Israel/Palestine thread
Think this merits its own thread...
Discuss my fellow 2+2ers..
AM YISRAEL CHAI.
[QUOTE=Crossnerd]
Do you support Israeli withdrawal from Area C in the West Bank? Because if that's not included, you don't really support a Palestinian state.
Yes, I support the inclusion of Area C in the Palestinian state.
I also think that this is not the point of dispute, and is not even a relevant issue.
First, of course, alternative areas can be proposed to replace are C.
Second, we have already proposed Area C, and we did not reach an agreement, because of the refugee and Jerusalem issues.
Third, this assumption includes an implicit assumption that one of the parties has a historical right to any areas. This assumption is one of the main problems in the dispute between the parties and one of the logical failures of Israel's opponents. There is no absolute truth here, no one has a historical right to a specific border. An agreed border needs to be created, that's all. It can pass anywhere, in any region, as long as the parties agree on it.
In general, I have written about this in the past, one of the biggest obstacles to resolving the conflict is the unwillingness of the countries of Egypt, Syria, and Jordan to donate territories to the Palestinian state. It would be possible to create a very large state that automatically takes in a large portion of the refugees. But the international community does not demand this and I guess you don't even understand why this is not only the effective solution, but also the just one.
Also, white Arabs and Islamophobia
Yes, I support the inclusion of Area C in the Palestinian state.I also think that this is not the point of dispute, and is not even a relevant issue.First, of course, alternative areas can be proposed to replace are C.Second, we have already proposed Area C, and we did not reach an agreement, because of the refugee and Jerusalem issues.Third, this assumption includes an implici
This is a curious post, including Area C in a state on the one hand, while writing at length that it is unnecessary.
But it's crucial.
If the occupation doesn't end, there's no state, and that's what Area C is, continued occupation. C snakes in and around Palestinian enclaves to the point that people have to go through a checkpoint in C to get to the bakery across the street in Area B.
It's also curious that you'd expect other countries to give up land, rather than let Palestinians stay right where they are, where they have deeds to the land.
BTW, Arafat gave up on an inclusive right of return; you should have taken that deal.
BTW, Arafat gave up on an inclusive right of return; you should have taken that deal.
Why? They can just take the whole region by force.
You misunderstood him. He is regurgitating a frequent antisemetic trope that the Jewish goal is to take the entire region; when the entire territory we are talking about is significantly smaller than my state, and less populous than the metro area I live in.
To antisemites like Trolly, the little blue area represents racial supremacists who insist on taking everyone else's land, and the people who control the rest of the map are the victims of these racial supremacists.
Arafat never gave in on insisting right of return,
In a July 8, 2025 interview on Al-Arabiyah Network (Saudi Arabia), Muhammad Rashid, former financial advisor to Yasser Arafat, discussed the 2000 Camp David Summit between U.S. President Clinton, Palestinian Authority President Arafat, and Israeli Prime Minister Edud Barak. Rashid said that the independent Palestinian state discussed at the summit was accepted at the expense of the Palestinian right of return to the 1948 borders. According to Rashid, the talks focused instead on a solution for Palestinian refugees, allowing them to return and become citizens of a Palestinian state, receive compensation for their homes, or obtain citizenship in a third country. He said the right to return to homes in the pre-1948 borders was never on the table at Camp David.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34sCtsbI...
So Arafat didn't announce he'd given up on the right of return, he just negotiated at length in a framework that didn't include it.
they outright state the plan is Greater Israel. every single day they steal more land in Palestine, Lebanon, and Syria.
its just their way of trolling. I mean, Israel is currently stealing in Syria as we speak.
and we all know what Israel has done to Palestinians in Lebanon and throughout the world.
the fact is that Israel is obsessed with Palestinians and will chase them to the ends of the earth to satisfy their bloodlust.
Ok, so you were just trolling. LOL 1948 borders.
It is like if the Mexican-American war never ended, and in 2025 Mexico announced it would end the war if California and Nevada were given back. Basically just a giant troll.
I checked Google AI and this was flagged as a false statement. Arafat never gave in on insisting right of return or control of Jerusalem, which was one of many reasons the Camp David summit failed.
Israel insisted on retaining (in law, that would be annexing) East Jerusalem in order to make sure the Camp David summit failed, because Israeli policy has always been the one Netanyahu just spoke out loud:- 'There will be no Palestinian state.'
They’re trying to ethnically cleanse the Jews out of the Middle East and Israel is the last holdout.
Look at these demonic racists attacking this Christian woman in Israel. Spitting on her, beating her up.
“Pro-Israeli goes to Israel. Watch how they treat her...
This is Supremacy 101”
https://x.com/ryanrozbiani/status/196921...
In b4
“Oh shut up Nazi start talking about stuff in Africa. You don’t talk about Muslims enough !”
Israel insisted on retaining (in law, that would be annexing) East Jerusalem in order to make sure the Camp David summit failed, because Israeli policy has always been the one Netanyahu just spoke out loud:- 'There will be no Palestinian state.'
Muslims conquered Jerusalem 1500 years ago, built a mosque on top of what they knew was the Jews holiest site, and then refused to let Jews to worship there for 1500 years, including the entire time it was controlled by Jordan up to 1967.
And then after taking it back in 1967, Israel/jews still allowed Muslims to worship there, despite never being given the same courtesy for 1500 years.
Given this history, Israel retaining Jerusalem is clearly the moral position.
And the fact the rest of the world can’t acknowledge this is an indication just how bad faith this whole exercise is.
As I said before, a giant stumbling block to peace is for geopolitical reason most of the world failing to acknowledge just how immoral and bad faith the Arabs/Palestinians position is.
Westerners will pontificate endlessly on what they perceive as moral failures of Jews, but are completely indifferent to clear moral and diplomatic failures going the other way.
And putting the entire onus on Israel/jews to act in good faith/compassionately despite never having it returned.
And then the western world perpetuating a bad faith fake history of what happened to justify and obfuscate own moral failings and complicity in this farce.
US President Donald Trump has said he will not allow Benjamin Netanyahu to annex the Israeli-occupied West Bank.
Speaking ahead of the Israeli prime minister's address to the UN General Assembly on Friday, the US president told reporters in the Oval Office: "I will not allow Israel to annex the West Bank ... It's not going to happen."
Trump, who will meet Netanyahu on Monday, also said a Gaza deal was "pretty close".
Israel is facing increasing global pressure to end the war in Gaza and occupation of the West Bank as a wave of Western states formally recognise an independent Palestinian state. Far-right Israelis see annexation as a way to stop this prospect.
Ultranationalists in Netanyahu's governing coalition have repeated calls for Israel to annex the West Bank, part of the Palestinian territories, outright.
The UK and Germany say they have warned Israel against annexation, while UN Secretary General António Guterres said at the UN on Monday it would be "morally, legally and politically intolerable".
Woah, first the Ukraine statements and now this? Pleasant surprise.
Then again. As Ash Sakar put it
I guess Satan was unavailable
Former UK Prime Minister Sir Tony Blair has been involved in discussions about leading a post-war transitional authority in Gaza, the BBC understands.
The proposal, which is said to have backing from the White House, would see Blair lead a governing authority supported by the UN and Gulf nations - before handing control back to Palestinians.
Hamas finally admits they don’t care about the civilians in Gaza.
So now that Hamas has reiterated it will not disarm and will not disband, and there is no negotiations to return hostages and end the war; where does that leave all the nations that are demanding an end to the war and return of hostages, and pledging support of a Palestinian state with a disarmed and disbanded Hamas.
Obviously these are the same people that are arming and supplying Hamas in the first place. So they could just stop doing so. But we know that isn't going to happen.
So what exactly is the plan?
Seems everyone is really just hoping Israel destroys Hamas, against their own efforts to keep Hamas in power, so things can move forward. The Trump administration can make all the plans they want for a post Hamas world, but given the rest of the world completely supports Hamas retaining control of Gaza, in action if not word, it is all pretty meaningless.
