434

Netanyahu defies Biden, insisting there’s ‘no space’ for Palestinian state (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 10 months ago by breakfastmtn@lemmy.ca to c/world@lemmy.world

121 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Defiant Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu doubled down on opposition to Palestinian statehood, deepening the divide with Israel’s closest international allies, as cracks in his wartime “unity” government became increasingly evident.

Anger with Netanyahu is also increasingly visible on the streets, even though there is broad public support for the war. On Saturday, protesters gathered in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Caesarea and Kfar Saba, some calling for bolder action to secure the release of hostages, and others demanding the prime minister step down.

One in Jerusalem held a placard that read: “Mothers’ cry: we will not sacrifice our children in the war to save the rightwing.”

Archive

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[+] speaker_hat@lemmy.one -29 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

TLDR; Hamas massacre was a wrong move that delays the establishment of a Palestinian state.

after Hamas is destroyed, Israel must retain security control over Gaza to ensure that Gaza will no longer pose a threat to Israel, a requirement that contradicts the demand for Palestinian sovereignty

Israel would need to keep security control of all land west of the River Jordan. “That’s a necessary condition. It clashes with the principle of sovereignty but what can you do.

Netanyahu is doing the right move by putting his country's security above all.

A Palestinian sovereignty cannot be established because by all means it's a threat to Israel's security.

As an example, Hamas 07/10 massacre launched from a Palestinian sovereignty, called Gaza (Gaza received it's sovereignty just 18 years ago).

The peaceful quest for a Palestinian state is a just cause.

The quest for a Palestinian state is by all means not peaceful. It's brutal full of bloodshed from both sides.

As Keir Starmer has said, it is the undeniable right of the Palestinian people, and the only path to guarantee a just and lasting peace for both Israelis and Palestinians.”

Palestinians don't look for peace, and as a consequence of this war, Israel is also don't.

The Palestinians only look for undoing the what so called "Nakba", a thing that will never happen, as long as Israel exists.

And Israel is looking for a security, by all means.

The UK’s position is very clear. A two-state solution, with a viable and sovereign Palestinian state living alongside a safe and secure Israel, is the best route to lasting peace.

Palestinian sovereign living alongside Israel = Israel is NOT safe and NOT secure.

As I wrote earlier, the Palestinians are not looking for peace.

The US has repeatedly said that the establishment of an independent Palestinian state is the only path to rebuilding Gaza and ensuring Israel’s long-term security.

Palestinian state is NOT the only path to Israel's long-term security.

After more than three months, Israeli attacks have killed nearly 25,000 Palestinians

This is a clue for this article bias, as they didn't separated the number of Hamas militant casualties from Palestinian civilians casualties.

[-] machinin@lemmy.world 16 points 10 months ago

It seems like the state of Israel is threatening the security of the whole region. Better to get rid of Israel for the security of her region.

[+] speaker_hat@lemmy.one -15 points 10 months ago

I don't agree. Especially when your comment isn't article post based nor sources based.

And Israel is an established independent country, you can't just "rid of" a country.

[-] machinin@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago

But it would be doing the right thing by placing the security of the Palestinians and neighboring countries above all else.

[-] speaker_hat@lemmy.one -3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Neighboring Jordan and Egypt are secured, so your comment is false. Why they are secured you asked? Because they want peace and accept it, in contrast to the ones who don't want it.

Even though your comment is false, let give it a try.

In Israel there are 21% Arabs with Palestinian origin, do you want to get rid of them as well? If not let me know your sophisticated "getting rid of" partition (hint: antisemitism will be reported).

All of the Palestinian economy and Arabs living in Israel are based on the Israeli economy and currency (New Israeli Shekel), getting rid of Israel meaning destroying these people economy (which will only lead to more crime and terror, see Syria as an example).

The United States and Israel have signed multiple bilateral defense cooperation agreements, to include: a Mutual Defense Assistance Agreement (1952); a General Security of Information Agreement (1982); a Mutual Logistics Support Agreement (1991); and a Status of Forces Agreement (1994).

So "getting rid of Israel" will be required to win also the US army. Source: https://www.state.gov/u-s-security-cooperation-with-israel/

Oh, and Israel has a nuke, so the ones that will try to "get rid of it" will be nuked immediately as a last resort solution, which is a loose-loose situation.

[-] Womble@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago

You seem to be missing their entire point so I'll state it in plane language to you.

You are advocating demolishing Palestine being justifiable because it places the security of Israel above all. The above poster is flipping your logic on you and saying demolishing Israel is justifiable as it places the security of Palestine above all.

[-] speaker_hat@lemmy.one -3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Thanks for the explanation.

Let me rephrase my comment:

Netanyahu is doing the right move by putting his country’s security above all by delaying the establishment of Palestinian state or sovereignty.

I didn't advocate for Palestinian demolish.

This is why I didn't agree with the above post sophisticated "flipped logic" comment.

I'll state again: Palestinians don't look for peace nor a state. They look to undo the what so called "Nakba", a thing that will happen as long as Israel exists.

[-] NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social 0 points 10 months ago

You know, I'm not actually taking your nonsensical take seriously, but lemme just say a few things:

Israel will never give Palestinians a state willingly; they'll need to be forced by either Palestinians themselves, the Arab world or the international community. This became obvious in 1996.

Gaza is still considered occupied by the UN.

Israel has never looked for peace. Again see 1996.

Stop shilling for Zionists.

[-] speaker_hat@lemmy.one -3 points 10 months ago

they’ll need to be forced by either Palestinians themselves, the Arab world or the international community.

It didn't work for 75 years, and only causes bloodshed from both sides, and the delay of a Palestinian state.

This became obvious in 1996

Unfortunately I don't understand the 1996 reference.

Israel has never looked for peace. Again see 1996.

Per by this comment, here is a list of peace offers which would grant the Palestinians a country of their own, they refused all of them (total of 22 offers):

1937 - Peel commission, rejected

1947 - Partition resolution, rejected

2000 - Camp David, rejected

2001 - Taba, rejected. Arafat starts the second intifada and a year later changes his mind.

2008 - Olmert offer, rejected

Hamas have tried to agree to boundaries Despite media attempts to portray it as a new Hamas charter, it is not. The new ‘policy document’ accepts the creation of a Palestinian state in 1967 borders, but still rejects Israel and claims its territory. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-39775103

Here are some other noteworthy peace meeting or proposals from Israel to the rest if the Arab world, which were rejected

1919: Arabs of Palestine refused nominate representatives to the Paris Peace Conference.

1920: San Remo conference decisions, rejected.

1922: League of Nations decisions, rejected.

1937: Peel Commission partition proposal, rejected.

1938: Woodhead partition proposal, rejected

1947: UN General Assembly partition proposal (UNGAR 181), rejected.

1949: Israel’s outstretched hand for peace (UNGAR 194), rejected.

1967: Israel’s outstretched hand for peace (UNSCR 242), rejected.

1978: Begin/Sa’adat peace proposal, rejected (except for Egypt).

1994: Rabin/Hussein peace agreement, rejected by the rest of the Arab League (except for Egypt).

1995: Rabin’s Contour-for-Peace, rejected.

2000: Barak/Clinton peace offer, rejected.

2001: Barak’s offer at Taba, rejected.

2005: Sharon’s peace gesture, withdrawal from Gaza, rejected.

2008: Olmert/Bush peace offer, rejected.

2009 to 2021: Netanyahu’s repeated invitations to peace talks, rejected.

2014: Kerry’s Contour-for-Peace, rejected.

Not gonna link Trump’s imbecilic peace plan as an example.

Here is a list of peace offers the Palestinians offered to Israel -

None

[-] NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

It didn’t work for 75 years, and only causes bloodshed from both sides, and the delay of a Palestinian state.

"Delay" you're speaking like Palestinians were promised a state at any time after 1948.

Unfortunately I don’t understand the 1996 reference.

When Netanyahu just decided to ignore the Oslo accords after Rabin was assassinated.

1937 - Peel commission, rejected
1947 - Partition resolution, rejected

I wonder why Palestinians didn't want their land to be stolen and used to build an Apartheid state.

2000 - Camp David, rejected
2001 - Taba, rejected. Arafat starts the second intifada and a year later changes his mind.

Okay this is just a bad faith take. These two are extensions of the same negotiations, and let's see what Israel's then foreign affairs minister had to say about them:

Shlomo Ben-Ami, then Israel's Minister of Foreign Relations who participated in the talks, stated that the Palestinians wanted the immediate withdrawal of the Israelis from the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, and only subsequently the Palestinian authority would dismantle the Palestinian organizations. The Israeli response was "we can't accept the demand for a return to the borders of June 1967 as a pre-condition for the negotiation."[61] In 2006, Shlomo Ben-Ami stated on Democracy Now! that "Camp David was not the missed opportunity for the Palestinians, and if I were a Palestinian I would have rejected Camp David, as well. This is something I put in the book. But Taba is the problem. The Clinton parameters are the problem" referring to his 2001 book Scars of War, Wounds of Peace: The Israeli-Arab Tragedy.

TL;DR: Israel's Camp David terms were so horrible that as long as they didn't budge on them (which they didn't; the idea that Arafat didn't compromise is Israeli propaganda) no sane Palestinian would accept them.

2008 - Olmert offer, rejected

Since the offer went on behind the scenes, nobody actually knows what happened, so I won't comment on it.

Here are some other noteworthy peace meeting or proposals from Israel to the rest if the Arab world, which were rejected

1919: Arabs of Palestine refused nominate representatives to the Paris Peace Conference.

1920: San Remo conference decisions, rejected.

1922: League of Nations decisions, rejected.

1937: Peel Commission partition proposal, rejected.

1938: Woodhead partition proposal, rejected

1947: UN General Assembly partition proposal (UNGAR 181), rejected.

1949: Israel’s outstretched hand for peace (UNGAR 194), rejected.

1967: Israel’s outstretched hand for peace (UNSCR 242), rejected.

1978: Begin/Sa’adat peace proposal, rejected (except for Egypt).

1994: Rabin/Hussein peace agreement, rejected by the rest of the Arab League (except for Egypt).

1995: Rabin’s Contour-for-Peace, rejected.

2000: Barak/Clinton peace offer, rejected.

2001: Barak’s offer at Taba, rejected.

2005: Sharon’s peace gesture, withdrawal from Gaza, rejected.

2008: Olmert/Bush peace offer, rejected.

2009 to 2021: Netanyahu’s repeated invitations to peace talks, rejected.

2014: Kerry’s Contour-for-Peace, rejected.

I know you copy pasted this, because I've sent his exact nonsense list before, and lemme just say this: Check what you copy before you copy it. Two of these are UN resolutions that Israel refuses to follow, and the 2014 offer is one where Netanyahu wasn't even trying. According to the American Envoy he was unquestionably at fault.

[-] speaker_hat@lemmy.one -2 points 10 months ago

First, thank you for the detailed response, which I'll response to as such.

When Netanyahu just decided to ignore the Oslo accords after Rabin was assassinated.

At that time, Shimon Peres was the prime minister of Israel, so Netanyahu's stand wasn't even relevant. (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prime_ministers_of_Israel)

Anyway,

Negotiations on further terms continued, with Peres continuing to be an integral player. On 28 September 1995, Rabin and Arafat jointly signed a second major agreement, which has popularly been referred to as "Oslo II"

("Oslo II" created the Areas A, B and C in the West Bank, Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_II_Accord. However, these areas still have Palestinian terror acts)

I wonder why Palestinians didn’t want their land to be stolen and used to build an Apartheid state.

Palestinians, at that time, didn't had ownership over the area of Palestine. because it was an official Mandate of the United Kingdom. (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Palestine)

Apartheid state

How's Israel an apartheid state when it has 21% Arabs citizens from the Palestinian origin?

The "1937 - Peel commission" is an Investigation of the causes of the 1936 Arab revolt in Palestine, which in short was an uprising by Palestinian Arabs in Mandatory Palestine against the British demanding Arab independence and the end of the policy of open-ended Jewish immigration.

The Arabs of that time didn't have any stand of the Jewish immigration, as it was under the British auspices.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936%E2%80%931939_Arab_revolt_in_Palestine

Same argument is relevant for "1947 - Partition resolution".

TL;DR: Israel’s Camp David terms were so horrible that as long as they didn’t budge on them (which they didn’t; the idea that Arafat didn’t compromise is Israeli propaganda) no sane Palestinian would accept them.

In 2000 Camp David Summit, "The Palestinian negotiators indicated they wanted full Palestinian sovereignty over the entire West Bank and the Gaza Strip". (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit)

The Palestinians received sovereignty over Gaza strip at 5 years later in 2005. (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_Gaza).

Guess what happened just 18 years later, from that Palestinian sovereignty? You guessed right, Hamas 07/10 massacre.

Since the offer went on behind the scenes, nobody actually knows what happened, so I won’t comment on it.

OK.

You didn't reply on the rest of the peace rejection, so I'll consider them to be agreed otherwise stated.

Here are some other noteworthy peace meeting or proposals from Israel to the rest if the Arab world, which were rejected

This sentence, and the list you provided, strengthening and supporting what I wrote on my comment above:

Palestinians don’t look for peace.

They only look for undoing the what so called “Nakba”, a thing that will never happen, as long as Israel exists.

this post was submitted on 20 Jan 2024

434 points (96.0% liked)

World News

39104 readers

1506 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world

Recommendations

How to spot Misinformation and Propaganda

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

quinten@lemmy.world

NewsAutoMod@lemmy.world

jordanlund@lemmy.world

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

lemmyAtom@lemmy.world

FlyingSquid@lemmy.world