hundreth

Russia / Ukraine is not really a clean comp. Ukraine did nothing to Russia. They also pose no existential threat to Russia in any way. Russia's ambitions are completely resources driven. Some commentators have said that the threat to join NATO and isolate Russia has actually driven Russia to behave this way, and that is an explanation for how there are some threats to Russia but it is no where near the scale of Israel. We're comparing Russia to a nation the size of New Jersey which just experienced a terror attack the magnitude of ten 9/11s. Tell me which nation on earth would not respond in extreme measures to something like that? You can justify it all you want, but if your neighbors killed so many of your friends and family, you would become radicalized. We say the same for the Palestinians, they do what they do because of the hurt they feel. I think the world generally understands that the middle east is much less cut and dry than Russia / Ukraine. Ukraine has never declared war on Russia and lost, and then had a decades long subjugation and never ending conflict as a result.

Yeah, a de-militarized zone... which really matters when a militarized nation on that land declares war on you. At least try to make sense.

You aren't factoring the main issue which is geographical. The West Bank is strategically located on high ground which cuts through the center of Israel. If a militarized Palestine + other Arab nations were to attack Israel from this vantage it would be basically impossible to defend. Yes, it would be an existential threat. I'm not saying that alone is a reason not allow them to have said state, I'm just pointing out that your analysis was incomplete.

Yeah, I think the reasonable security concern is that much of what Palestine would be belongs on a high ground area cutting across the center of Israel which Israel literally would not be able to defend IF the Palestinians + the wider Arab world decided they wanted to. So perhaps the Palestinians wouldn't, but IF they did it would be the disastrous. That said, at this point it almost feels like Israel needs to accept that risk despite this reality and take a leap of faith. If that day ever comes, this would actually be a justified time for the U.S. to intervene. If Israel is actually under existential threat, they would be justified in using the full weight of their forces. The script would change.

I wish that was the overall consensus. It seems like that has shifted towards Palestine from the river to the sea. Both far left and far right are against the two state solution. The left accuses anyone in favor of two state to be "buying time for Palestinian ethnic cleansing." Meanwhile they push for a far less realistic and more violent one-state concept.

My understanding was this is why it wasn't seriously considered. If they are in good faith not insisting on it and being reasonable, then I'm for it. I'd have to read more into it. Lol, you're funny dude. Yes, because I'm under the impression they insist on right of return means that all two staters aren't serious. Genius level reasoning.

Starts at around 17 minutes, but this is an interesting discussion about Krystal Ball's contention that a Jewish state would always be a Jewish supremacist state. Prior to this, Norm Finkelstein challenges the use of the word Zionism as meaningless and encourages us not to use it because it has so many meanings to so many people, which I agree with. He then goes on to explain that a Jewish state is not inherently Jewish supremacist, though there is a majority population issue and open question. He also compares this to the UK being an Anglican state or Ireland being a Catholic state. He is more more nuanced on the issue than Krystal and many of you here.

The Arab peace initiative which insists on the right of return? Right of return = coded end of Israel Let's not beat around the bush. It's a poison pill. We could have leaders with courage to kickstart new peace initiatives directly with the Palestinians though in search of a two state solution. We need to stop this bullshit that the settlers have ended the chance for one. This is convenient for far leftists who hate the idea of Israel and want to see it destroyed under any circumstances. Israel has previously removed all settlers from Gaza. There are other solutions which don't require resettlement. There are many ways around that. Pushing against the two state solution only extends the conflict and makes it a toxic zero sum game, but leftists think they are doing something just and moral.

What a piece of shit this guy is....

This is a really good representation of how Israelis actually think IMO. This guy has actually interacted with and spoken to more Palestinians directly than 99% of people on the planet.

I agree with you. Israel is still operating under that same mentality and biting off way more than they can chew. For awhile it was war. Then it became a standstill. Neither side agrees to the terms of the other. They have an endless cycle of hurting another. Endless cycles of hate building. This is the tragic outcome.

Mischaracterization of history. Palestinians were not in the position to decide whether Jews came to the land or not. The British were. The Palestinians did not take this risk Lol. This is cartoonish. Jews came to the land to flee persecution, not as part of a political movement. They lived in relative peace. Later, a political movement shaped a new conflict, and a war ensued. Those are different circumstances. You can't say things would be the same before and after a literal war. Now you're trying to paint this picture like Palestinians themselves uniquely cared about welcoming Jews and in response they were destroyed. No. The British promised the Jews land there, there were negotiations for how to split it. Jews said yes to a minority of the land with no ill will towards Palestinians. Palestinians said no under any circumstances and launched a war. They lost. Jews have no unique hatred or resentment towards Palestinians. They just wanted a home and safe place to live. As for the Arab peace initiative, it is always the right of return that is the sticking point. I mean I'd agree with you that even without that the crazies in power in Israel today wouldn't agree, but I don't think that was always the case. I'd personally agree with you on 1967 borders and would be fine with it minus the right to return. Also certainly not everything Israel does is justified.

Yes, we also cannot know what would have happened. @Raze believes in this childish notion that the Palestinians or Arabs would never do anything to harm the Jews. They are perfectly innocent and do no wrong in every scenario. Jews, especially after WW2 will never take that risk. Nevermind that Arabs literally did ethnically cleanse the Jews from neighboring nations. But oh, that's okay because Jews from Europe did something bad Zionist blah blah. So then it doesn't count, right??

What does "simply stop occupying Palestine" mean? If it is no further expansion or greenlighting a two state solution, sure. But I don't think that's what it is. Also, Iran very openly declares they want to annihilate Israel. Those early Zionists weren't as centrally organized as they are today. You had different factions behaving in vastly different ways. As for Israel's demand for a Jewish state, this was part of a two state negotiation over at the time British land post WW2 where the most giant chunk of land was already given to Jordan. Within Palestine itself, the Jews had already agreed to less than half of the land, so then how were they demanding the majority of the country leave? That is just false. The Palestinians were only open to having 100% of the land, and so war broke out and they lost. What do you mean the two states I demand wants x,y,z? How do you know what I want? I believe there is a path towards two states, but its not commonly spoken about as an option. The cleanest idea IMO is to leave the settlers within areas designated as Palestinian land. There could be certain groups, both Palestinian and Jewish who live under each other's borders with dual citizenship and special status. The settlers could be part of that, but they would not be entitled to their own police force or security perimeter. They would live under Palestinian law. If they don't like it, they should move back to Israel proper. I think that is the simplest path forward.

That's because the Israelis believe that if the tables were turned they would be the ones ethnically cleansed. From the day the state was founded the goal was for the surrounding Arab states to invade and wipe out the Jews. Those same surrounding Arab states ethnically cleansed the Jews in their own nations, so this threat is not theoretical. Unfortunately it is a zero-sum game. Israelis and Jews in general hear "from the river to the sea" and take it literally. They are both fighting for survival, that is what is misunderstood. I'm not justifying genocide or the way this conflict has turned at all. I'm saying this "isn't that weird" perspective isn't really that weird at all. The British promised the Jews a state there, they negotiated for a two state with the other locals who had no sovereign nation there. They did not agree, a war broke out. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians left believing the Arab states would roll in and destroy all the Jews. They failed to do so. They tried again and again and again, they failed to do so. Now we want to act like the Jews there are just being paranoid and becoming increasingly hostile for no reason. Decades of this conflict has hardened each side. Neither side wants a one state solution which is inclusive of both parties. That is a pipe dream. Since neither side will agree to leave, it has become a zero sum game and fight to the death. This is the sad reality of the situation. The only other outcome which could save it is a two state solution, but even the leftists themselves have abandoned it. They want a one state solution called "Palestine" where Palestinians are the majority and magically everyone lives happily ever after. They are completely delusional.