#Cause the majority of Jewish people don't live in Israel and don't plan to

[gxlden-angels]

jewish americans support ceasefire

I'm aware! Free Palestine!

[matan4il]

Feel like I live in an alternate reality or something cause why is the left NEVER talking about how Arabs repeatedly rejected the two state solution? Sure, hold Israel responsible for their treatment of Palestinians. But are we supposed to ignore Palestine's refusal to find a middle ground that would put an end to decades of violence? Are we supposed to ignore that they voted for a terrorist group that wants to wipe Jews from the face of the earth?

Hi Nonnie! Thank you for this ask.

I wouldn't put it only on the left, there are right wing white supremacists who also use anti-Zionism as a means to attack Jews. But yeah, the difference is people on the left were supposed to care about Jewish lives, too. Instead, the anti-Israeli crowd conveniently leaves out huge chunks of the history, and then uses that false narrative to justify the massacre of Jews:

That Jews were systematically oppressed, discriminated, persecuted and even repeatedly massacred in the Land of Israel for centuries before the State of Israel was established

That Jews repeatedly tried to make peace with the Arabs even before establishing the State of Israel

That in Nov 1947, Jews accepted the UN's two state solution, known as the partition plan, while the Arabs rejected it

That in Oct 1947, the secretary general of the Arab League promised a "war of extermination" against the Jews in Israel... just 2.5 years after the end of the Holocaust

That the local Arabs were the ones to attack the Jews in Nov 1947, then the Arab armies joined them in May 1948. Arabs tried to genocide the Jews in Israel, not the other way around

That despite this, Israel absorbed 160,000 Arabs as citizens when it was established (the ones who did not flee, nor used violence against the Jews), and even offered to take back tens of thousands of the Arabs who had fled

That Arabs were a part of governing Israel from the start, with three Arab elected parliament representatives in the first Knesset

That during its entire history, Israel only expended its borders once, following a defensive war, and it then gave away the overwhelming majority of those territories for peace (with Egypt, with Jordan, and then unsuccessfully with the Palestinians)

That Israel made repeated attempts at reaching a final peace agreement with the Palestinians along the years, and has made offers that gave the Palestinians the exact amount of territory they were demanding

And that Jews ARE native to Israel, with native rights here

Does that mean Israel is perfect? No. But it's far from the monster the anti-Israeli crowd depicts it as. The story is not the simple projection of colonizers vs colonized that these people are selling to those who don't know the history of the conflict. And now, this false narrative has been used to justify the beheading of babies, and rapes that were so brutal, they broke bones...

I hope you're taking care of yourself, Nonnie! Sending you hugs and love! xoxox

(for all of my updates and ask replies regarding Israel, click here)

[hero-israel]

Hi, if you don't mind answering, I have a question regarding Israel. I figured any Jewish person in Israel or not probably knows better than I could guess after occasionally reading Tumblr for a couple of months. What do you think is right/wrong about the Israel government, what should it be like and what should it do now? I would be thankful if you could answer.

Some context, if it makes any difference why I'm asking: I'm Ukrainian, and I was surprised first time I saw people comparing Israel with russia. It felt wrong to me from the start, cause it made more sense to compare terrorists with terrorists instead. Western leftists seem ignorant and delusional to argue with them, but I also saw this opinion from some Ukrainians on twitter, so I got interested to learn a bit more to get proper arguments against this comparison. Then I learned that quite a lot of Jewish people here are against current actions of the Israel government in Gaza, which at first looked strange to me cause it's a very different situation from what we have in Ukraine. I figured that Jewish people are the best source to learn "what's wrong with Israel government" without being flooded by conspiracy theories. I support Israel, but I don't want to support things that most of you guys actually disagree with. And another thing, personally I don't see how it's possible to get rid of hamas without harming civilians in Gaza, but I saw here Jewish people arguing that both Palestinian and Israeli civilians shouldn't be harmed. That's why I asked a few people on Tumblr what they think Israel should do to get some opinions, though perhaps my question among attacks was seen as an attack too. So this time I add this long clarification, sorry about that 😅

Thank you for the insight - I particularly appreciate hearing what this sounds like from Ukrainians as they face their own crisis.

I support actions that protect Jewish lives and Jewish rights, everywhere in the world, including in Israel. I want governments moral enough and strong enough to do that, everywhere, including in Israel. Sadly, Israel is really fucking it up for the last year.

No one should be happy with what is happening in Gaza. It is an appalling humanitarian disaster, exactly as Hamas planned it would be. Once they were able to stage their attack, Israel had no choice but to invade; to have done anything other than invade would have sent a message to all their enemies that they would just lie back and take it, and that is a message they cannot afford to send.

The current Israeli government is one of the most ultra-right-wing, revolting, criminal, and incompetent out of any democratic nation in the world. Their stupidity made the Hamas attack possible. Benjamin Netanyahu has been PM forever and kept winning elections because despite his ugly, crooked personality, he was good at the job, good from economic and diplomatic perspectives, and avoided major change with the Palestinians. As he stayed in office longer and got more crooked with age, his scandals and campaign crimes piled up until it really looked like he could face prison for it. For a cruelly, tantalizingly brief period, the more forward-thinking elements of Israeli society were able to oust the far-right parties, but eventually that fell apart for the dumbest and most aggravating reason ever and Netanyahu was able to come back. This time he boosted up fringe ultra-right-wing candidates who were too extreme to function in a "real" government but who promised to help him change laws so he wouldn't go to jail. The actual process of changing those laws - transparently to end the investigations of the MULTIPLE indicted or convicted criminals in this government - tore Israeli society apart. People were warning for MONTHS that military readiness was plummeting. The Hamas attack plan had been known since around 2015 and an even more detailed version surfaced last year. They were all just too busy working to legalize crime and settle old scores than on watching the border where the genocidal fascist militia lives.

I don't know what the proper plan at this point is. After 3 months, I'm still very much emotionally stuck on "what you are supposed to do is PREVENT THIS, YOU IDIOTS, THAT IS YOUR JOB, AND NOT A HARD ONE." I don't think I will ever get past that, it was so obvious and I had been losing sleep all year fully expecting something like this to happen. Within the first few weeks after the attack, I saw a message from former PM Naftali Bennett about how it would be relatively quick and easy to flood all the Gaza tunnels with seawater and that would solve the problem; kill off Hamas troops, destroy their weapons, collapse their bases. Clearly they haven't done that yet. Does that mean it can't be done? If it can be done, then I lean towards thinking the current campaign should go on until it is done. If it can't be done, then I'd like to hear exactly what the goal of this incursion is and how long they expect it to last. Are they going to kill 30,000 people in the course of disarming and expelling Hamas? Or are they going to kill 30,000 people and Hamas will still be a recognizable threat anyway? If it's the latter, why kill all those people, why not stop now? When do they stop? Those are fair questions.

Basically all Jews "support Israel," insofar as they want it to keep existing as a Jewish state. Basically all Jews who support Israel also truly have no ill will toward Palestinians. They see Palestinians' problems as being less severe than the problems Jews have faced, historically and recently, and not worth the risks to Jews if an Israel did not exist. They believe in peace and want there to be a two-state solution, either because they really want a better life for Palestinians or because they want to stop feeling vaguely guilty about the occupation, or a mix of both.

I hope this was in any way helpful and regret that I couldn't be more precise about what the future plan should be.

[djgblogger-blog]

Trump believes he can make an Israeli-Palestinian deal. Don't hold your breath

http://bit.ly/2IAcREI

Palestinian laborers work at a construction site in an Israeli settlement near Jerusalem in 2017. AP Photo/Oded Balilty

For decades, U.S. presidents have been unable to broker a long-term settlement between Israel and Palestine. Deal-maker Donald Trump would like to accomplish what his predecessors could not in this area, and administration officials say the plan will be unveiled soon.

Could Trump succeed?

I’m a scholar who teaches about the high stakes of Middle East conflict. I think we should look beyond obvious obstacles to consider why Trump may believe he can achieve a deal. However, past failures and present Palestinian-Israeli hostility suggest that skepticism about an agreement remains warranted.

The basic obstacles to peace

The barriers to an Israeli-Palestinian agreement are numerous.

On the Israeli side, a deal would be unpopular among Israelis on the political right and require tremendous change. For example, Israel’s military and security position would be entirely different if it disengaged from much of the West Bank. And Israeli governments have faced relatively low political costs to leaving the conflict unresolved.

Israeli leaders have established massive security measures in the West Bank, restricted contact between Israelis and Palestinians through the border wall and allowed politically influential Israeli settlers to expand settlements. All of this cements Israeli de facto control over internationally recognized Palestinian land.

In addition, its economic and military strength and regional strategic importance to the West put Israel under little pressure to address the conflict.

Meanwhile, Palestinian leadership is aging, fragmented between Gaza and the West Bank and losing credibility among its people. Few Palestinians believe that the U.S.-led negotiating process can deliver a fair agreement. Palestinian leaders may consider negotiations less useful than building broader international pressure to raise the cost to Israel of maintaining the status quo.

Even before Trump, the U.S. was viewed by many Palestinians as a dishonest broker. Thus, Palestinian leaders have little reason to prioritize negotiations that seem stacked against them, over a longer diplomatic game in which American power may become weaker. This is especially so, given that Palestinians may think that their growing population will supplant Israeli Jews over time and, in turn, increase their international bargaining power.

These are among the obstacles that diplomats faced in recent years when trying to make progress toward a solution.

The result is an enduring impasse that may endanger the democratic nature of Israel and the basic rights of Palestinians. Long-term subjugation of an occupied population threatens Israeli democracy by encouraging further militarization and discrimination in the West Bank. Meanwhile, Palestinians live with a lack of economic opportunities and basic freedom of movement.

Given these dynamics, some knowledgeable experts argue that a two-state solution is dead.

Why then would the Trump administration raise hopes that its inexperienced foreign policy team can succeed where others have failed?

Why Trump might be acting

Trump may well believe that present conditions and his willpower can move the Palestinian-Israeli conflict toward resolution.

His likely rationale is that his good relationship with Israel’s government might align with the strategic interest of key Arab states to push Palestinians into a credible, if unfavorable, deal.

Trump appears to have strong rapport with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Even if Netanyahu’s legal problems neutralize his power, Israel’s more rightward-looking political forces are pleased both with the Trump administration’s recent plan to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem and their close ties with some in his administration. They may therefore be willing to consider a peace plan proposed by this White House.

Moreover, Trump and son-in-law Jared Kushner both enjoy a warm relationship with Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia, in turn, has been working closely with Egypt in regional politics. Thus, the two most populous and influential Arab states are cooperating closely with the U.S.

Trump insiders can point to several developments that present an unusual opportunity for a settlement.

First is the respect hawkish Israelis hold for the Trump administration. Second is the strong U.S. coordination with Egypt and Saudi Arabia, who might themselves wish to step up ties to Israel in a broader effort to combat Iran. Third is the possible economic benefit to both Israel and Palestine of increased regional cooperation. That would happen if the barrier that the Palestinian problem represents to clearer Arab-Israeli ties were removed. Indeed, the White House has suggested that Palestinians are unlikely to get foreign aid if they don’t join new peace talks.

Trump may anticipate a deal that would allow Israel to keep many key settlements in the West Bank and establish embassies with key Arab states, in exchange for some version of an independent Palestinian state. The latter would likely be a patchwork of Palestinian lands to allow Jewish settlements to be integrated into Israel.

The White House may contend that a deal is possible based on its proposed detailed approaches to key issues in the conflict, including humanitarian aid for Gaza and national status for Palestinians, backed by generous financial commitments by the Saudis and other Gulf and Western states to the new state.

So why won’t it work?

In the end, though, a Palestinian-Israeli deal is unlikely for two key reasons.

First is the Trump administration’s deficits in diplomacy. This presidency’s disregard for foreign policy expertise is illustrated by Trump’s use of inexperienced aides like Kushner and by his cuts to State Department funding. Add to that State Department instability caused by the replacement of Secretary Rex Tillerson with Mike Pompeo, a military and CIA man with limited experience in diplomacy and likely mistrust of political Islamists, such as the Hamas group that rules in Gaza.

The U.S.’ current disadvantage in global diplomacy may matter little on the Israeli side. But it is likely to make work harder with Palestinians and other Arabs who remain concerned about Palestinian rights. This was illustrated recently in the strong negative reactions to Trump’s Jerusalem embassy move, which is widely regarded outside of Israel as a major blunder that has angered Arabs.

There is a second key reason to be skeptical of a possible Palestine-Israel pact any time soon. A two-state deal remains the popular, and only clear, arrangement that could give both sides security and self-determination. Both sides must agree on such a deal and sell it to their people for it to stick. But decades of Israeli security control over the West Bank and decreasing Israeli-Palestinian contact make this unlikely.

Palestinians see Israelis mainly as coercive overlords who control central aspects of their lives in humiliating ways. Israelis have little direct contact with Palestinians, other than during their mandatory military service. This facilitates images of Palestinians as mainly violent agitators. The growing integration of West Bank settlements into Israeli society makes it much harder for them be to dismantled in a peace deal.

Trump and his allies in Cairo and Riyadh may think they can make an offer that Israelis and Palestinians can’t refuse. Yet leaders on each side remain accountable to diverse – and divided – voters.

The parties on the ground have had reasons to refuse U.S.-brokered deals in the past. Though people who care about peace and justice in the Middle East may wish otherwise, I doubt that Trump has found a new way to change this entrenched dynamic.

David Mednicoff does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.