There have been massacres by Arabs against Israelis (and vice versa, just to be sure).
There were, but they were very much the exception rather than the rule. Again,
Morris also said that despite their rhetoric, Arab armies committed few atrocities and no large-scale massacre of prisoners took place when circumstances might have allowed them to happen, as when they took the Old City of Jerusalem or the villages of Atarot, Neve Yaakov, Nitzanim, Gezer and Mishmar Hayarden.
The facts are clear that Palestine’s Jewish population was not at risk of extermination or displacement by the Arab armies.
All I know is that the usage here, i.e. calling the war against Israel a duty toward God, isn’t making the conflict a more peaceful one.
Uh… You do realize that both sides were literally at war right with Zionists actively committing ethnic cleansing right? What kind of peace did you want Palestinians to have?
The facts are clear that Palestine’s Jewish population was not at risk of extermination or displacement by the Arab armies.
The same author (Morris) also said this:
While Benny Morris considers the real picture of the Arab aims to be more complex, notably because they were well aware they could not defeat the Jews,[101] he argues that the Yishuv was indeed threatened with extinction and feared what would happen if the Arabs won.
We can exchange snippets from authors aligning with our views all day without making any progress at all.
Fact is: there won’t be the necessary trust from Palestinians towards actors such as the IDF for them to live under their rule - there won’t be the necessary trust of Israelis towards actors auch as Hamas for them to live under their rule.
They’ll never live in one state, as they each have reasonable doubt about the respective other side - hence everyone still advocating the idea of one side surpassing the other and taking over the other part is only ensuring that this conflict will never end. This includes Israelis that want to destroy Palestine - this includes Palestinians that want to destroy Israel - and those on the outside advocating either of it.
We can exchange snippets from authors aligning with our views all day without making any progress at all.
I mean I quoted a fact; you quoted an opinion. Notice that as an avowed Zionist and Nakba apologist Benny Morris isn’t an unbiased actor here, so while his statements of fact do mean something as a historian his opinions mean jack shit.
Fact is: there won’t be the necessary trust from Palestinians towards actors such as the IDF for them to live under their rule - there won’t be the necessary trust of Israelis towards actors auch as Hamas for them to live under their rule.
Who said anything about either of that? In the event of a one-state solution, military apparatuses on both sides should be dismantled, in the same way militias stopped operating in post-Troubles Ireland.
As far as I can tell, we both stated something Morris said. I wouldn’t consider one thing a fact and the other a biased view, no matter which one. I wouldn’t consider both things “a fact” per se. But as I said, we can exchange those snippets all day long and won’t get anywhere, so I don’t see a point.
Who said anything about either of that?
Well, afaik, both Hamas and expansionist Israelis each think of a solution where they take over the entire other part, not of one where they equally cohabit in one common nation together.
Well, afaik, both Hamas and expansionist Israelis each think of a solution where they take over the entire other part, not of one where they equally cohabit in one common nation together.
I don’t think Hamas has been pitching itself as the future rulers of Palestine (they’re not anywhere near that delusional), but either way there’s no reason for us to accept either of those. If the international community gives Israel an ultimatum saying “equal rights for Palestinians now or no weapons” the whole problem will fix itself in a few election cycles as Israel is forced to accept and Palestinians are in no position to refuse the prospect of not being genocided.
I don’t think Hamas has been pitching itself as the future rulers of Palestine
They certainly were very keen on becoming rulers of Gaza at leaat and conveniently forgot to allow free elections ever after. Hamas has indeed a strong political agenda and their main goal is and was to destroy Israel.
If the international community gives Israel an ultimatum saying “equal rights for Palestinians now or no weapons” the whole problem will fix itself
Only if the international community can effectively exert the same pressure on actors such as Hamas. If only Israel is militarily weakened while Hamas can then resume their terror again, this absolutely won’t fly. This is why Hamas and/or their main goal would need to disappear, too.
They certainly were very keen on becoming rulers of Gaza at leaat and conveniently forgot to allow free elections ever after.
Hamas has agreed to peace conditions that would include letting go of Gaza more than once before, most recently in the Trump-brokered ceasefire. Not ruling Gaza has never been a deal-breaker for them.
Only if the international community can effectively exert the same pressure on actors such as Hamas.
Again the Troubles in Ireland are a good reference here. If the injustices cease groups such as Hamas will have no way of selling themselves to the people of Palestine, and if that doesn’t happen there are multiple ways of exerting pressure to stop them from doing anything too flashy, the most obvious of which would be threatening to arm Israel again.
Not ruling Gaza has never been a deal-breaker for them.
No, but disarming has. Giving up their rule in Gaza is one thing, but they’d also need to agree on disarming and effectively dissolving themselves. So far, I can’t see them make that step.
If the injustices cease groups such as Hamas will have no way of selling themselves to the people
The problem is that it already is an injustice for too many people on both sides that the other ones should have their own state. Here, the injustice for Hamas is the mere existence of Israel. The Good Friday Agreement includes both sides to acknowledge the other side, this would have to happen here as well.
Giving up their rule in Gaza is one thing, but they’d also need to agree on disarming and effectively dissolving themselves. So far, I can’t see them make that step.
Because Israel hasn’t engaged in good faith negotiations in almost 30 years? If anything why do you expect them to make that step now? I mean they agreed to not rebuild militarily in the ceasefire Israel then proceeded to completely shit on so it’s not like they’re vehemently opposed to the idea, but there needs to be a good faith effort from, well, anyone.
effectively dissolving themselves.
True for the military branch, but remember that Hamas is also a political party. There’s no reason they should be disallowed from running for elections in a post-conflict Palestine.
Here, the injustice for Hamas is the mere existence of Israel.
You say “mere” but the existence of Israel as a Jewish state built by Jews for Jews is already full of injustices. I mean their constitution literally denies the Palestinian people the right to self-determination. Israel, if it’s not dissolved entirely, needs to be rebuilt from the ground up. Oh, and also: Hamas accepts a two-state solution as stated in their charter, and has entered into multiple agreements with Israel to that effect that Israel predictably proceeded to completely shit on. That’s the most you can expect Hamas to let up on their ideological program before real good faith negotiations start.
The point I want to make is: Everything you want should come as part of negotiations between the two sides, not as a mere prelude to negotiations. It takes two to tango here, because I certainly haven’t seen Israel accept the idea of a two-state solution.
PS: I’m slightly self-censoring because of rule 4.
There were, but they were very much the exception rather than the rule. Again,
The facts are clear that Palestine’s Jewish population was not at risk of extermination or displacement by the Arab armies.
Uh… You do realize that both sides were literally at war right with Zionists actively committing ethnic cleansing right? What kind of peace did you want Palestinians to have?
The same author (Morris) also said this:
We can exchange snippets from authors aligning with our views all day without making any progress at all.
Fact is: there won’t be the necessary trust from Palestinians towards actors such as the IDF for them to live under their rule - there won’t be the necessary trust of Israelis towards actors auch as Hamas for them to live under their rule.
They’ll never live in one state, as they each have reasonable doubt about the respective other side - hence everyone still advocating the idea of one side surpassing the other and taking over the other part is only ensuring that this conflict will never end. This includes Israelis that want to destroy Palestine - this includes Palestinians that want to destroy Israel - and those on the outside advocating either of it.
I mean I quoted a fact; you quoted an opinion. Notice that as an avowed Zionist and Nakba apologist Benny Morris isn’t an unbiased actor here, so while his statements of fact do mean something as a historian his opinions mean jack shit.
Who said anything about either of that? In the event of a one-state solution, military apparatuses on both sides should be dismantled, in the same way militias stopped operating in post-Troubles Ireland.
As far as I can tell, we both stated something Morris said. I wouldn’t consider one thing a fact and the other a biased view, no matter which one. I wouldn’t consider both things “a fact” per se. But as I said, we can exchange those snippets all day long and won’t get anywhere, so I don’t see a point.
Well, afaik, both Hamas and expansionist Israelis each think of a solution where they take over the entire other part, not of one where they equally cohabit in one common nation together.
I don’t think Hamas has been pitching itself as the future rulers of Palestine (they’re not anywhere near that delusional), but either way there’s no reason for us to accept either of those. If the international community gives Israel an ultimatum saying “equal rights for Palestinians now or no weapons” the whole problem will fix itself in a few election cycles as Israel is forced to accept and Palestinians are in no position to refuse the prospect of not being genocided.
They certainly were very keen on becoming rulers of Gaza at leaat and conveniently forgot to allow free elections ever after. Hamas has indeed a strong political agenda and their main goal is and was to destroy Israel.
Only if the international community can effectively exert the same pressure on actors such as Hamas. If only Israel is militarily weakened while Hamas can then resume their terror again, this absolutely won’t fly. This is why Hamas and/or their main goal would need to disappear, too.
Hamas has agreed to peace conditions that would include letting go of Gaza more than once before, most recently in the Trump-brokered ceasefire. Not ruling Gaza has never been a deal-breaker for them.
Again the Troubles in Ireland are a good reference here. If the injustices cease groups such as Hamas will have no way of selling themselves to the people of Palestine, and if that doesn’t happen there are multiple ways of exerting pressure to stop them from doing anything too flashy, the most obvious of which would be threatening to arm Israel again.
No, but disarming has. Giving up their rule in Gaza is one thing, but they’d also need to agree on disarming and effectively dissolving themselves. So far, I can’t see them make that step.
The problem is that it already is an injustice for too many people on both sides that the other ones should have their own state. Here, the injustice for Hamas is the mere existence of Israel. The Good Friday Agreement includes both sides to acknowledge the other side, this would have to happen here as well.
Because Israel hasn’t engaged in good faith negotiations in almost 30 years? If anything why do you expect them to make that step now? I mean they agreed to not rebuild militarily in the ceasefire Israel then proceeded to completely shit on so it’s not like they’re vehemently opposed to the idea, but there needs to be a good faith effort from, well, anyone.
True for the military branch, but remember that Hamas is also a political party. There’s no reason they should be disallowed from running for elections in a post-conflict Palestine.
You say “mere” but the existence of Israel as a Jewish state built by Jews for Jews is already full of injustices. I mean their constitution literally denies the Palestinian people the right to self-determination. Israel, if it’s not dissolved entirely, needs to be rebuilt from the ground up. Oh, and also: Hamas accepts a two-state solution as stated in their charter, and has entered into multiple agreements with Israel to that effect that Israel predictably proceeded to completely shit on. That’s the most you can expect Hamas to let up on their ideological program before real good faith negotiations start.
The point I want to make is: Everything you want should come as part of negotiations between the two sides, not as a mere prelude to negotiations. It takes two to tango here, because I certainly haven’t seen Israel accept the idea of a two-state solution.
PS: I’m slightly self-censoring because of rule 4.