1. The West Bank is a result of the non agreement between the Arabs (back then they didn’t identify themselves as Palestinians) to the Zionists and a bad decision of not solving the issue, for decades. So the answer is status quo and a military regime.
2. No. Israel is forced to defend itself over and over again because of the aggressor (as Palestinians) are constantly carrying terrorism acts against its civilians.
3. There are no borders at the West Bank. The Palestinians refused for the suggested division and are keep refusing it to this day. I said it before, in case you can provide the Israeli public a promise for peace, real peace, then the land will be divided. I think Israel already proved that in the past.

I don't see how this approach or mindset would yield something that is in the interest of Israel though.

Same as it yield a peace agreement with Jordan and Egypt

/e I wrote it before. The Palestinians need to accept Israel and to drop their claim to the “right of return” so we can proceed into something.

This post was edited by WhiteSouned on Apr 1 2024 11:27am

Can you say more about what you mean by "The Palestinians need to accept Israel"?

OK

1. further to the above - The west bank is a result of the non agreement between the arabs and the zionists (using your terminology). I agree that it is a bad decision. I would contend Israel should simply claim the land as Israel, or leave, at this point. To my mind because Israel has been indecisive and not opted to do either of these things, they are making life very difficult for themselves, nevermind the poor palestinians.
2. why do you call the palestinians the aggressors? I see this clearly agitated many_names but the fact is the zionists went to a land that was already occupied, ergo, they are the aggressors. this should not be a difficult thought exercise. If you lifted up a million jewish people and dumped them into scotland, jordan or tasmania and they then proceeded to kick the indigenous people out of their homes, then they (the jewish people) are the aggressor. if the people of scotland, jordan or tasmania then created their own hamas type resistance (however evil/brutal it is), it does not change the fact that israel was the initial aggressor. I accept this is difficult to accept, try to answer this without emotion i am not trying to cause an argument, i am debating and trying to understand.
3. Why are there no borders at the west bank. this is the only country (israel) in the world that does not have a defined border. this is so fundamentally wrong.

over to you. to be clear what i am trying to get from this conversation is an acceptance that either (a) what israel is doing in the west bank is wrong (b) there must be a unambiguous border and (c) Israel must clearly state its intentions long term, for the west bank, and to not do so is disingenuous and inhumane.

This post was edited by ferdia on Apr 1 2024 11:38am

I mean the Palestinian constant claim of Israel being “occupied Palestinian territory”.
From the Constitution of the Palestinian National Liberation Movement (Fatah):




They don’t accept Israel. They deny its existence and they’ll fight to destroy it. I quoted from PLO on purpose rather than Hamas but it’s actually more or less the same.

Accepting Israel means not seeing Israel as a proxy or “colonial expansive base”. Colonial of which country exactly ?

You said you would answer my question if i answered your question. I answered your question and then you refused to answer my question. so yes, you debate in bad faith and lie as evidenced by the above exchange. I already quoted some of your comments from the 1st 100 pages of this thread. maybe I will post your quotes from the next 100 pages just to enforce my point.




This is NOT a personal attack. I am outlining that you do not debate in good faith, and you have been shown to lie in this topic as evidenced above. You are not debating in good faith when you say you will do something and then renege after I give you an honest answer to your question. if you dont want someone's opinions, dont ask for them.

This post was edited by ferdia on Apr 1 2024 11:49am

Your number two point above is fundamentally wrong. You assume Israel as a colonialist proxy which is really not.
Before and During WWII the Jews fled to the only place accepted them. Where would you exactly expect them to go ? The gates were closed, even in the US ( btw after opening them the Jews came by the masses) No one “sent them” to Israel. My ancestors country doesn’t exist anymore (part of former USSR) and they came to Israel following the Zionist movement which bought land in Israel to settle. The gov was Othman empire and than the British mandate. And the story goes.

I would like to address the rest of what you wrote but it’ll take me some time

This post was edited by WhiteSouned on Apr 1 2024 11:58am

can we pause for a moment to discuss this colonial proxy expression? i dont fully understand what you mean by this. I feel it is irrelevant if the land was given/conquered/already inhabited/already home to jewish people, the issue is that for those ppl living there, not jewish, they are not being protected, quite the opposite in fact, and an element of them are, as is human nature, resisting.

however, the bolded, i accept all of that at face value and do not disagree with any of it. My issue is with taking more and more land and driving people out of their homes, continuously, over the last 7 decades. and well, the legal limbo, of that which is called the west bank.

i dont want to sound cruel but to my mind Israel should have simply expelled everyone at the time, and had a single greater israel, no gaza, no westbank, that would have been a historic event from which the world would condemn israel but move on. instead we have this 70 years of death by 1000 cuts and the mass loss of life every few years.

This post was edited by ferdia on Apr 1 2024 12:16pm

There certainly seems to be a philosophical/ideological acceptance, as well as a material/spacial acceptance.

One confusing thing of Israel, is that it demands the former from the Palestinians while not respecting the latter for the Palestinians. Hard to convince a population that you should be accepted, and are not a colonizing/expansionist nation state, while illegally settling into their land.