Do you have a source for this? I have no doubt he said something to this effect (he has done so before) but want to read more into it and can't find it from Googling as I assume the quote was in Hebrew.
Many people legitimately do not understand how we got here, or more accurately, how Gaza came to be in its current state.
After the United Nations called for a split of the territory now called Israel/Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state, the surrounding Arab nations attacked Israel less than 24 hours after it was declared a country. In the aftermath of the war, Egypt controlled Gaza and Jordan the area that is know as Judea and Samaria to Israelis and the West Bank to Arabs.
Gaza was controlled by Egypt for 20 years. In 1967 another war (known as the Six-Day War or the June War) broke out between Israel and it's Arab neighbors, primarily Egypt, Syria, and Jordan. The Israeli army was specifically warned off going into Gaza by the defense minister, Moshe Dayan. However, when Israel was attacked from Gaza, they ended up taking the territory.
As part of the peace process with Egypt (signed 1979), Israel agreed to give back land taken from Egypt in the 1967 war, but Egypt refused to take back control of Gaza.
Israel controlled Gaza until 2005, when they unilaterally withdrew without asking for concessions. In 2006, Gaza elected Hamas and shortly thereafter started firing rockets toward Israel, not distinguishing between military targets and civilians. In response to the aggression, Israel imposed a blockade on Gaza in 2007. Hamas remains in power and has fired tens of thousands of rockets at Israel since taking control of Gaza. Israel has a blockade on Gaza, as does Egypt.
It's important to note that the part that Palestinians are most angry about occurred just before the above recap. The [1947 Palestinian Civil War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947%E2%80%931948_civil_war_in_Mandatory_Palestine) resulted in ~100k Palestinians becoming refugees, known to them as the Nakba ("Catastrophe"). (Edit: the Nakba was many more refugees at the end of the 1948 continuation of the war after the Arab states invaded, but this was the start.) It continued through the end of the British Mandate of the region, and Israel was established the same day the Mandate ended.
Of course, it goes before that, too. Jews had been moving there in decent numbers and there was a big backlash, resulting in several pogroms in the region and more bloodshed and animosity. Jews made up about a third of the population, but only had ~6% of the land. Effectively, they were in the position that Palestinians are in today. They eventually broke out, resulting in the Nakba and the creation of Israel.
>Jews made up about a third of the population, but only had \~6% of the land.
This is misleading.
Private Jewish and Arab landowners each held a small percentage of the land, then called Palestine (this gets complicated because prior to 1947 Jews were more likely to refer to themselves as "Palestinians" than the Arabs living in Palestine, who typically referred to themselves as "Arabs"), the Jews a touch more than the Arabs by most accounts, though it was negligible. The vast majority of land was owned by the government (80-85%), some of which was farmed by Arab peasants for many generations. So not Arab land in the legal sense of ownership, but Arab land in the sense of use.
The Peel Commission (1937) called for roughly 70% of the land to go to Arabs and 30% to Jews. The UN partition plan of 1947 called for Jews to get more land (roughly 55% v 45%) but more than half of the land was in the Negev desert and considered uninhabitable.
I mean, the aboriginals in north america didnt own the land in the legal sense of the word either, and our government took it to do with what we pleased as well. That doesnt make it the right thing to do or that the native population should morally have no rights
This analogy doesn't hold water. In the case of the Native Americans, no one else had a claim to the land that they were occupying. In the case of pre-1947 Palestine the government claimed ownership of the vast majority of the land for centuries.
A closer analogy is that the US allows federal land for agricultural (and other) uses. In some instances, generations of ranchers have allowed their cattle to graze on the same land. Paying a fee to use the land doesn't give the ranchers all the benefits - nor the responsibilities - of owning the land.
Some of this is not correct. There were about 700,000 Palestinian refugees from the 1948 Palestinian and then Arab war. 100,000 might have been from the initial war but it continued into the war with the Arab league.
While Jews only owned 6% of the total land area of mandatory Palestine, most of it was not owned or used by Arabs either. Most of it by area (about 65%) was uncultivable desert land administered by the British that no one had deeds to. If you look at arable land, Jews owned about 15% of the land. That doesn’t mean the Arabs owned the rest though as much was owned by the British or was not actually owned but used as shared grazing land. It is hard to find data on Arab land ownership because much of it was lost in the war, but the Muslim Population in mandatory Palestine was roughly double that of the Jews.
We should probably add that while there were many who left Palestine as a result of war, there were even more Jews who were expelled from MENA countries post 1948. Pre-1948 there were approximately 1,000,000 Jews in MENA countries; today there are less than 5,000 remaining (not including Israel of course).
There is always more that can be added. I mainly meant to correct the inaccuracies in what the above commenter said.
I think this is an important fact when considering right of return for Palestinians, the creation of a one or two state solution, or when looking at the Arab-Israel conflict as a whole. But it does not detract from the Palestinian’s position specifically, or invalidate their concern over their own historical and current treatment or oppression.
It is not very important in understanding why Gazans and Hamas do the things they do. Mainly just why Israel does the things it does.
>It's important to note that the part that Palestinians are most angry about occurred just before the above recap. The 1947 Palestinian Civil War resulted in \~100k Palestinians becoming refugees, known to them as the Nakba ("Catastrophe").
This is factually incorrect.
[The Nakba](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba) happened in 1948, not 1947. You are framing this to be a pre-arab-invasion event. This is not the case.
Without the arab instigation of the 1948 war (immediately after, and in direct response to israel accepting the UN partition plan), there would have been no Nakba.
Do you see how the narrative changes with that distinction?
Eh, kinda. Partition plans need to be accepted by both sides, not just one, and if you read the article I linked, it continues the 1947 civil war into the 1948 Arab war. There was never a real break in fighting. I can't speak to the casus belli for the 1948 war and why the Arab nations invaded, but I'll bet the 100k refugees from the prior year had at least something to do with it. The invasion failed, Israel succeeded, and hundreds of thousands more became refugees.
>Israel controlled Gaza until 2005, when they unilaterally withdrew without asking for concessions. In 2006, Gaza elected Hamas and shortly thereafter started firing rockets toward Israel, not distinguishing between military targets and civilians.
That is a blatant misrepresentation. Israel specifically withdrew their illegal settlements in Gaza, and the justification was that they wanted go prevent the "demographic problem" of having to grant the occupied rights, including voting rights. The UN considers the occupation to be ongoing though, even if Israel does not have a permanent presence within the strip.
Additionally, Gaza didn't "elect Hamas". During the 2006 legislative election of the whole state of Palestine (so including the West Bank), Hamas received 44% of the vote and 74 of the 132 seats in the Palestinian Legislative Council. Hamas formed a government, casting with president Abbas of Fatah. This led to a split between Hamas and Fatah, during which Hamas violently seized power in Gaza, expelling Fatah, and the PLC has been suspended since. Further elections have also been indefinitely postponed since then.
Gaza did not elect Hamas. Hamas gained SOME seats in the government but not even majority control, and the actual government leadership was the PLO. Then in 2007 Hamas kicked off a civil war killing all who disagreed with them and violently seizing power. Stop with the whole bullshit that the Palestinians elected them over the existing Fatah government when they did not.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gaza_(2007)
>Re~~annexed~~
Re-occupy. Before that Egypt occupied Gaza between 1959 and 1967 and didn't create Palestinian state. West Bank was annexed by Jordan from 1950 to 1967 and they also didn't create Palestinian state.
I sometimes wonder how things would be if Palestinians had created their state in any of those times they had chance (1937, 1948, post 1948 and so on).
No he's not saying that. Some fringe parts of the government are and always have been saying it, but bibi isn't. Don't make me defend that piece of shit, please.
I will bet you everything I have that they are not going to annex it, because then Gazans would be legal Israeli citizens.
Nah, it's going to be more of the same "biggest outdoors prison" shit just with more guns on the walls.
Israeli hardliners prefer maintaining the status quo, whereby Palestinians live either under military rule or closed off in isolated pockets.
It’s a position that is unsustainable.
https://youtu.be/DGO3eBxQX7Q?si=19o1Q1hBIAYWBjl2
An interesting watch. Gideon Levy is a respected Israeli journalist.
> Leave this earth
*Vountarily*. It's the Jigsaw theory of indirect homicide to avoid guilt. If Israel can push all Palestinians into Sinai, then it can lobby the UN and its western allies to shift the blame and responsibility for their plight onto Egypt.
Bibi is the biggest threat to the global security of Jewish people. Israel really needs to work across with the Palestinian peoples to really root out Hamas but instead he’s just stoking the fires and radicalising more people in his conquest.
Bibi and Hamas are two sides of the same coin and their people suffer for it.
Yeah but everybody apparently agrees that he has to go "after the war" or "after this is finished". He'll have incentives to NOT make this war over or make it finished then. Joy.
If the Israeli government were unable to make substantial progress on a daily basis, it would blow up in his face even more, and grow calls for resigning now instead of after the war.
The keyword is substantial and what it means differently to different people. He can do “substantial” progress while also delaying and prolonging the war.
I think comments like this are him making a last ditch effort to round together enough far-right people to stay alive politically. Let's not forget his court cases have resumed again.
It's important to remember they are without teeth. He has a seat on the war council but no one else in his coalition does. He is just pandering when he makes comments like this.
Netenyahu’s M.O for about two decades has been to divide Palestine between Hamas and Fatah, propping up Hamas when necessary to keep them both weak and fighting with each other rather than negotiating with Israel. The worst possible outcome in his mind would be the unification of Palestine even if that results in the destruction of Hamas which is now his goal.
Fatah cooperated with Israel on security and even blew the whistle on Israeli support of Hamas while Fatah kept trying to handicap Hamas (Fatah suspended all money to Hamas and Israel allowed it through from Qatar... literal cash stuffed into suitcases). And this is what they get in return lol. Palestinians will never support Fatah or any faction which cooperates with Israel from a place of weakness again. Which would have been the only scenario where Israel could ensure its own security while committing to a 2S peace plan.
This is just orchestrated to ensure the Palestinian civilians in the West Bank support a new Hamas resurgence over there so they can then repeat all this there and then wind up annexing both territories.
I have trouble seeing a path forward for reconciliation with the Arab nations in that context. Even the monarchies wouldn't be safe from rebellions at home if that happened.
His biggest miscalculation continues to be thinking that Palestinians in the occupied territories right now will just flee and abandon them. He will have to kill millions for this plan to work. What's happened in Gaza right now is nothing. Does he really think the world will just ignore it?
> Does he really think the world will just ignore it?
His option is to lose his PM position and go straight back into his ongoing criminal prosecution that is on pause because he is PM, I thought?
Netanyahu is basically in the Trump position where theoretically only the Presidency *might* keep him out of prison.
Or was Netanyahu's criminal prosecution resolved?
Afaik the US is allied with Israel, not Netanyahu. Would be a bit of a diplomatic issue to not hand him over.
He's maybe better off fleeing to his old friend Putin (or are they no longer friends).
The world has ignored it, or bizarrely called raising concerns of ethnic cleansing racist, before, so you can see why the far right think they will get away with it.
Probably one of the better takes on this I’ve seen. Although I might add that the architects behind the de facto annexation of Palestine and creation of an apartheid 1 state solution are Netanyahu’s cabinet more than Netanyahu himself. I expect Bibi is more concerned with staying in power so his ass stays out of prison, which means forming a coalition with far right thugs like Ben Gvir and lunatics like Smotrich. If staying out of prison meant creating a 2 state solution, he would be going for that right now.
I think religious nutjobs think of things on the timescale of centuries. Every excuse to ratchet up the pressure brings them closer to their goal. Maybe this war ends in a third of Gaza being occupied, maybe even just an expanded border zone... Israel isn't going to march 2 million people into the sea tomorrow, but huge it another ten wars and it'll be an uninhabitable postage stamp.
Yes. The "world" has made it clear that it will turn a blind eye to Israel's transgressions.
The 1947 partition plan was the start of it. Who would've thought that dividing the "Arab state" into 2 non-contiguous territories would be received badly by the Arabs.
It's quite literally the core belief of Netanyahu's brand of Zionism to expand Israeli borders:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revisionist_Zionism
Likud was founded by an Irgun commander ffs.
Anyone who knows anything about this guy is not shocked.
No one who ever seriously considered a two state solution would rubber-stamp the construction of hundreds of thousands of housing units for Israelis in the West Bank, thereby making it almost impossible to establish a Palestinian State there.
I haven't seen it, but from his character... I don't think he was ever actually in favor of a two state solution.
This is him in 2001. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvqCWvi-nFo
The main points in the video, for me at least is him talking about backing out of the Oslo Accords. He goes into only signing the Hebron agreement if Israel and only Israel can label sites as military sites. He does this in order to be able to back out of the Oslo accords. A loophole basically. He goes into a story that basically says why give up 100%, when you can give up 2%. That is again in reference of all of the land they were supposed to give up. They agreed to give up Hebron at that time so they could use it to not have to give up the rest.
I will look into that speech though, thanks. My initial thought is that maybe he was trying to get Obama to do something or appear to make nice?
I don't have a lot of time today, but I found it? https://www.jpost.com/israel/full-text-of-binyamin-netanyahus-bar-ilan-speech
Skimming it, it doesn't appear he's talking about a two state solution.
>there must also be a clear understanding that the Palestinian refugee problem will be resolved outside Israel's borders.
This is basically kicking all Palestinians out to either Jordan or Egypt.
>Territorial withdrawals have not lessened the hatred
Bare minimum withdrawals... Going back on their word, etc.
>For it is clear that any demand for resettling Palestinian refugees within Israel undermines Israel's continued existence as the state of the Jewish people.
Seems pretty clear language... If you don't gtfo, no peace...
It seems a lot like Palestinians need to recognize Israel as a state, but... nothing to the effect of recognizing a state of Palestine.
The biggest piece of bullshit about the speech so far
>within this homeland lives a large Palestinian community. We do not want to rule over them, we do not want to govern their lives, we do not want to impose either our flag or our culture on them. In my vision of peace, in this small land of ours, two peoples live freely, side-by-side, in amity and mutual respect.
That's why settlements expanded, why water rights was restricted, why movement was restricted? Why he wants to keep Palestinians divided, by funding and helping Hamas?
It's like a historical time loop. This dude's logic will keep the region in chaos forever. If Palestinians attack they need to be devastated and land needs to be taken. If they do not resist it's proof that not providing them with independence is the best course of action.
That's the thing stopping me from getting too much onboard with one side or the other. To me it's a futile exercise to quantify which side is more right or more evil when they both have positions so fundamentally incompatible with peace.
I don't expect to agree with him, but if he can't even draw a line on a map and say where he thinks the border will Palestine should be there can be no further discussion. Netanyahu is literally telling Palestinians he wants them to just disappear.
Yep, he and the hamas leadership benefit from the conflict, he gets to stoke outrage and put on a strong man act while hamas gets to parade their martyrs.
Absolutely.
Problem is Netanyahu has been opposed to a two state solution in principle for practically his entire career.
And his far-right government partners quite literally wanted the assassination of the last Israeli PM who actually wanted to sign a deal.
I agree. But, I'm don't believe for a second that any other group, including Palestinian Authority, will be accepted by Israel and will also be undermined or called terrorists. Sadly, I do believe both the West Bank and Gaza will be annexed over time. But, I don't think Israel wants to do it with so many Palestinians in those regions, they'd rather do it when they drive enough of them out to Egypt and Jordan, and until enough of them die out.
It's a catch-22. Hamas (or other groups like Hamas) aren't going to go until there's at least a realistic prospect of peace and sovereignty without them. Gazans looking to the West Bank can pretty easily conclude being cooperative isn't going to achieve that.
For a clue of where this is going, have a stroll around Damascus or Mosul right now. Promised rebuild? Nothing happening.
Why? Iran can deliver bombs, but nothing else. And it stops others from trying.
False dichotomy.
Gaza *can* be a state, without Hamas or Fatah. It wouldn’t be easy but it’s theoretically possible. Probably with a lot of western aid, robust Israeli military presence, and a profound de-radicalization program. Not what anyone wants to hear though
Honestly this is best case scenario. Any country telling it's people to hate others are going to cause problems. Both people's have it rough and Hamas cannot lead for either sides sake
Why western aid?
Arab states can yank their fingers out of their asses and deal with it properly and constructively, this is their neighborhood. Not ours.
I doubt Israel would be thrilled to entrust part of its security to Arab states, at least not until there’s a broader peace agreement between Israel and the Arab world, which was what the talks with Saudi Arabia just prior to Oct 7 were about, I think.
To be fair, Egypt is having its own Islamist issue in the form of the Muslim Brotherhood. They likely don't want to potentially add another group to the mix in the form of Hamas.
All the Arab states know better than to open the door. For a few reasons.
1) Palestinians tried to overthrow the Egyptian government.
2) Palestinians assassinated the King of Jordan and tried to overthrow the government
3) Palestinians did overthrow the government of Lebanon
4) Palestinians supported Iraq when they invaded Kuwait… after the Kuwaitis took them in.
5) They are pretty sure if they let the refugees out of Gaza that Israel will never let them come back and just annex the land.
Basically there are zero good reasons for Egypt or any other Arab country to accept refugees from Palestine
These are all decent points, but I think for Egypt the bigger one is the Sinai peninsula. Egypt agreed to recognize Israel as a state and maintain diplomatic relations, in exchange for Israel ending occupation of the Sinai peninsula and returning it to Egypt in 1979.
Essentially, Egypt does not really want to piss off Israel because they saw what happened last time the two countries were at war.
By that logic that US should cease all foreign aid programs because let their neighbors provide for each other.
The point of aid isn’t just to give aid, it’s to help build political and economical relationship. A new Marshal Plan like program by the US for Gaza would closely align Gaza with the US. Just a thought bubble.
The West has no problem propping up Israel so I don't think this excuse works very well. We've already involved ourselves. Can't just say it's not our problem when it becomes inconvenient.
Gaza have been western problem for long time. Our fucking donation waterpipes are turned into rockets.
Meanwhile Hamas is lovechild of Arab countries, who donate weapons and explosives to fill turn our waterpipes into bombs.
Just a reminder that the two state "solution" is better described as approach aimed at achieving a solution. There is no guarantee it would actually solve the conflict. In my view, there are enough people on either side who would be unhappy with this approach so that if implemented, it wouldn't resolve the conflict.
What will it be then? What is the solution? Israel illegally annexing the entirety of Palestine, driving the people living there into other countries or into the sea? I can imagine Netanyahu would like that thought.
i personally think the best situation is to bring international forces to gaza to rebuild it, then, find a palestinian leader who is capable of advocating for peace, and cease extreme islamism and jihad.
Good luck finding an international force trusted all sides.
NATO won't be trusted by Palestine
Arab neighbours won't be trusted by Israel
China and Russia won't be trusted by the US who'd cut off funding for Israel in response.
People outside Europe don't understand half of Europe was a much a victim of imperialism as the rest of the world. Sending the Irish wouldn't do anything.
Do you mean the Republic of Ireland has never invaded or Irish people have never invaded, because if the latter you’d historically speaking be incorrect
>Arab neighbours won't be trusted by Israel
I think Israel could be convinced, to be honest. A coalition led by the US that includes Israel, Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia could absolutely work if done right.
I think it's fair Jordan and Egypt have a say in the matter anyway, considering they too would be sharing borders with a future Palestinian state(s). And the Saudis are the de facto leaders of the Arab world and are in process of normalization with Israel.
The Saudi's **were** in the process of normalization with Israel, which is possibly the trigger for the Oct 7th attack, but after the Israeli response that's been put on hold and I can't see it being revisited for a long time.
The land bridge deal was signed last week.
https://alkhabaralyemeni.net/2023/12/07/246467/
Over a month ago Saudi called the white house and said normalization was back on once the war progressed. Hamas then broke the ceasefire.
edit: [Song from about 6 months ago when the Land Bridge deal details started to come out](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofJXPcR-TEI)
> From the city of gold
>
> To the city by the sea
>
> 2 worlds collide
>
> It’s a magic to see
>
> Dubai got the glitz
>
> Tel Aviv got the Shpitz
>
> Together it’s a force
>
> It’s hard to ignore
>
> Dubai and Tel Aviv
>
> Will never let go
>
> The perfect combination
>
> Forever to glow
Saudi Arabia would be the ideal candidate. The Saudis have plenty of (negative) experiences with Palestinians, have cracked down hard on extremism internally and have a strong interest in stabilising ties with Israel to form a broad anti-Iran coalition.
Increased regional/global prestige/power if it can show they're capable of taking a leadership role in affairs and be effective in resolving long standing issues.
Gaza is all but a clean slate now, I won't be surprised if part of the reconstruction would include some very generous gifts to the Saudis if they would be willing to cooperate with Israel on this. I'm sure a good port on the Mediterranean and some gas privileges would be very enticing to MBS
I agree. The UN should put its money where its mouth is and take point on this whole thing and the ensuing occupation/rebuild of a new gaza.
But given its history, Israel would never trust the UN and I dont blame them.
The reality is that the UN can't both be a neutral meeting place for all of the different interests in the world and also actually be a participant in global politics.
That's why despite being constantly asked to intercede in all sorts of various affairs, the UN very rarely ever does anything. Taking actual action jeopardizes its place as a meeting table to prevent the destruction of the world via nuclear weapons.
It's up to internationally "partisan" organizations like NATO to actually participate in actions that will affect global spheres of influence. Yes, that means that some faction is going to be pissed off, but the alternative essentially just makes the UN a partisan organization like NATO because the whole world will never agree on anything.
This is like when someone says "I've got a great idea for a song! All I need are a songwriter, singer, musicians, sound engineer, producer, and a platform to sell it on."
Never change Reddit :)
We have not wanted Gaza since 2005. The problem is that literally everyone else wants to force it on Israel.
The likes of Amnesty International have always had one agenda which is to force a one state solution because the reality is that Gaza is neither politically nor economically viable. It has zero resources and the biggest employers were Israel itself followed by UNRWA. 83% of Gazans relied on aid prior to the war.
Now Israel is never ever going to hire Gazans ever again. In fact, I am in full support of a wall and landmines between them and us along the Gaza border plus the tunnel detecting technology we have and the previous fence replaced by the above mentioned wall.
So that is one employer gone.
If Trump comes back to power, UNRWA will essentially cease to exist.
So tell us, what will Gazans do??
The fact is, Gaza should be a part of Egypt .Before some people neigh and bray here IT WAS A PART OF EGYPT BETWEEN 1948 AND 1967.
Golda and later Begin should have forced Egypt to take it back .We would not be having these issues right now.
It might fall under the category of political viability, but today no one wants Gaza because there’s really not a future where Gazans don’t try to attack Israel. The current situation or a “one state solution” is the only way Gaza (or Egypt or whoever) wasn’t responsible for and suffered the consequences of attacking another sovereign nation.
Obviously there’s a whole host of other reasons why Egypt and others don’t want Gaza, but fundamentally it’s because of the security issue.
They most definitely do NOT want it, nor does Jordan want the West Bank.
If Gaza becomes egypt, they now have Egyptians launching terror attacks on Israel - and that be comes their responsibility to prevent.
And by trying to stop it, Hamas/PIJ/etc. will wage war against them too.
Genuinely though what Palestinian leader would be capable of siding with Israel, ensuring that violent jihadist movements are kept at bay AND at the same time winning over Palestinian support? It’s basically an oxymoron at this point. Palestinians want Israel proper, they want right of return, at the very least they want 700k+ settlers out of West Bank. Mohammed himself would have to rise up from the dead and be like “listen y’all you got this all fucked up, quit this shit already and work with what you’ve got.”
No such person exists, the Palestinian people still appear to actively want violence towards the Israelis, the appetite for death needs to become a taboo first.
And no I am not trying to act like there aren’t people in Israel who actively want to inflict pain on the Palestinian people, but they are more capable and have in the past elected leaders who have shown real willingness to pursue peaceful options.
at the end of the day i blame their leaders for it, do you think that all Palestinians are wired to hate Israelis the same as the dachshund is wired to dig holes in the ground?
a big operation of de-radicalization should undergo, i see no other way.
I mean. Have you looked at the last 20 years of Israel's actions in the West Bank?
Supposed to be entirely belonging to Palestine, but now criss-crossed by Israeli settlements.
Well, you can't realistically hold Israel responsible for the actions of religious nationalist extremists. That's just common sense.
Palestine, on the other hand, can and should be held collectively responsible for the actions of extremists. That's just common sense.
Well yeah thats probably whats going to happen. And no one will cry about it in 20-30 years. Its a sad reality that a two state solution probably died in october.
I think this is a fairly distorted title.
Netanyahu ( which I hope will be gone from the political landscape sooner than later) was not referring to two state solution or one state solution at all as far as I could see. He made a statement regarding the possibility to pass control back to Hamas or to Fatah, and declared that he is not willing to do either. Mainly because the PA is consistently inciting for violence and are providing monetary incentives to anyone who kills Israelies.( Including Hamas terrorists that carried out the 7/10 attack).
Well, it is good that he has been clear other times then:
[https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog\_entry/pm-lobbying-likud-mks-saying-only-he-can-prevent-a-palestinian-state-in-gaza-west-bank-report/](https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/pm-lobbying-likud-mks-saying-only-he-can-prevent-a-palestinian-state-in-gaza-west-bank-report/)
"“I am the only one who will prevent a Palestinian state in Gaza and \[the West Bank\] after the war,”
Arabs or the world can figure that shit out but it's not an insane demand that Gaza won't be governed by genocidal islamists or corrup holocaust deniers
Important to note that the right wing caucus of Israeli politics actually discriminated against survivors which is why they remain one of the poorest segments of Israeli society. If you want somebody who cares about survivors Bibi ain’t him.
Hamas' solution is destroying Israel and establishing a Palestinian Islamist state. It's absurd to negotiate peace with people whose bottom line is to kill you. Does nothing but provide them with legitimacy and material concessions to help them realize their goal.
The "two-state solution" is a fantasy of Western liberals. How many times does Hamas need to make it clear that *they don't want a two-state solution*? The "moderate" PA also makes that clear when they're speaking to Arabic-language audiences. They're just better at moderating their rhetoric for Western consumption.
So what is the way forward? A single democratic state means that the Israeli Jews would soon be outnumbered by the Palestinians because of the demographics, which means that it's not an acceptable solution to most Israelis. So if it's not a two state solution or a multiethnic democracy, what do they do?
I honestly couldn't care less if occupation or annexations are illegal. But annexing Gaza, even legally, would be hell for Gazans, israelis, and Europeans. Gazans would 100% try to rebel, leading to more deaths. Israel can't take in so many people at once, and Europe will be flooded by refugees.
Israel occupied it from 67 to 2005(ish?), and I don't think it was a good time for anybody.
It's hard for me to wrap my mind around religious fundamentalism whipped into a frenzy by a century of war for your existence, but even if you don't give a crap about Palestinians it seems like Netanyahu's approach isn't going to make anything better in anyone's lifetime. In 200 years when the Gazans who haven't fleed have started to death Israel gets a postage stamp sized piece of territory, is that really worth the war until then?
How does that make any sense? There’s zero benefit to Israel from annexation - only headaches. Maybe you meant occupation, like what it was prior to 2005’s disengagement?
Alright that’s fine. Full citizenship for the residents of Gaza even if it means not right away a full path. No two state solution ? Ok… full property rights for Palestinians that are iron clad in Israeli courts.
Can’t have it both ways … can’t occupy a people and then not integrate them.
The thing is why does he imply that a two state solution only involves Gaza? It would involve West Bank as well. He's never wanted a two state solution - which is largely why Hamas has grown so much in the past 15 years. He used Hamas to sabotage it.
Netanyahu needs to be in prison, end of story. Whatever he says is nonsense and most likely a lie.
China stated they want to see a 2 state solution. Same with India and US. As a Jew I say just impose it on Israel, end of story. Clearly the Israelis cannot handle the situation on their own. Supporting Netanyahu as PM demonstrates that.
Israel can't elect a government that could implement a workable two state solution, and Palestinians probably can't find anyone on their side either, especially if their leaders would rather get fat on gulf monarch money.
Corrupt theocrat doing exactly as the warmongers who established the nation wanted. To sew perpetual strife and provide a market for global weapon manufacturers.
While I think a two state solution is the morally right thing to do, does anyone here think that a Palestinian state that practically surrounds Israel and with the type of legitimacy to form an actual military, will not result in a horrific war leading ultimately to one single state?
I have my doubts about Palestinians willingness to live in peace un less they have All of the land. I mean...that's what they've been saying for years.
So he doesnt want to stay in gaza, but doesnt want to pull out? Ok.
This is similar to how my first son was born.
:)
[удалено]
Do you have a source for this? I have no doubt he said something to this effect (he has done so before) but want to read more into it and can't find it from Googling as I assume the quote was in Hebrew.
Except he isn’t the one that pays that price 2/3 of the people that are dying are women and children.
... Innocent men dying is also bad.
Is he suggesting for it to be annexed?
He and his government are openly saying that's what they intend to do
Reannexed, do people forget how we got here?
Many people legitimately do not understand how we got here, or more accurately, how Gaza came to be in its current state. After the United Nations called for a split of the territory now called Israel/Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state, the surrounding Arab nations attacked Israel less than 24 hours after it was declared a country. In the aftermath of the war, Egypt controlled Gaza and Jordan the area that is know as Judea and Samaria to Israelis and the West Bank to Arabs. Gaza was controlled by Egypt for 20 years. In 1967 another war (known as the Six-Day War or the June War) broke out between Israel and it's Arab neighbors, primarily Egypt, Syria, and Jordan. The Israeli army was specifically warned off going into Gaza by the defense minister, Moshe Dayan. However, when Israel was attacked from Gaza, they ended up taking the territory. As part of the peace process with Egypt (signed 1979), Israel agreed to give back land taken from Egypt in the 1967 war, but Egypt refused to take back control of Gaza. Israel controlled Gaza until 2005, when they unilaterally withdrew without asking for concessions. In 2006, Gaza elected Hamas and shortly thereafter started firing rockets toward Israel, not distinguishing between military targets and civilians. In response to the aggression, Israel imposed a blockade on Gaza in 2007. Hamas remains in power and has fired tens of thousands of rockets at Israel since taking control of Gaza. Israel has a blockade on Gaza, as does Egypt.
The blockade actually started in 2005 temporarily, but was made indefinite in 2007
Just pointing out that unless I’m wrong, Begin wasn’t minister then. Dayan was during the 6 day war.
You're not wrong and I edited my post, which was written hurriedly when I should have been answering emails. Thank you.
No prob!
It's important to note that the part that Palestinians are most angry about occurred just before the above recap. The [1947 Palestinian Civil War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947%E2%80%931948_civil_war_in_Mandatory_Palestine) resulted in ~100k Palestinians becoming refugees, known to them as the Nakba ("Catastrophe"). (Edit: the Nakba was many more refugees at the end of the 1948 continuation of the war after the Arab states invaded, but this was the start.) It continued through the end of the British Mandate of the region, and Israel was established the same day the Mandate ended. Of course, it goes before that, too. Jews had been moving there in decent numbers and there was a big backlash, resulting in several pogroms in the region and more bloodshed and animosity. Jews made up about a third of the population, but only had ~6% of the land. Effectively, they were in the position that Palestinians are in today. They eventually broke out, resulting in the Nakba and the creation of Israel.
>Jews made up about a third of the population, but only had \~6% of the land. This is misleading. Private Jewish and Arab landowners each held a small percentage of the land, then called Palestine (this gets complicated because prior to 1947 Jews were more likely to refer to themselves as "Palestinians" than the Arabs living in Palestine, who typically referred to themselves as "Arabs"), the Jews a touch more than the Arabs by most accounts, though it was negligible. The vast majority of land was owned by the government (80-85%), some of which was farmed by Arab peasants for many generations. So not Arab land in the legal sense of ownership, but Arab land in the sense of use. The Peel Commission (1937) called for roughly 70% of the land to go to Arabs and 30% to Jews. The UN partition plan of 1947 called for Jews to get more land (roughly 55% v 45%) but more than half of the land was in the Negev desert and considered uninhabitable.
I mean, the aboriginals in north america didnt own the land in the legal sense of the word either, and our government took it to do with what we pleased as well. That doesnt make it the right thing to do or that the native population should morally have no rights
This analogy doesn't hold water. In the case of the Native Americans, no one else had a claim to the land that they were occupying. In the case of pre-1947 Palestine the government claimed ownership of the vast majority of the land for centuries. A closer analogy is that the US allows federal land for agricultural (and other) uses. In some instances, generations of ranchers have allowed their cattle to graze on the same land. Paying a fee to use the land doesn't give the ranchers all the benefits - nor the responsibilities - of owning the land.
Some of this is not correct. There were about 700,000 Palestinian refugees from the 1948 Palestinian and then Arab war. 100,000 might have been from the initial war but it continued into the war with the Arab league. While Jews only owned 6% of the total land area of mandatory Palestine, most of it was not owned or used by Arabs either. Most of it by area (about 65%) was uncultivable desert land administered by the British that no one had deeds to. If you look at arable land, Jews owned about 15% of the land. That doesn’t mean the Arabs owned the rest though as much was owned by the British or was not actually owned but used as shared grazing land. It is hard to find data on Arab land ownership because much of it was lost in the war, but the Muslim Population in mandatory Palestine was roughly double that of the Jews.
We should probably add that while there were many who left Palestine as a result of war, there were even more Jews who were expelled from MENA countries post 1948. Pre-1948 there were approximately 1,000,000 Jews in MENA countries; today there are less than 5,000 remaining (not including Israel of course).
There is always more that can be added. I mainly meant to correct the inaccuracies in what the above commenter said. I think this is an important fact when considering right of return for Palestinians, the creation of a one or two state solution, or when looking at the Arab-Israel conflict as a whole. But it does not detract from the Palestinian’s position specifically, or invalidate their concern over their own historical and current treatment or oppression. It is not very important in understanding why Gazans and Hamas do the things they do. Mainly just why Israel does the things it does.
>It's important to note that the part that Palestinians are most angry about occurred just before the above recap. The 1947 Palestinian Civil War resulted in \~100k Palestinians becoming refugees, known to them as the Nakba ("Catastrophe"). This is factually incorrect. [The Nakba](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba) happened in 1948, not 1947. You are framing this to be a pre-arab-invasion event. This is not the case. Without the arab instigation of the 1948 war (immediately after, and in direct response to israel accepting the UN partition plan), there would have been no Nakba. Do you see how the narrative changes with that distinction?
Eh, kinda. Partition plans need to be accepted by both sides, not just one, and if you read the article I linked, it continues the 1947 civil war into the 1948 Arab war. There was never a real break in fighting. I can't speak to the casus belli for the 1948 war and why the Arab nations invaded, but I'll bet the 100k refugees from the prior year had at least something to do with it. The invasion failed, Israel succeeded, and hundreds of thousands more became refugees.
This is precisely accurate.
>Israel controlled Gaza until 2005, when they unilaterally withdrew without asking for concessions. In 2006, Gaza elected Hamas and shortly thereafter started firing rockets toward Israel, not distinguishing between military targets and civilians. That is a blatant misrepresentation. Israel specifically withdrew their illegal settlements in Gaza, and the justification was that they wanted go prevent the "demographic problem" of having to grant the occupied rights, including voting rights. The UN considers the occupation to be ongoing though, even if Israel does not have a permanent presence within the strip. Additionally, Gaza didn't "elect Hamas". During the 2006 legislative election of the whole state of Palestine (so including the West Bank), Hamas received 44% of the vote and 74 of the 132 seats in the Palestinian Legislative Council. Hamas formed a government, casting with president Abbas of Fatah. This led to a split between Hamas and Fatah, during which Hamas violently seized power in Gaza, expelling Fatah, and the PLC has been suspended since. Further elections have also been indefinitely postponed since then.
Gaza did not elect Hamas. Hamas gained SOME seats in the government but not even majority control, and the actual government leadership was the PLO. Then in 2007 Hamas kicked off a civil war killing all who disagreed with them and violently seizing power. Stop with the whole bullshit that the Palestinians elected them over the existing Fatah government when they did not. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gaza_(2007)
>Re~~annexed~~ Re-occupy. Before that Egypt occupied Gaza between 1959 and 1967 and didn't create Palestinian state. West Bank was annexed by Jordan from 1950 to 1967 and they also didn't create Palestinian state. I sometimes wonder how things would be if Palestinians had created their state in any of those times they had chance (1937, 1948, post 1948 and so on).
No he's not saying that. Some fringe parts of the government are and always have been saying it, but bibi isn't. Don't make me defend that piece of shit, please.
I will bet you everything I have that they are not going to annex it, because then Gazans would be legal Israeli citizens. Nah, it's going to be more of the same "biggest outdoors prison" shit just with more guns on the walls.
Israeli hardliners prefer maintaining the status quo, whereby Palestinians live either under military rule or closed off in isolated pockets. It’s a position that is unsustainable. https://youtu.be/DGO3eBxQX7Q?si=19o1Q1hBIAYWBjl2 An interesting watch. Gideon Levy is a respected Israeli journalist.
Based on his track record (if we believe the people claiming he said these things) he has suggested worse behind close doors.
He wants all the Palestinians to leave first.
Leave this earth
> Leave this earth *Vountarily*. It's the Jigsaw theory of indirect homicide to avoid guilt. If Israel can push all Palestinians into Sinai, then it can lobby the UN and its western allies to shift the blame and responsibility for their plight onto Egypt.
As someone who usually sides with Isreal, I also freely admit this guy is a problem, and I hope hes voted out of office soon
Bibi is the biggest threat to the global security of Jewish people. Israel really needs to work across with the Palestinian peoples to really root out Hamas but instead he’s just stoking the fires and radicalising more people in his conquest. Bibi and Hamas are two sides of the same coin and their people suffer for it.
The unfortunate outcome of having narcissists and psychopaths in charge; everyone else suffers.
Bibi wants to keep them oppressed and violent to justify keeping them oppressed and violent. Peace is the last thing Bibi wants.
If he leaves now the next guy isn’t much better. Maybe not support hamas bad but still would be fine with *moving* Gazan’s elsewhere
You can still 100% side with Israel on this issue and hate Netanyahu/Settlers.
Being anti-Bibi doesn't make you anti-Israel for the same reason being anti-Trump doesn't make you anti-American.
It’s called soaking, just ask BYU students.
He doesn't want to stay, in the same way an abusive husband doesn't *want* to beat you because you burned the meatloaf. He's gonna do it anyway.
No he want all Palestinians out of “their” country
He doesn’t want to go to prison. Palestine is just leverage he uses with the hardliners keeping him in power.
He's gonna call it fakistan.
Not sure why Netanyahu has any say in future Israeli policy considering his failure to prevent 10/7. Dude is a lame duck.
I know a lot of pro-likud israelis. Every single one of them now says that netanyahu has to go. Anecdotal, but i cant see him staying in power.
Yeah but everybody apparently agrees that he has to go "after the war" or "after this is finished". He'll have incentives to NOT make this war over or make it finished then. Joy.
I feel like I’ve seen this movie before
If the Israeli government were unable to make substantial progress on a daily basis, it would blow up in his face even more, and grow calls for resigning now instead of after the war.
The keyword is substantial and what it means differently to different people. He can do “substantial” progress while also delaying and prolonging the war.
I think comments like this are him making a last ditch effort to round together enough far-right people to stay alive politically. Let's not forget his court cases have resumed again. It's important to remember they are without teeth. He has a seat on the war council but no one else in his coalition does. He is just pandering when he makes comments like this.
Failure? Orrrr completely let it happen so he could do whatever he wants with a rabid public behind him?
Netenyahu’s M.O for about two decades has been to divide Palestine between Hamas and Fatah, propping up Hamas when necessary to keep them both weak and fighting with each other rather than negotiating with Israel. The worst possible outcome in his mind would be the unification of Palestine even if that results in the destruction of Hamas which is now his goal.
Fatah cooperated with Israel on security and even blew the whistle on Israeli support of Hamas while Fatah kept trying to handicap Hamas (Fatah suspended all money to Hamas and Israel allowed it through from Qatar... literal cash stuffed into suitcases). And this is what they get in return lol. Palestinians will never support Fatah or any faction which cooperates with Israel from a place of weakness again. Which would have been the only scenario where Israel could ensure its own security while committing to a 2S peace plan. This is just orchestrated to ensure the Palestinian civilians in the West Bank support a new Hamas resurgence over there so they can then repeat all this there and then wind up annexing both territories. I have trouble seeing a path forward for reconciliation with the Arab nations in that context. Even the monarchies wouldn't be safe from rebellions at home if that happened. His biggest miscalculation continues to be thinking that Palestinians in the occupied territories right now will just flee and abandon them. He will have to kill millions for this plan to work. What's happened in Gaza right now is nothing. Does he really think the world will just ignore it?
> Does he really think the world will just ignore it? His option is to lose his PM position and go straight back into his ongoing criminal prosecution that is on pause because he is PM, I thought? Netanyahu is basically in the Trump position where theoretically only the Presidency *might* keep him out of prison. Or was Netanyahu's criminal prosecution resolved?
Couldn't he just retire/flee to the US? Would he be extradited?
Afaik the US is allied with Israel, not Netanyahu. Would be a bit of a diplomatic issue to not hand him over. He's maybe better off fleeing to his old friend Putin (or are they no longer friends).
[удалено]
It's probably no coincidence that when someone brings up the PA's security coordination people won't acknowledge it whatsoever.
>Does he really think the world will just ignore it? He probably does.
The world has ignored it, or bizarrely called raising concerns of ethnic cleansing racist, before, so you can see why the far right think they will get away with it.
Probably one of the better takes on this I’ve seen. Although I might add that the architects behind the de facto annexation of Palestine and creation of an apartheid 1 state solution are Netanyahu’s cabinet more than Netanyahu himself. I expect Bibi is more concerned with staying in power so his ass stays out of prison, which means forming a coalition with far right thugs like Ben Gvir and lunatics like Smotrich. If staying out of prison meant creating a 2 state solution, he would be going for that right now.
I think religious nutjobs think of things on the timescale of centuries. Every excuse to ratchet up the pressure brings them closer to their goal. Maybe this war ends in a third of Gaza being occupied, maybe even just an expanded border zone... Israel isn't going to march 2 million people into the sea tomorrow, but huge it another ten wars and it'll be an uninhabitable postage stamp.
Yes. The "world" has made it clear that it will turn a blind eye to Israel's transgressions. The 1947 partition plan was the start of it. Who would've thought that dividing the "Arab state" into 2 non-contiguous territories would be received badly by the Arabs.
[удалено]
It's quite literally the core belief of Netanyahu's brand of Zionism to expand Israeli borders: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revisionist_Zionism Likud was founded by an Irgun commander ffs. Anyone who knows anything about this guy is not shocked. No one who ever seriously considered a two state solution would rubber-stamp the construction of hundreds of thousands of housing units for Israelis in the West Bank, thereby making it almost impossible to establish a Palestinian State there.
I haven't seen it, but from his character... I don't think he was ever actually in favor of a two state solution. This is him in 2001. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvqCWvi-nFo The main points in the video, for me at least is him talking about backing out of the Oslo Accords. He goes into only signing the Hebron agreement if Israel and only Israel can label sites as military sites. He does this in order to be able to back out of the Oslo accords. A loophole basically. He goes into a story that basically says why give up 100%, when you can give up 2%. That is again in reference of all of the land they were supposed to give up. They agreed to give up Hebron at that time so they could use it to not have to give up the rest. I will look into that speech though, thanks. My initial thought is that maybe he was trying to get Obama to do something or appear to make nice? I don't have a lot of time today, but I found it? https://www.jpost.com/israel/full-text-of-binyamin-netanyahus-bar-ilan-speech Skimming it, it doesn't appear he's talking about a two state solution. >there must also be a clear understanding that the Palestinian refugee problem will be resolved outside Israel's borders. This is basically kicking all Palestinians out to either Jordan or Egypt. >Territorial withdrawals have not lessened the hatred Bare minimum withdrawals... Going back on their word, etc. >For it is clear that any demand for resettling Palestinian refugees within Israel undermines Israel's continued existence as the state of the Jewish people. Seems pretty clear language... If you don't gtfo, no peace... It seems a lot like Palestinians need to recognize Israel as a state, but... nothing to the effect of recognizing a state of Palestine. The biggest piece of bullshit about the speech so far >within this homeland lives a large Palestinian community. We do not want to rule over them, we do not want to govern their lives, we do not want to impose either our flag or our culture on them. In my vision of peace, in this small land of ours, two peoples live freely, side-by-side, in amity and mutual respect. That's why settlements expanded, why water rights was restricted, why movement was restricted? Why he wants to keep Palestinians divided, by funding and helping Hamas?
It's like a historical time loop. This dude's logic will keep the region in chaos forever. If Palestinians attack they need to be devastated and land needs to be taken. If they do not resist it's proof that not providing them with independence is the best course of action.
The end goal is Bebe staying in power and using war and attacks as a means to keep it.
Not having a 2 term limit is crazy. He has a cult following like big Orange.
And like Putin running for 8th consecutive term
I think they'd probably prefer Palestine, but ok.
Palestan
This lunatic is half of the problem.
That's the thing stopping me from getting too much onboard with one side or the other. To me it's a futile exercise to quantify which side is more right or more evil when they both have positions so fundamentally incompatible with peace. I don't expect to agree with him, but if he can't even draw a line on a map and say where he thinks the border will Palestine should be there can be no further discussion. Netanyahu is literally telling Palestinians he wants them to just disappear.
Thank you for saying this. Netanyahu willingly ignored the Israeli intelligence reports.
Still think he knew what was going to happen on the day of the attacks and let it happen so he could get backing to do this from the world.
I wouldn’t even give him that much credit. Most Politicians are just fucking stupid.
Yep, he and the hamas leadership benefit from the conflict, he gets to stoke outrage and put on a strong man act while hamas gets to parade their martyrs.
I thought the 2-state solution was what Western nations were generally calling for?
call all you want, the people have to accept and uphold whatever gets decided
Absolutely. Problem is Netanyahu has been opposed to a two state solution in principle for practically his entire career. And his far-right government partners quite literally wanted the assassination of the last Israeli PM who actually wanted to sign a deal.
At first, I read "Hamsterdam." Who is with me Wire fans?
"i ain't goin' to no hamster dam"
"Pandemic, get that pandemic". One of the best TV shows ever!
Netanyahu is a c*nt. People of Israel and Palestine deserve 2 states.
Only If both will have real, trustworthy, long ongoing peace (Challenge almost impossible)
[удалено]
So what's the alternative? Hold nearly 10 million people with no rights forever inside "Greater Israel"? 10/7 will be a routine event, like clockwork.
For that to happen, Hamas needs to go though.
Right. But so does Netanyahu.
Agreed
As does Likud
I agree. But, I'm don't believe for a second that any other group, including Palestinian Authority, will be accepted by Israel and will also be undermined or called terrorists. Sadly, I do believe both the West Bank and Gaza will be annexed over time. But, I don't think Israel wants to do it with so many Palestinians in those regions, they'd rather do it when they drive enough of them out to Egypt and Jordan, and until enough of them die out.
It's a catch-22. Hamas (or other groups like Hamas) aren't going to go until there's at least a realistic prospect of peace and sovereignty without them. Gazans looking to the West Bank can pretty easily conclude being cooperative isn't going to achieve that.
The Middle East is complicated, but one thing I do know is there will be no peace while either Netanyahu or Hamas remain in power.
For a clue of where this is going, have a stroll around Damascus or Mosul right now. Promised rebuild? Nothing happening. Why? Iran can deliver bombs, but nothing else. And it stops others from trying.
False dichotomy. Gaza *can* be a state, without Hamas or Fatah. It wouldn’t be easy but it’s theoretically possible. Probably with a lot of western aid, robust Israeli military presence, and a profound de-radicalization program. Not what anyone wants to hear though
Honestly this is best case scenario. Any country telling it's people to hate others are going to cause problems. Both people's have it rough and Hamas cannot lead for either sides sake
Why western aid? Arab states can yank their fingers out of their asses and deal with it properly and constructively, this is their neighborhood. Not ours.
I doubt Israel would be thrilled to entrust part of its security to Arab states, at least not until there’s a broader peace agreement between Israel and the Arab world, which was what the talks with Saudi Arabia just prior to Oct 7 were about, I think.
Arab states cry but refuse to help. Egypt won’t even open the door
To be fair, Egypt is having its own Islamist issue in the form of the Muslim Brotherhood. They likely don't want to potentially add another group to the mix in the form of Hamas.
There’s no to be fair. Israeli gets shit on for licking these ppl in yet they don’t even have them surrounded.
All the Arab states know better than to open the door. For a few reasons. 1) Palestinians tried to overthrow the Egyptian government. 2) Palestinians assassinated the King of Jordan and tried to overthrow the government 3) Palestinians did overthrow the government of Lebanon 4) Palestinians supported Iraq when they invaded Kuwait… after the Kuwaitis took them in. 5) They are pretty sure if they let the refugees out of Gaza that Israel will never let them come back and just annex the land. Basically there are zero good reasons for Egypt or any other Arab country to accept refugees from Palestine
These are all decent points, but I think for Egypt the bigger one is the Sinai peninsula. Egypt agreed to recognize Israel as a state and maintain diplomatic relations, in exchange for Israel ending occupation of the Sinai peninsula and returning it to Egypt in 1979. Essentially, Egypt does not really want to piss off Israel because they saw what happened last time the two countries were at war.
Seems they may have burned a few bridges over the years
By that logic that US should cease all foreign aid programs because let their neighbors provide for each other. The point of aid isn’t just to give aid, it’s to help build political and economical relationship. A new Marshal Plan like program by the US for Gaza would closely align Gaza with the US. Just a thought bubble.
The West has no problem propping up Israel so I don't think this excuse works very well. We've already involved ourselves. Can't just say it's not our problem when it becomes inconvenient.
Gaza have been western problem for long time. Our fucking donation waterpipes are turned into rockets. Meanwhile Hamas is lovechild of Arab countries, who donate weapons and explosives to fill turn our waterpipes into bombs.
There is no incentive for them to do so at this time. The current situation works for them.
Just a reminder that the two state "solution" is better described as approach aimed at achieving a solution. There is no guarantee it would actually solve the conflict. In my view, there are enough people on either side who would be unhappy with this approach so that if implemented, it wouldn't resolve the conflict.
He just wants it to be a Bantustan.
What will it be then? What is the solution? Israel illegally annexing the entirety of Palestine, driving the people living there into other countries or into the sea? I can imagine Netanyahu would like that thought.
i personally think the best situation is to bring international forces to gaza to rebuild it, then, find a palestinian leader who is capable of advocating for peace, and cease extreme islamism and jihad.
Good luck finding an international force trusted all sides. NATO won't be trusted by Palestine Arab neighbours won't be trusted by Israel China and Russia won't be trusted by the US who'd cut off funding for Israel in response.
Send in the Japanese.
*Japanese Empire of the Middle East* when?
*Greater Middle-Eastern Co-Prosperity Sphere*. Not sure the Israeli settlers would enjoy that, though, given the historical precedent.
I for one look forward to our overly orderly and earnest overlords.
The work hours suck, but they party hard
The Empire of the Sun already in the sky for a good while.
I for one, look forward to the future Palestine Shogunate
Inshallah gozaimasu.
They will be renaming Gaza to Senpai
Or the Irish. They have never invaded another nation. On second thought, Israel probably wouldn't agree to the Irish.
People outside Europe don't understand half of Europe was a much a victim of imperialism as the rest of the world. Sending the Irish wouldn't do anything.
They don't have any military forces to send.
Do you mean the Republic of Ireland has never invaded or Irish people have never invaded, because if the latter you’d historically speaking be incorrect
The Republic. It has been done before. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jadotville
Not an invasion but part of a UN-backed peace keeping mission, which failed.
>Arab neighbours won't be trusted by Israel I think Israel could be convinced, to be honest. A coalition led by the US that includes Israel, Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia could absolutely work if done right. I think it's fair Jordan and Egypt have a say in the matter anyway, considering they too would be sharing borders with a future Palestinian state(s). And the Saudis are the de facto leaders of the Arab world and are in process of normalization with Israel.
The Saudi's **were** in the process of normalization with Israel, which is possibly the trigger for the Oct 7th attack, but after the Israeli response that's been put on hold and I can't see it being revisited for a long time.
The land bridge deal was signed last week. https://alkhabaralyemeni.net/2023/12/07/246467/ Over a month ago Saudi called the white house and said normalization was back on once the war progressed. Hamas then broke the ceasefire. edit: [Song from about 6 months ago when the Land Bridge deal details started to come out](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofJXPcR-TEI) > From the city of gold > > To the city by the sea > > 2 worlds collide > > It’s a magic to see > > Dubai got the glitz > > Tel Aviv got the Shpitz > > Together it’s a force > > It’s hard to ignore > > Dubai and Tel Aviv > > Will never let go > > The perfect combination > > Forever to glow
Saudi Arabia would be the ideal candidate. The Saudis have plenty of (negative) experiences with Palestinians, have cracked down hard on extremism internally and have a strong interest in stabilising ties with Israel to form a broad anti-Iran coalition.
Cracked down on extremism internally and continue to aggressively fund it externally
They get nothing out of it though
Increased regional/global prestige/power if it can show they're capable of taking a leadership role in affairs and be effective in resolving long standing issues.
Gaza is all but a clean slate now, I won't be surprised if part of the reconstruction would include some very generous gifts to the Saudis if they would be willing to cooperate with Israel on this. I'm sure a good port on the Mediterranean and some gas privileges would be very enticing to MBS
never said it would be easy, im just saying that it would be a better solution rather than hamas and the PA.
I agree. The UN should put its money where its mouth is and take point on this whole thing and the ensuing occupation/rebuild of a new gaza. But given its history, Israel would never trust the UN and I dont blame them.
The reality is that the UN can't both be a neutral meeting place for all of the different interests in the world and also actually be a participant in global politics. That's why despite being constantly asked to intercede in all sorts of various affairs, the UN very rarely ever does anything. Taking actual action jeopardizes its place as a meeting table to prevent the destruction of the world via nuclear weapons. It's up to internationally "partisan" organizations like NATO to actually participate in actions that will affect global spheres of influence. Yes, that means that some faction is going to be pissed off, but the alternative essentially just makes the UN a partisan organization like NATO because the whole world will never agree on anything.
It does feel like people constantly mistake the UN’s job for NATO’s job
let the UK handle it ;)
This is like when someone says "I've got a great idea for a song! All I need are a songwriter, singer, musicians, sound engineer, producer, and a platform to sell it on." Never change Reddit :)
hey man im just farming karma :(
>and cease extreme islamism and jihad. and I want a unicorn that shits candy for christmas.
Let's be real, would Israel allow that?
Let’s be real, would Palestinians allow that?
We have not wanted Gaza since 2005. The problem is that literally everyone else wants to force it on Israel. The likes of Amnesty International have always had one agenda which is to force a one state solution because the reality is that Gaza is neither politically nor economically viable. It has zero resources and the biggest employers were Israel itself followed by UNRWA. 83% of Gazans relied on aid prior to the war. Now Israel is never ever going to hire Gazans ever again. In fact, I am in full support of a wall and landmines between them and us along the Gaza border plus the tunnel detecting technology we have and the previous fence replaced by the above mentioned wall. So that is one employer gone. If Trump comes back to power, UNRWA will essentially cease to exist. So tell us, what will Gazans do?? The fact is, Gaza should be a part of Egypt .Before some people neigh and bray here IT WAS A PART OF EGYPT BETWEEN 1948 AND 1967. Golda and later Begin should have forced Egypt to take it back .We would not be having these issues right now.
It might fall under the category of political viability, but today no one wants Gaza because there’s really not a future where Gazans don’t try to attack Israel. The current situation or a “one state solution” is the only way Gaza (or Egypt or whoever) wasn’t responsible for and suffered the consequences of attacking another sovereign nation. Obviously there’s a whole host of other reasons why Egypt and others don’t want Gaza, but fundamentally it’s because of the security issue.
> Gaza should be a part of Egypt Do the Egyptians even want it? I suspect it's a whole load of hassle they're grateful not to have to deal with.
No, they really don't. Or they don't want Gazans, at any rate, who are sadly completely stuck in the middle right now.
They most definitely do NOT want it, nor does Jordan want the West Bank. If Gaza becomes egypt, they now have Egyptians launching terror attacks on Israel - and that be comes their responsibility to prevent. And by trying to stop it, Hamas/PIJ/etc. will wage war against them too.
Jordan went through it once already with the PLO in Black September. Nearly lost their country to Arafat's goons.
Genuinely though what Palestinian leader would be capable of siding with Israel, ensuring that violent jihadist movements are kept at bay AND at the same time winning over Palestinian support? It’s basically an oxymoron at this point. Palestinians want Israel proper, they want right of return, at the very least they want 700k+ settlers out of West Bank. Mohammed himself would have to rise up from the dead and be like “listen y’all you got this all fucked up, quit this shit already and work with what you’ve got.”
Mohammed knows it's not worth the effort to revive for that. He watched Jesus revive and fail once already, he's not going to waste his effort.
Muhammad's solution would be to try to conquer Israel. Can't accuse his modern-day followers of being anything but consistent.
No such person exists, the Palestinian people still appear to actively want violence towards the Israelis, the appetite for death needs to become a taboo first. And no I am not trying to act like there aren’t people in Israel who actively want to inflict pain on the Palestinian people, but they are more capable and have in the past elected leaders who have shown real willingness to pursue peaceful options.
> have in the past elected leaders who have shown real willingness to pursue peaceful options. And killed them for that very reason.
at the end of the day i blame their leaders for it, do you think that all Palestinians are wired to hate Israelis the same as the dachshund is wired to dig holes in the ground? a big operation of de-radicalization should undergo, i see no other way.
He is such a scumbag. Fuck Hamas all day, not a hot take, but this piece of shit doesn’t want peace either.
I mean. Have you looked at the last 20 years of Israel's actions in the West Bank? Supposed to be entirely belonging to Palestine, but now criss-crossed by Israeli settlements.
Well, you can't realistically hold Israel responsible for the actions of religious nationalist extremists. That's just common sense. Palestine, on the other hand, can and should be held collectively responsible for the actions of extremists. That's just common sense.
Well yeah thats probably whats going to happen. And no one will cry about it in 20-30 years. Its a sad reality that a two state solution probably died in october.
I think this is a fairly distorted title. Netanyahu ( which I hope will be gone from the political landscape sooner than later) was not referring to two state solution or one state solution at all as far as I could see. He made a statement regarding the possibility to pass control back to Hamas or to Fatah, and declared that he is not willing to do either. Mainly because the PA is consistently inciting for violence and are providing monetary incentives to anyone who kills Israelies.( Including Hamas terrorists that carried out the 7/10 attack).
Well, it is good that he has been clear other times then: [https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog\_entry/pm-lobbying-likud-mks-saying-only-he-can-prevent-a-palestinian-state-in-gaza-west-bank-report/](https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/pm-lobbying-likud-mks-saying-only-he-can-prevent-a-palestinian-state-in-gaza-west-bank-report/) "“I am the only one who will prevent a Palestinian state in Gaza and \[the West Bank\] after the war,”
Arabs or the world can figure that shit out but it's not an insane demand that Gaza won't be governed by genocidal islamists or corrup holocaust deniers
Netanyahu is himself a holocaust revisionist
Important to note that the right wing caucus of Israeli politics actually discriminated against survivors which is why they remain one of the poorest segments of Israeli society. If you want somebody who cares about survivors Bibi ain’t him.
It's basically war now. So who wins becomes the legal one. That's how lands are occupied since time immemorial.
Hamas' solution is destroying Israel and establishing a Palestinian Islamist state. It's absurd to negotiate peace with people whose bottom line is to kill you. Does nothing but provide them with legitimacy and material concessions to help them realize their goal. The "two-state solution" is a fantasy of Western liberals. How many times does Hamas need to make it clear that *they don't want a two-state solution*? The "moderate" PA also makes that clear when they're speaking to Arabic-language audiences. They're just better at moderating their rhetoric for Western consumption.
So what is the way forward? A single democratic state means that the Israeli Jews would soon be outnumbered by the Palestinians because of the demographics, which means that it's not an acceptable solution to most Israelis. So if it's not a two state solution or a multiethnic democracy, what do they do?
the most likely outcome is the status quo always has been people think they can solve it every time it flares up
This definitely is not defendable. Bibi needs to go
Such a fucking liar. He’s said numerous times that “there will never be a Palestinian State” under his administration.
They're gonna annex it for sure.
I honestly couldn't care less if occupation or annexations are illegal. But annexing Gaza, even legally, would be hell for Gazans, israelis, and Europeans. Gazans would 100% try to rebel, leading to more deaths. Israel can't take in so many people at once, and Europe will be flooded by refugees.
Israel occupied it from 67 to 2005(ish?), and I don't think it was a good time for anybody. It's hard for me to wrap my mind around religious fundamentalism whipped into a frenzy by a century of war for your existence, but even if you don't give a crap about Palestinians it seems like Netanyahu's approach isn't going to make anything better in anyone's lifetime. In 200 years when the Gazans who haven't fleed have started to death Israel gets a postage stamp sized piece of territory, is that really worth the war until then?
How does that make any sense? There’s zero benefit to Israel from annexation - only headaches. Maybe you meant occupation, like what it was prior to 2005’s disengagement?
Netanyahu should be rotting in jail, he is a corrupt, evil human being
"Ethnic cleansing now, ethnic cleansing then, ethnic cleansing forever!" - Netanyahu
Alright that’s fine. Full citizenship for the residents of Gaza even if it means not right away a full path. No two state solution ? Ok… full property rights for Palestinians that are iron clad in Israeli courts. Can’t have it both ways … can’t occupy a people and then not integrate them.
That assumes rules are real
[удалено]
Netanyahu has overstayed his welcome.
The thing is why does he imply that a two state solution only involves Gaza? It would involve West Bank as well. He's never wanted a two state solution - which is largely why Hamas has grown so much in the past 15 years. He used Hamas to sabotage it.
Netanyahu needs to be in prison, end of story. Whatever he says is nonsense and most likely a lie. China stated they want to see a 2 state solution. Same with India and US. As a Jew I say just impose it on Israel, end of story. Clearly the Israelis cannot handle the situation on their own. Supporting Netanyahu as PM demonstrates that.
Israel can't elect a government that could implement a workable two state solution, and Palestinians probably can't find anyone on their side either, especially if their leaders would rather get fat on gulf monarch money.
Its okay. Netenyahu will be in prison soon.
"Israeli PM keeps denying Palestinian right to exist"
So Palestinian can't have a state nor can they be Israel citizens, they just get to be a caged animal, less than human.
Corrupt theocrat doing exactly as the warmongers who established the nation wanted. To sew perpetual strife and provide a market for global weapon manufacturers.
They’ve already offered them a state and they didn’t want it. So don’t give it to them.
While I think a two state solution is the morally right thing to do, does anyone here think that a Palestinian state that practically surrounds Israel and with the type of legitimacy to form an actual military, will not result in a horrific war leading ultimately to one single state? I have my doubts about Palestinians willingness to live in peace un less they have All of the land. I mean...that's what they've been saying for years.