Yes. Killing civillians is always wrong. Especially children. Be it the firebombing of Dresden or using weapons of mass destruction against japanese civillian populations.
But for the sake of the argument, let’s say it’s fine to kill a ton of innocent people. Maybe it is for you and we just have different moral perspectives on this issue. What do you do after destroying Hamas? You have a ton of dead civillians, mourning families, and a completely destroyed country with no future in sight. Would you support the formation of a sovereign democratic internationally recognized palestinian state? Would you support a marshall plan for Palestine?
Would you support the formation of a sovereign democratic internationally recognized palestinian state?
Me personally? Yes, of course. If the Palestinians are actually going to agree to the borders that were set in 1948 as an example … but until now the Palestinians have rejected every attempt that was made for a two state solution. What makes you think, that they will accept borders now, that they have rejected before?
I am sorry to tell you this, but you definitely ought look deeper into the peace accords as they were discussed at the time. Especially the ones at Camp David which were supposed to be the most fruitious and the ones Palestinians “threw out the door”. The Oslo accords were more of a guideline than a clear set of instructions.
Palestinians were supposed to:
be completely demilitarized
give Israel the right to send troops to Palestine in case of any emergency (what constitutes as an emergency was never defined)
ask Israel for approval for every diplomatic alliance Palestine would ever make
have military bases installed in Palestinian territory
give the Israeli military complete control of their airspace
have israeli military outposts be installed on the border between Palestine and Jordan
give Israel temporary control over Palestinian border crossings
give up 10% of the West Bank, the most fertile land in the West Bank, for 1% territorial gains of desert land near the Gaza strip (the land that would be conceded included symbolic and cultural territories such as the Al-Aqsa Mosque, whereas the Israeli land conceded was unspecified)
Israel would keep parts of the West Bank under temporary occupation, without a timespan being given
What constitutes the West Bank was to be defined by Israel and not by international law. Israel defined West Bank as being the internationally recognized West Bank minus all the settlements.
As you can see, all of these concessions would never amount to a completely sovereign Palestinian state, and as a result of that these talks failed in the end. Nonetheless, they did spawn new discussions and as a result of said discussion the Taba negotiations were born. With that being said, these concessions were in no way, shape, or form popular in Israel (only 25% of the Israeli public thought his positions on Camp David were just right as opposed to 58% of the public that thought Barak compromised too much). The Israeli prime minister at the time, Barak, facing elections, suspended the talks since it greatly affected his popularity in Israel. As a result of trying to broker a peace deal with Palestine, even a very bad one that was meant to fail as it was, he failed to get re-elected. The highly unbalanced concessions were already considered to be too much by Israelis.
Trying to paint Israel here as the ones willing to make concessions and the Palestinians as the ones throwing everything out the door is a highly cherry picked narrative that doesn’t represent the reality at all.
I fully support a two-state solution, if and only if both states are treated as equals. The conditions listed above clearly do not create two equal states that both have full rights to self determination.
The discussions were doomed to fail from the get-go. You can read more on that on Wikipedia if you’re interested in all the details. If wikipedia isn’t a good enough source, there is a great book on this subject by a german professor specializing on the conflict between Israel and Palestine.
Yes. Killing civillians is always wrong. Especially children. Be it the firebombing of Dresden or using weapons of mass destruction against japanese civillian populations.
But for the sake of the argument, let’s say it’s fine to kill a ton of innocent people. Maybe it is for you and we just have different moral perspectives on this issue. What do you do after destroying Hamas? You have a ton of dead civillians, mourning families, and a completely destroyed country with no future in sight. Would you support the formation of a sovereign democratic internationally recognized palestinian state? Would you support a marshall plan for Palestine?
Me personally? Yes, of course. If the Palestinians are actually going to agree to the borders that were set in 1948 as an example … but until now the Palestinians have rejected every attempt that was made for a two state solution. What makes you think, that they will accept borders now, that they have rejected before?
Yes, I would.
My personal opinion is probably best represented by Harari Yuval Noah - English - with German Subtitles
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Harari Yuval Noah - English - with German Subtitles
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
I am sorry to tell you this, but you definitely ought look deeper into the peace accords as they were discussed at the time. Especially the ones at Camp David which were supposed to be the most fruitious and the ones Palestinians “threw out the door”. The Oslo accords were more of a guideline than a clear set of instructions.
Palestinians were supposed to:
As you can see, all of these concessions would never amount to a completely sovereign Palestinian state, and as a result of that these talks failed in the end. Nonetheless, they did spawn new discussions and as a result of said discussion the Taba negotiations were born. With that being said, these concessions were in no way, shape, or form popular in Israel (only 25% of the Israeli public thought his positions on Camp David were just right as opposed to 58% of the public that thought Barak compromised too much). The Israeli prime minister at the time, Barak, facing elections, suspended the talks since it greatly affected his popularity in Israel. As a result of trying to broker a peace deal with Palestine, even a very bad one that was meant to fail as it was, he failed to get re-elected. The highly unbalanced concessions were already considered to be too much by Israelis.
Trying to paint Israel here as the ones willing to make concessions and the Palestinians as the ones throwing everything out the door is a highly cherry picked narrative that doesn’t represent the reality at all.
I fully support a two-state solution, if and only if both states are treated as equals. The conditions listed above clearly do not create two equal states that both have full rights to self determination.
The discussions were doomed to fail from the get-go. You can read more on that on Wikipedia if you’re interested in all the details. If wikipedia isn’t a good enough source, there is a great book on this subject by a german professor specializing on the conflict between Israel and Palestine.