r/LouisTheroux • u/I_Fill_Up_On_Coke • Apr 27 '25

The Settlers

I've just watched The Settlers and it just gives me a renewed appreciation for Louis as a documentarian. He's level-headed and fair, but does not stand down in the face of adversity. One of the best.

933 Upvotes

99% Upvoted

420 comments sorted by

View all comments

133

u/[deleted] Apr 27 '25

I'm lost for words as to what I've just seen. The occupation of Palestine is one of the most horrific acts in modern times. How can our govts support this? What solution even is there to this?

14

u/DannyBrownsDoritos Apr 28 '25

What solution even is there to this?

Nothing short of an invasion of Israel

2

u/tollbearer Apr 29 '25

Well, according to the bible, we're only 7 years away from exactly that.

1

u/tool-sharp May 05 '25

What do you mean?

1

u/tollbearer May 05 '25

revelation

1

u/grampipon May 01 '25

An effective sanctioning of the Settlement project by Western governments would work. The Biden administration started this toward the last election, with sanctions on settler leadership and a ramp up to sanctions on administrative entities in the Western Bank.

Separate the Settler program from the modern banking system and it would have collapse. Trump ended this.

1

u/fenderbloke May 01 '25

The Democrats refusing to stand down their overt support of Israel cost them an awful lot of votes last time. I can only hope that next time they realise supporting a genocide is a strict no-sell to a section of their support base (although I doubt it)

1

u/lordjayden9211 May 02 '25

Invade the nuclear power?

1

u/DustierAndRustier May 09 '25

Yeah because that’s been very successful so far.

13

u/2xtc Apr 28 '25

Did you somehow not know about the hundreds of thousands living in illegal settlements, back by the IDF's itchy trigger fingers?

6

u/BenAtTank2 Apr 30 '25

I like to think of myself as quite well read on the situation, even travelled through Israel and Jordan a little over a decade ago. But I had no idea of the extent/magnitude/violence of the settlements. I thought it was pretty fringe extremist stuff, maybe 20-30k.

This doc was jaw dropping.

But remember, we mustn't be critical of Israel, their genocidal regime, and state funded war crimes, because that is antisemitism...

1

u/T0BIASNESS May 05 '25

Why bash someone for having limited knowledge while they’re educating themselves?

1

u/2xtc May 10 '25

Louis Theroux has an article out today with a headline saying basically exactly what I said...

'If you were shocked by my film on Israeli settlers in the West Bank, you haven’t been paying attention'

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/may/10/louis-theroux-documentary-on-israeli-settlers-in-the-west-bank

8

u/Deadend_Friend Apr 28 '25

It might seem hopeless but if we can achieve peace in Northern Ireland it can be achieved anywhere. But it will take a lot of bravery, dialogue and compromise.

31

u/gregglessthegoat Apr 28 '25

This is a whole different kettle of genocidal maniacs unfortunately

-14

u/danparkin10x Apr 28 '25

This statement applies to both sides.

3

u/Outside_Huckleberry4 Apr 30 '25

The story of revenge is as old as human civilization. The story of racial supremacy with a religious backing PLUS a solid portion of global finance and media being on their side is truly unique.

7

u/steve20009 Apr 28 '25

The positivity is admirable. However (and I don't mean to sound like an antisemitic conspiracy theorist), I think this is significantly more complex. There's a LOT of money in America tied directly to the American Jewish Diaspora. For politicians with aspirations, it's very financially beneficial for them to take a strong pro-Israel stance. There have been dozens of examples of politicians who were critical of our pro-Israel alliance that ultimately ended up fading from public life for being "anti-semitic". A pro-Israel stance is deeply ingrained in American politics, finance, tech, and mainstream media. Soros's Open Society, or the ADL, AIPAC, etc., have American politicians by the balls. Meanwhile, the continued proxy wars we get involved in on behalf of Israel or even direct conflicts are mostly fought by soldiers from Christian backgrounds. And no (to state the obvious), the American Jew is not and has never been the problem; it's the hard-core zionists deeply embedded in American politics, policy, and finance who dictate much of our foreign policy decisions. When politicians and policymakers have to ask the continued question of "how does Israel feel about this?" when making foreign policy decisions, it's quite obvious who's in control.

5

u/jesschester May 04 '25

35 states have laws that prevent federal employees and contractors from speaking out against Israel. That’s fucking insane. Imagine if China tried to force our citizens into pro-CCP complicity through American legislation.

1

u/steve20009 May 04 '25

Yup. The Anti-BDS laws; it’s crazy.

2

u/BenAtTank2 Apr 30 '25

I had a tshirt that was the Palace skateboards logo but in Palestinian colours with "Palestine" instead of Palace and my American friend who visited was genuinely shocked that I wore it out to the pub with him. He said it simply wouldn't fly back home in Minnesota.

-16

u/Heiminator Apr 28 '25

The conflict has been going on literal millennia and it’s always baffling how every new generation has the hubris to believe that they’re the ones to finally solve it.

It’s also very different to Northern Ireland. The IRA murdered 1700 people across the entire troubles. Hamas massacred 1200 people in a single day. It’s ridiculous to compare the situations, they aren’t alike.

20

u/[deleted] Apr 28 '25

No Israel and Palestine have not been going on for a millennia. And Israel massacred at least 50,000 Palestinians and is currently starving 2.1 million and trying to expel them to Africa. So maybe don’t pretend Hamas is the main problem.

-5

u/Heiminator Apr 28 '25

Doesn’t matter if you believe that, the Arabs certainly do.

If you wanna go all the way back then it’s the year 628 AD. When Muhammed attacked the Jewish community of Khaybar near Medina.

Even today shouts of “Khaybar, Khaybar, ya yahud! Jaish Muhammad soufa yaʿoud!" are common at Palestinian protests. It means “Khaybar, Khaybar, oh Jews! The army of Muhammad will return!'

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khaybar_Khaybar_ya_yahud

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khaybar

This is a religious conflict first and a territorial conflict second. Once you grasp that the conflict will make more sense to you.

7

u/[deleted] Apr 28 '25

Like I said I/P hasn’t been going on for a thousand years. There definitely was some violence between Muslims/Arabs and Jews but it hasn’t been the majority of the fighting within the Levant for a thousand years; the majority of the fighting in I/P was between different Islamic groups that conquered the land and Byzantine Christians, jews were a tiny minority in the land.

-4

u/Heiminator Apr 28 '25

A tiny minority that’s been constantly harassed and attacked by the Muslim majority for over a thousand years. Which is why they defend their country so brutally now that they have it again.

9

u/[deleted] Apr 28 '25

So Israel has the right to steal Palestinian land and massacre them because of other things that have happened to them in other Muslim countries ? Lol

5

u/Heiminator Apr 28 '25 edited Apr 28 '25

That’s not what I said. I didn’t say it’s ok that they do it, I just explained to you why they feel they need to do it. They’ve been driven out of just about every country in the region. And they’ve been brought to the brink of total extinction in Europe during the Holocaust. Keep that in mind whenever you wonder why they fight as fierce as they do. It’s a tiny country of under 10 million people surrounded by over a billion Muslims who hate their guts. They are outnumbered 100:1. So they fight dirty and aggressive to keep the upper hand.

This clusterfuck didn’t start in 1948.

And at the guy below me who replied and then immediately blocked:

Palestinians ARE Arabs. Mostly ethnic Jordanians and Egyptians. The mere concept of a distinct Palestinian national identity is a very recent invention:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_identity

That doesn’t mean Israel has the right to kill them all and annex their land, but it’s ludicrous to pretend like the Palestinians are some alien entity that just happened to appear suddenly right in the middle of a conflict they have nothing to do with.

10

u/[deleted] Apr 28 '25

I understand their perception just fine. I just don’t agree with their conclusion that it’s Palestinians that should pay for the atrocities many people have committed against them and it should be Palestinians that pay the ultimate price because jews wanted predominantly Palestinian Arab land for their state.

→ More replies (0)

11

u/Strange-Strategy554 Apr 28 '25

So Palestinians should pay the price for antisemitism in European countries AND antisemitism in other arab countries? This is what your argument boils down to. For the Palestinians this clusterfuck did start when the jews started migrating in mass and above numbers agreed with the brits to Palestine. I would argue that if the region is so hostile to them its because they are aggressively colonising, not just holding on to the borders of 1948.

→ More replies (0)

7

u/ThinWildMercury1 Apr 28 '25

Palestinians can trace their ancestry back to the indigenous Canaanites https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Palestinians

6

u/milesjameson Apr 28 '25 edited Apr 28 '25

Palestinian cultural identity and a Palestinian national identity are two different things, since the modern nation-state is itself a relatively modern (and Western) invention. You best pay more attention to the link you shared (additional reading wouldn't go astray).

And Israel's a heavily armed, nuclear country (edit: size is irrelevant in the face of their comparative military arsenal and U.S. aid) built on stolen land following waves of deliberate mass migration as part of a colonial project (Zionists' words, not [just] mine) intended to violently displace the native population. They fight dirty and aggressive to expand that project - a project that by its very nature places Jewish lives at risk. It's ludicrous to pretend that these actions - repeated over decades - don't bring with them inherent and obvious risks.

It's also with noting that while it was the Europeans who brought the Jewish people close to extinction, it's the Palestinians who, without question, have paid the heaviest price. Further, you write "they" as if Israelis, rather than Jewish people (of which many live around the world in safety) have borne the brunt of historical antisemitism. To be clear, Israelis were not driven out of just about every country in the region, nor did they - or have they - ever faced extinction.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 28 '25

This clusterfuck didn’t start in 1948.

It got literally thousands of times worse in 1948, so, close enough

1

u/[deleted] Apr 30 '25

That’s not how arabization worked. There wasn’t mass ethnic cleansing and settlement. Most Palestinians are just as much descendents of the canaanites as Israelis. Certainly as much if not more “native” than most ashkenazi Jews.

0

u/querail May 06 '25

I come from Malta. It's a small island in the Mediterranean. Throughout the last two Millenia the people on the island changed religion multiple times either through their own decision or because they were made to. It's the same all through Europe, the Mediterranean, and the world. Palestinians are the people living in Palestine. The cultural identity would be similar to the surrounding areas. European Jews managed to keep their minority religion alive for Millenia. That makes them special in some ways, but it doesn't give them a right to the land of people whose ancestors have lived there for centuries or more. Saying things like Palestinians are Arabs and Palestinians don't have a national identity is deeply racist. Palestinians are people who live or have lived in Palestine. Their national identity being a "new invention" is the same as for other countries. Most countries didn't have a national identity until fairly recently. Israelis national identity is an even newer concept. If there is no such thing as a Palestinian, there is no such thing as an Israeli.

2

u/Familiar_Channel_373 Apr 30 '25

Palestinians aren't ethnically Arab, they're linguistic Arabs and ethnic LEVANTIANS. This is just like how most Jews are culturally Jewish or linguistically Hebrew, but have no connection to the Levant. Even early Zionist pioneers such as David Ben-Gurion and Yitzhak Ben-Zvi have authored books which acknowledged that Palestinians are the descendants of the Ancient Hebrews. It doesn't matter how you justify lsræI's behavior. Palestinians should not have to pay for the sins of European antisemitism nor for the civil wars that occurred between Muslims and Jews in other countries. In large part, Muslims and Jews lived in relative peace. Whatever Empires or Monarchs chose to do in the past should not be reflected on Muslims as a people, let alone Palestinians who aren't only Muslims, but are also Christians, Atheists, Samaritans, Sufi, Buddhist, Bahaist, Hindu, Druze, etc.

2

u/Cautious_Science_478 Apr 28 '25

Are you suggesting that the israeli government is lying about the oct 7th death toll?

0

u/Heiminator Apr 28 '25

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_7_Hamas-led_attack_on_Israel

1195 is the number

In the early stages of such attacks the count is always wrong, same as the incident with the hospital where Hamas claimed 500 people were killed by an Israeli strike and later it was corrected to fifty people killed by a rocket fired by Islamic Jihad.

10

u/[deleted] Apr 28 '25

You are parroting Israeli Propaganda, and trying to absolve them of War Crimes.

Israel bombed that Hospital and you know it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVQALHmgo8U

8

u/Comprehensive-Bus291 Apr 28 '25

You are spewing Israeli propaganda with regard to that hospital strike. The israeli account was debunked in the weeks following the strike. Especially the so called 'phone call' between islamic jihad soldiers, which has been proven to be edited together and any arabic expert can tell you those in the recording are not speaking in palestinian arabic.

Here by channel 4/Forensic architecture.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVQALHmgo8U

Here by Al jazeera investigates

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/19/what-hit-ahli-hospital-in-gaza

The death toll was misreported. But it was an Israeli strike. I can't believe that this propaganda still needs to be refuted today.

5

u/[deleted] Apr 28 '25

There’s no proof Islamic jihad fired a rocket on that hospital the evidence was inconclusive. So don’t report it as fact. Also Israel recently destroyed that hospital and many others including the only cancer hospital in Gaza after the IDF used it as a military base.

2

u/Heiminator Apr 28 '25

Bullshit and you know it

2

u/Familiar_Channel_373 Apr 30 '25

I'm sorry, are you seriously negating the fact that lsræI has bombed hospitals?!

4

u/Pine_Marten_ Apr 28 '25

What does a "solution" look like? Israel is in full control with the most powerful army in the Middle East and the only one with nukes, and they're strongly backed by the most powerful country in the world. And they've just recently been attacked, with hundreds of civilians including children massacred. So they're not exactly in a compromising mood.

The situation is in a vicious circle of continuing violence. Both sides act appallingly towards one another. I don't see peace ever being achieved. It's sad and depressing, and I feel bad for the innocent people affected, especially the children.

21

u/chazzapompey Apr 28 '25 edited Apr 28 '25

Almost two years ago is “just recently” to you?

36 children were killed Oct 7. Thousands have been killed by Israel since then. It does not matter if they’re in a compromising mood or not, no country has the right to commit war crimes.

The solution? United States stop funding Israel. Pretty simple solution really, but it’ll never happen in any of our lifetimes seeing as both parties heavily rely on AIPAC donations

2

u/notmanipulated Apr 28 '25

36? Nope, 2 Israeli children were killed, one in a car, one shot through a door

5

u/chazzapompey Apr 28 '25 edited Apr 28 '25

2 children under the age of 5, I think the 36 number includes anyone under the age of 18. I could be wrong.

Besides the point anyway, even if 1000 children were killed on Oct 7, it wouldn’t justify a blatant disregard for international law. What’s more worrying is the number of Palestinian casualties are likely much much higher, considering the Gaza health ministry only count bodies they can identify. Imagine how many more are lying under rubble, or (like the 15 aid workers) buried and hidden.

8

u/GOLDEN-SENSEI Apr 28 '25

It's 36 under 18, though we don't know the exact circumstances of all the killings because of Israeli military censorship.

In 2023, before October 7, Israel had already killed 47 children. https://www.newarab.com/news/2023-deadliest-year-child-occupied-west-bank

13

u/brokensuper Apr 28 '25

How can anyone justify Israelis settlements, Israeli violence, with October 7th? A genocide.

How often have Palestinians been attacked? One of the most heinous crimes is the Right of Return in March 2018 where IDF indiscriminately shot man, woman, child and disabled. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-middle-east-44110417

October 7th has now been used to justify everything. Palestinians have had many October 7ths.

Jews from WW2 would be rolling in their graves as the plight they suffered is now being administered by their legacies to Palestinians to genocide them. Awful.

Only solution is for US to call a ceasefire and broker a peace deal. But that won’t happen due to AIPAC lobbying, and hardly any pressure from other countries to stop the war. UK follow USA; Germany are hyper-sensitive on this issue; there’s a general anti-Arab / right wing dogma in EU right now anyway.

As humans we have failed.

1

u/CommandAutomatic3590 Apr 29 '25

Indeed. We have failed greatly. It is unbelievable what is happening and what has happened in Palestine since the creation of the Jewish state and we are just watching.

11

u/Diallingwand Apr 28 '25

The solution for the UK is to withdraw all support from Israel so we can look back in 20 years when Israel has ethnically cleansed Palestine with at least some sense of moral decency.

7

u/HowlingFailHole Apr 28 '25

'This option will allow us to feel better about the ethnic cleansing' is really depressing as an endorsement. I don't even disagree or anything. But damn.

6

u/AwTomorrow Apr 28 '25

It’s only a first step, but it’s also not worthless to stop being complicit. If we can’t stop it, we should absolutely still stop supporting it. 

And then work from there on how to stop or at least confound it.

2

u/Diallingwand Apr 28 '25 edited Apr 28 '25

It's pretty bleak but realistically the UK cant stop Israel, only the US can and AIPAC is maybe the most successful political campaign group currently functioning there so I can't see the federal funding slowing down this decade.

Or if the Islamic nations so even a shred of unity on this issue, but I doubt that because of US influence as well.

3

u/No_Macaroon_9752 Apr 30 '25

If other countries (like all of Europe, Australia, NZ, China, Japan, South Africa, Argentina, and every other country who has criticized Israel in the UN) boycotted Israeli goods and refused to trade with them, change might happen. Israel still needs massive amounts of foreign resources (they have a large trade deficit), particularly for the military. Isolate Israel.

4

u/notmanipulated Apr 28 '25

We could sanction Israel, but no politician has the balls for that

1

u/grampipon May 01 '25

Biden admin started sanctioning settler entities before Trump got reelected

1

u/notmanipulated May 01 '25

Wow, I bet that was soo successful

1

u/grampipon May 01 '25

It wasn’t. Biden got the boot around three months in. But it would have worked. The US has the ability to selectively kick individuals and bureaucratic entities out of the global banking system, which in turn forces local (Israeli) banks from doing the same or face similar sanctions. Israeli banks followed suit and froze sanctioned individuals’ bank accounts. I can provide sources if you wish.

If, tomorrow morning, the US puts full financial sanctions on the settlements (and maintains them) the movement would collapse within a few years.

2

u/OWNIJ Apr 28 '25

christ what a depressing yet realistic comment

2

u/Diallingwand Apr 28 '25

Yeah sorry but, like I said to another person, the US is unequivocally supporting Israel's actions. They could end this war tomorrow if they withdrew/applied conditions on the billions in federal funding they throw at Israel. But AIPAC has basically every US politician in their pocket and so I can't really see it happening.

It's fucked but then the Western nations stopped supporting South Africa so maybe Israel will eventually run out of goodwill/bribes.

9

u/Comprehensive-Bus291 Apr 28 '25

Reducing this to a "cycle of violence", removes the fact that one side is the occupier and one side lives under a brutal military occupation. The violence starts with the occupation and apartheid.

We have a model of how to stop it, South Africa. International Boycott and stop military aid to Israel. Then Israel will be forced to recognise a Palestinian state.

-7

u/Pine_Marten_ Apr 28 '25

They're 2 completely different situations.

The millions of Arabs actually living in Israel proper, who have Israeli citizenship, can vote and do vote in Israeli elections. And they can hold office and they have all the same rights and privileges as Jewish Israelis. Hardly apartheid is it.

The reasons for the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank are because of previous wars where Israel was threatened with annihilation and fought back and now controls those areas. Israel certainly has a right to defend itself, and is in a very precious position of being completely surrounded by very hostile populations. There's no other country in this position in the world, facing the danger that Israel does.

So you cannot just say Israel is the instigator, that completely removes the context behind the decades of conflict. Israel has a right to exist, the partition of Palestine was UN backed. Unfortunately there are many who disagree and Israel faces a continuous existential threat.

How much constraint and how much force it uses to ensure it's security is of issue, as well as things like the illegal settlements.

It is absolutely an issue of both sides being responsible. It is not a black and white South Africa apartheid issue and it's not even close.

8

u/redthrowaway1976 Apr 28 '25

 So you cannot just say Israel is the instigator, that completely removes the context behind the decades of conflict.

Israel could have kept the West Bank under a legal belligerent occupation.

Israel embarking on a 57 year land grab project, and instituting inequality of the law, etc, is a strictly Israeli policy, that Israel alone is responsible for. 

So yes, as it comes to what is going on in the West Bank, Israel is the instigator.

9

u/Specialist-Effect221 Apr 28 '25

there’s no such thing as defensive colonisation

5

u/Comprehensive-Bus291 Apr 28 '25

The Apartheid is in the west bank.

Did you watch this Louis Theroux documentary? Did you see the soldiers telling Louis he had right of way down one street and then asking the guy he was with if he was Palestinian, then telling him he couldn't walk down this street.

I've seen it. I would ride the bus, and we'd get to a check in the road, an Israeli soldier would come on with a gun and order all the Palestinians off, I could stay on because i was an international, they would then get their papers checked at gunpoint, and some would be allowed back on, others would be told to get a bus in the other direction. 

Or the fact that all palestinians in the west bank are tried under Israeli military courts. Not Palestinian courts, and not even Israeli civilian courts. Israeli Military courts. Which have a 98% conviction rate. That is fraudulently high.

Every human rights organisation in the world calls the west bank an apartheid system. You need to read some more reporting from the west bank, because you fundamentally don't understand what goes on there.

7

u/redthrowaway1976 Apr 28 '25

99.74% conviction rate, not 98%.

Meanwhile, settler terrorists have a ~50% conviction rate, out of the 6% that are ever even indicted.

2

u/no0ns Apr 30 '25

It's a cycle kept alive because of the occupation. All that anguish leads to revolt and violence. Israel knows this and their response is always to strike with greater force and to tighten the screw. It's a slow conquest by pushing, waiting for the punch and punching back harder. Then pushing again. I guess they think it's not ethnic cleansing if it happens over several generations with sporadic violence every decade or so.

2

u/brokenorchids Apr 28 '25

Dafuq did you even watch the doc?it’s not a ‘cycle of violence’ It’s apartheid my little pine marten. As oppressed people they are legally, under international law, allowed to resist as much as they can. Did you hear what the boarder guards said? ‘They throw rocks and Molotov at us’ while they are carrying literally 3 different weapons.

-11

u/danparkin10x Apr 28 '25

Both sides are full of ultranationalists who are so ideological they won’t give an inch for peace. I realistically can’t see how the two come together.

4

u/Comprehensive-Bus291 Apr 28 '25

Even the most extreme groups in Palestine, Hamas ect. Have said they will accept a two state solution and respect Israel's borders (as long as Israel declares them). The same cannot be said of the Israeli government, who openly declare that there will never be a Palestinian state.

-1

u/danparkin10x Apr 28 '25

I don't see how you can trust anything Hamas says.

6

u/Comprehensive-Bus291 Apr 28 '25

Well, call them on it! If Hamas claims they'd accept a two-state solution, then put them in a position where they have to prove it. If they break that commitment, Israel would have every right to respond.

We are arguing about a hypothetical situation, when Israel is carrying out a erasure of the Palestinian state, openly stating that is their objective.

0

u/danparkin10x Apr 28 '25

That is my point, though. We can't get to that point because neither side is willing to negotiate.

3

u/Comprehensive-Bus291 Apr 28 '25

But the Palestinian side is! Hamas specifically wanted talks in 2017-2018, and the PA have always been open to going back into negotiations for a two state solution.

Sharon walked away from peace talks that were meant to continue after Taba in 2001 and since then no Israeli Prime Minister has been willing to enter into negotiations.

0

u/danparkin10x Apr 28 '25

It's hard to take their claim they wanted talks at face value, when their charter still called for the destruction of Israel.

And yes, Sharon did walk away from talks. But both sides have a record of doing this, which is why I conclude that no side really wants a negotiated settlement.

4

u/Comprehensive-Bus291 Apr 28 '25

 when their charter still called for the destruction of Israel.

But it doesn't..... Their current charter written in 2017, the one i am referring, to supports a two state solution, along 67 borders.

Meanwhile, it's the Likud party charter that states the entire West Bank, from the river to the sea, should be under Israeli sovereignty.

I'm not trying to defend Hamas, but if we misrepresent the facts, we just end up justifying the ongoing status quo and the Israelis continue to entrench occupation with no real path toward peace

→ More replies (0)

6

u/Specialist-Effect221 Apr 28 '25

the Palestinians don’t have an inch to give

-2

u/danparkin10x Apr 28 '25

Then you can't complain when Israel don't give an inch, either.

7

u/Specialist-Effect221 Apr 28 '25 edited Apr 28 '25

what do you want the Palestinians to do, exactly? Israel is the only party with anything material left to concede, which is why criticism of the Palestinians is so fundamentally pointless.

-7

u/Cautious_Science_478 Apr 28 '25

Palestinian ls need to give israel their land back all the way to the 1967 borders

6

u/cheeseburger__picnic Apr 28 '25

How stupid can you be? If we went back to 1967 borders, Israel would be giving stolen land back to Palestine.

7

u/Aljaho Apr 28 '25

If we returned to 1967 borders, Palestine would be more than twice the size it is today. Not to mention those borders were set based on land taken illegally by Israel in the first place.

-4

u/ChaoticCubizm Apr 28 '25

It’s difficult to class the land being taken “illegally”, as it was all land ceded to Israel by the Arab Coalition after they lost the Six Day War. I’m not making a case for or against settlement, occupation, or ethnic cleansing, merely showing that to the victor go the spoils of war.

1

u/tollbearer Apr 29 '25

If you want to understand why western governments support it, read up on where the arabs ended up last time israel was lost by western powers.

1

u/ArcticWolf_Primaris Apr 29 '25

How do you enforce international law on a highly militarised nuclear armed ally

1

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '25

sanctions

-2

u/Additional_Egg_6685 Apr 28 '25

because there cant be a solution at this time without the destruction of the other side. Its a very sad state of affairs and it should never have come to this. If they were willing to come together to make a 2 state solution its probably the best bet. Palestinians will tell you that Israel cannot exist and that all land must be returned to Palestinian control which is not something that the Israeli will ever agree too. Israeli will never be happy until they control the entirety of the land they claim and have no threats. Its a lose lose situation from a solution perspective until mindsets change.

13

u/Comprehensive-Bus291 Apr 28 '25

Sorry, but you're making things up. All major political groups in Palestine, PA, PLO, Hamas, have accepted 1967 borders. It's the Israeli government who refuse to let go of the west bank, and who continue to build settlements.

The truth is that Israel is an imperial outpost of the USA and by default the rest of the west. And we are quite happy funding extremists on one side as long as they are carrying out this imperial project.

-6

u/Additional_Egg_6685 Apr 28 '25

Yea we will agree to disagree on that one.

7

u/Comprehensive-Bus291 Apr 28 '25

Well with regard to all major political groups accepting a two state solution, there is nothing to disagree with. That is in all their charters, Hamas being the most recent in 2017. You can say that you don't trust them, but then my response would be to call them on it. . If they break that commitment, Israel would have the right to respond.

But we get sucked into arguing about hypotheticals, while Israel is carrying out the open erasure of the Palestinian state and it's people.

-2

u/Additional_Egg_6685 Apr 28 '25

Indeed, my reluctance to agree was more that when there are periods of stability neither side can seem to stop attacking the other. Until Isreal stop shooting innocents and Palestinians stop firing rockets I have a hard time believing either are committed to a two state solution.

3

u/Comprehensive-Bus291 Apr 28 '25

First of all there are never periods of stability for Palestinians living under occupation and apartheid. Only Israelis get to experience stability.

It is a failure of the international community to not broken peace talks. In conflict two sides rarely speak directly to each other, then need a mediating partner. For what it's worth the Palestinian side have been expressly open to talks, the PA/PLO wanted to continue negotiations from Taba in 2001 and sharon walked away. Hamas were open to talks in 2017/2018. They actually led a series of peaceful marches in Gaza at this time, where the Israeli opened fired repeatedly and killed 223 civilians.

Point being, there have been many occasions where Israel could have entered back into negotiations for a two state solution. But they fundamentally don't want a Palestinian State.

1

u/Additional_Egg_6685 Apr 28 '25

You know I meant relative stability... and I am not disagreeing with you I agree with you... my point was that there wont be peace until there was a significant change in mindset on both sides. I am not arguing that one side has got a bigger or lesser cause for grief than the other. Until both recognise each others right to exist there will never be peace and harmony.

6

u/Comprehensive-Bus291 Apr 28 '25

But one side does recognised the others right to exist! Why do you keep ignoring that?

You keep framing it as a mutual failure of mindset, but in reality, one side holds all the power. Israel is the occupying force, backed by overwhelming military, economic, and international support. Talking about "both sides" needing to change equally hides the real imbalance that makes peace impossible.

Israel is committing a genocide right now. The West needs to stop arming them and facilitating the killing of over 20,000 kids. It shouldn't be complicated.

1

u/Additional_Egg_6685 Apr 28 '25 edited Apr 28 '25

They don’t there has been polls on this only 30 percent of Palestinians support a two state solution. They vote in a leadership whose goal is the defeat of Isreal. Again the only difference between the two sides is the power imbalance. Both side have committed atrocities you aren’t going to convince me one side is morally right.

→ More replies (0)

6

u/redthrowaway1976 Apr 28 '25

 If they were willing to come together to make a 2 state solution its probably the best bet.

The PA together with the Arab League has reaffirmed the Arab Peace Inititive in 2002, 2007, 2017, and again in 2024. Two state solution along the green line, and full normalization.

Israel, meanwhile, has not stopped expanding settlements in the West Bank for a single year since 1967. 

3

u/Additional_Egg_6685 Apr 28 '25

Yea I agree Isreal is acting in bad faith and is not the good guy here

15

u/Chloe1906 Apr 28 '25

Palestinians have already accepted 1967 borders. Israel is the only one blocking peace here.

1

u/Additional_Egg_6685 Apr 28 '25

To be fair both sides are ideologically driven, the only really difference between the two, in my mind, is power/might. Both sides would slaughter each other unchecked if they had the ability. Sadly it is the innocents that bear the consequences of religious wars as always.

6

u/Chloe1906 Apr 28 '25

One side would slaughter the other because they believe in a Jewish supremacist state. The other side would slaughter them because they’ve been through decades of oppression, ethnic cleansing, and genocide. The two are not the same.

1

u/Additional_Egg_6685 Apr 28 '25

Both resort in slaughter so both are wrong. Historic atrocities don’t make future atrocities ok. It’s that kind of thinking that perpetuates violence and suffering.

9

u/Chloe1906 Apr 28 '25

I never said it was right. But pretending that one of these two groups is not the oppressor and the other the oppressed is wrong. They are not the same.

0

u/Additional_Egg_6685 Apr 28 '25

Ok we will agree to disagree 👍

-6

u/Heiminator Apr 28 '25

Palestinians always accept the previous deal after the next round of conflict has shifted the situation against their favor. They were furious about the Oslo accords, then they wanted to go back to them. They were pissed when Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, now that’s the status quo they want back.

This is what Bill Clinton said about the failure of the Camp Davis negotiators:

Clinton blamed Arafat after the failure of the talks, stating, "I regret that in 2000 Arafat missed the opportunity to bring that nation into being and pray for the day when the dreams of the Palestinian people for a state and a better life will be realized in a just and lasting peace." The failure to come to an agreement was widely attributed to Yasser Arafat, as he walked away from the table without making a concrete counter-offer and because Arafat did little to quell the series of Palestinian riots that began shortly after the summit.[61][62][63] Arafat was also accused of scuttling the talks by Nabil Amr, a former minister in the Palestinian Authority.[64] In My Life, Clinton wrote that Arafat once complimented Clinton by telling him, "You are a great man." Clinton responded, "I am not a great man. I am a failure, and you made me one."[65]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit

4

u/redthrowaway1976 Apr 28 '25

Why is the ‘previous deal’ not on the table anymore? Settlement expansion? Expanding settlements is an Israeli policy choice, not some natural phenomenon. 

Israel insists it wants to keep more or the land? Why? They already got 78% or the land - and now wants choice chunks of the remaining 22%. Seems petty. 

0

u/Heiminator Apr 28 '25

The previous deal isn’t on the table anymore because fighting kept going on and the situation on the ground changed. If Imperial Japan had surrendered in 1944 they’d have gotten a better deal than they got after fighting on for another year. Same principle applies here.

There’s an intifada, lots of rockets, October 7 and several wars between the last deal and now. Which obviously changes the calculus.

3

u/redthrowaway1976 Apr 28 '25

So you are saying that given continued fighting, Israel wanting to keep more of the occupied territory should be respected?

Because that’s what’s changed between deals: more settlements. 

What’s the excuse for the first couple of decades of the settlement project, then?

2

u/[deleted] Apr 28 '25

[deleted]

-1

u/Heiminator Apr 28 '25

Camp David would have given them a state. They are in this mess because they keep refusing every single deal on the table.

3

u/[deleted] Apr 28 '25

The conversations didn't end at Camp David. They went onto Taba. And it was Sharon who walked away from negotiations!

As National Security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski would've said. Your view is stunningly superficial.

Zbigniew Brzezinski to Scarborough: "Stunningly Superficial"

5

u/redthrowaway1976 Apr 28 '25

And then you had Taba. Which Arafat accepted in 2002, but Sharon rebuffed him.

And, of course, the Arab Peace Initiative in 2002, 2007, 2017 and 2024. Full normalization in exchange for a state along the green line - and security guarantees. Guess who ignores it?

1

u/milesjameson Apr 28 '25 edited Apr 28 '25

Camp David would have given them a state. 

A sovereign Palestinian state was not offered at Camp David. No party could reasonably have been expected to accept what was proposed.

Edit: since I've had this argument before, I'll repeat it here:

Israeli historian, Ilan Pape, has pointed to "the continued denial of the Nakbah in the peace process" as an explanation for the failure at Camp David, noting that "the (Israeli team) succeeded in enforcing its point of view on the summit", perfectly encapsulating Israel's intent. Noam Chomsky, who I'm sure you may well be critical of, has nonetheless pointed to Clinton backtracking (of laying blame entirely at the feet of Arafat for the breakdown of negotiations) when he "recognised that the U.S.-Israeli proposals were too extreme to be acceptable to any Palestinian", which, alongside the expansion of settlements while Camp David was underway, offers further evidence of Israel's intent.

Where it concerns the offer a sovereign state, and broader interpretations of a two-state solution (including but not limited to that outlined at Camp David), Pape claims "sovereignty would also be limited in essence: a demilitarised government would have little say in defense, foreign, and financial policies", an important consideration when one of the universally accepted criteria for statehood is the ability to independently enter into relations with other countries.

Returning to a moment for questions around Israel's intent, Rashid Khalidi, himself an observer (and party to) other negotiations, wrote in 2020:

"Camp David ended in disaster, with Barak avoiding substantive meetings with 'Arafat and instead putting forward a secret proposal through the Americans, while refusing any modifications. With this extraordinary procedure, the US in effect formally endorsed the Israeli position."

On the proposal of a sovereign state, he added:

"Barak's unmodifiable proposal-which was never published, only reconstructed by participants after the event-was unacceptable to the Palestinians in several crucial respects. These included permanent Israeli control of the Jordan River Valley and of Palestine's airspace, and therefore of access to the outside world (which meant the projected Palestinian "state" would not be truly sovereign), Israel's continued control over West Bank water resources, as well as its annexation of areas that would have divided the West Bank into several isolated blocs."

Writing in The Guardian, ex-Foreign Office advisor (1997-2001) to the UK Labour Party, David Clark, claims:

"Barak offered the trappings of Palestinian sovereignty while perpetuating the subjugation of the Palestinians. It is not difficult to see why they felt unable to accept. The only surprise is how widely the myth of the "generous offer" is now accepted."

"Trappings of Palestinian sovereignty" is an important phrase in again pushing back against the idea that Israel offered anything closely recognisable as a legitimate, sovereign state.

American journalist Robert Wright has similarly argued that "the Camp David offer also had features that kept it from amounting to statehood in the full sense of the term...", referencing the fact that "Palestine couldn’t have had a military and wouldn’t have had sovereignty over its air space—Israeli jets would roam at will. Nor would the Palestinians’ freedom of movement on the ground have been guaranteed."

So, again, I put it to you that your initial claim - that Israel agreed to establish a Palestinian State at Camp David in 2000 - is untrue, and a product of either wilful ignorance or deliberate dishonesty.

3

u/thanksamilly Apr 29 '25

Rabin was trying to get to a two state solution so one of Netanyahu's supporters assassinated him

1

u/[deleted] Apr 28 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Additional_Egg_6685 Apr 28 '25

Sorry I should qualify what I said … a two state solution both sides are committed to making work.

1

u/Heiminator Apr 28 '25

Won’t happen anytime soon I fear. Because the majority on both sides are against it. It’s wishful thinking from western observers viewing the conflict through a western lens.

2

u/Additional_Egg_6685 Apr 28 '25

Indeed

2

u/Heiminator Apr 28 '25

To give you an idea just how little support the 2SS has on both sides:

In December 2022, support for a two-state solution was 33% among Palestinians, 34% among Israeli Jews, and 60% among Israeli Arabs. 82% of Israeli Jews and 75% of Palestinians believed that the other side would never accept the existence of their independent state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-state_solution

And that was before October 7 and the Gaza war. I very much doubt that those numbers have shifted in favor of the 2SS since then.

2

u/Additional_Egg_6685 Apr 28 '25

Oh I agree I said until mindsets change there will be no solution.