was... Could give it back to the Turks?! Or make it a British county?

Note -
No need for the continued comparison with Greater Germany. It is completely unnecessary and as has been pointed out, historically incorrect as a comparison. I understand you are trying to use it as some kind of nazi comparison, Holocaust inversion, but it just makes you appear uneducated and really lacking any empathy. Which in other areas of posts you have.

Israeli governments have been legalising settlements. By building settlements and outposts on what is geographically recognized as Palestinian land, Israel undermines Palestinian sovereignty and preemptively bifurcates any future Palestinian state by limiting its urban development. The presence of illegal Israeli settlements is an obstacle to a two-state solution. But Netyanhu does not want to stick to the 1967 borders, rejected peace proposals even before there were innocent hostages involved. He never wanted there to be Palestinian state.

Even the families of Israeli hostages are criticising Netanyahu for “misleading and deceiving the public at the expense of the lives of our hostages”. Gaza is an an open-air prison. Instead of negotiating, Netyanhu is keen to continue waging war and it’s very clear that he now wants to displace all Gazans in the guise of freeing hostages. Israel broke the ceasefire and now this January.

Israel has unilaterally decided to approve plans to seize the Gaza Strip and to stay in the Palestinian territory for an unspecified amount of time. Israel has been illegally encroaching on Palestinian territory before Hamas and is still continue to do so under the guise of eradicating Hamas etc.

There have been illegal settlements that have been set up in the West Bank, farmlands have been destroyed etc. Many Palestinians are starving, without food, water and fuel. There have been many Palestinians who have been illegally detained and are considered missing.

Israel could end the war but instead is just blaming Hamas. When it’s now becoming clearly obvious the goal is to displace even more Palestinians from their homes, take over Palestinian Territories by any means necessary to expand Israel.

A small village was known as Yehudia, the historical Arab term for the entire are is Shaam.

Uneducated?

Sure.

History degree and Masters in Peace Studies. Case studies included Northern Ireland, Nepal, South Africa etc.

And sadly the lack of focus on the nuances and Israel hate fest has turned Israel into a real siege mentality nation.@Snitchyorwitchy

Your use of the phrase "Israel hate fest " implies that you think that those who question Israel's actions, hate Israel.
I think you'll find that most people here do not hate Israel, they hate Israel's current behaviour.

So in future could it please be "Israel's current behaviour hate fest."

That's great. But you still can't see the historical differences or the ethical issues between direct comparison between Greater Germany (you can say Nazi policy) and the State of Israel? Or why it is problematic?

I hope you never get anywhere near any real world policy which impacts anything of importance.

All the best. This is a waste of time.

Well, that's the question, isn't it? How many years, how many generations?

Sorry to keep reverting to Greater Germany, but I think it is relevant.

Germany, Russia and the Hapsburgs carved up Poland in 1795. Then in 1918 Poland became a country again.

So in 1939 they claimed the parts of Poland that had been German before 1918. Poles became second class citizens with few rights (Jews even worse conditions).

According to your arguments about Palestine, that's correct? For historic reasons Nazi Germany were entitled to claim Polish territory?

The same way Israel is entitled to claim Palestine? By force of arms and history?

Edit - 'they' being Germany

Alternatively Northern Ireland.

In the late 1500s and early 1600s protestants settled, mostly in Ulster, often fleeing the Counter Reformation in Scotland.

They fought against Irish independence after 1918, and succeeded in getting a divided Ireland, with Northern Ireland part of the UK. By then had established a protestant and unionist majority in Ulster, as opposed to a Catholic and independent majority in the whole of the previously united island of Ireland.

Were the Irish independence movement right - Ireland had been Irish forever and a day, and the settlers were colonialists who should go home?

Or were the unionists, who had been there for 400 years and many generations, right to insist they had a right to their homes?

"Samaria" is quite the tell here.

Yep.

The period in history that suits their ideology.

Here is a good interview with Ralph Wilde UCL professor of International law (who has appeared before the ICJ) representing the Arab league in recent cases.

And here is his appearance before the ICJ last year: