Biden sanctions Israeli settlers over West Bank violence

girlfreddy@lemmy.ca to

News@lemmy.world – 610 points – 9 months ago

Biden sanctions Israeli settlers over West Bank violence

bbc.com

He signed an executive order on Thursday, saying violence had reached "intolerable levels".

The sanctions will block the individuals from accessing all US property and other assets.

Violence in the West Bank has spiked since Hamas's 7 October attack on Israel.

You are viewing a single comment

View all comments Show the parent comment

Sorry I forgot the part where PLO leader Arafat refusing any concessions in camp David was Egypt's doing. I forgot that the reason the second intifada and Hamas uprising was because of pesky old Egypt not negotiating for them or that the UN called it illegitimate. The part where the entire world was puzzled why Palestinians refused any offers that apparently Egypt was doing, very weird.

Arafat wasn’t a part of the Camp David Accords in 1978, you’re confused with the 2000 Camp David summit.

That 2000 summit fell apart because of a loggerhead over what is fundamental to both sides, and an Israeli negotiation redline hypocrisy - right of return. Arafat may well have been an Arab nationalist who wanted the three no’s forever and wouldn’t sign anything - but then why engage and negotiate at all? Concessions were offered from on both sides but Israel refused to permit those in the diaspora to return to their land, all while funding birthright trips for foreign Jews.

Egypt has a viable country and government, and got the canal back and A SHITLOAD of land Israel had taken. Palestinians were being offered what the US and Canada gave the First Nations after we broke treaty after treaty.

Ah shit you got me i got the words swapped. I meant the summit being the last attempt of a treaty that Arafat didnt even bother trying to negotiate. What i was trying to say was there was an attempt for land swaps and a passage way for peace but the PLO captain shat his pants and decided he wants murder on his hands. Oslo II might have been the last official treaty but there have been attempts to get peace and a 2 state solution since then.

The only reason Egypt even has the Sinai back is because Israel offered it back as a sign of peace after it was captured. Palestinians have nothing to offer. Not even the Egyptians want them back in the Sinai now.

I meant the summit being the last attempt of a treaty that Arafat didnt even bother trying to negotiate.

@febra@lemmy.world has addressed this point very nicely in a post which unfortunately is no longer readable. So allow me to quote it because it shows very well how insulting, I'd say on purpose, the whole proposal of Israel was. They just wanted something so outlandish that it was refused outright so they can later say "See we tried but they don't want to talk!!!!!!". The whole tactic is very similar to Austria-Hungary's ultimatum to Serbia which they specifically worded so Serbia had to refuse it or stop being a sovereign state.

Anyway here's the post of @febra@lemmy.world. It's a bit long but definitely worth the read to get a better understanding of this very complex situation:

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. They were a very loose set of vague directions both sides were supposed to go down on. Before that there were no other concrete accords. One would argue that the Camp David Summit was the closest both sides ever got to making peace. So let's take a look at that one and use it as a good compass in this discussion.

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 with other countries

have Israeli 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 for a temporary amount of time

give Israel temporary control over Palestinian border crossings (without having a specified timeframe)

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 they had at the time.

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. To me, it looks like they were designed to fail from the get-go. 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 Ehud 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.

Ehud Barak was from the Labour governments you were talking about, and this is the best Israel could ever come up with.

Trying to paint this situation as it being a level field where both sides did the same amount of wrongdoing is not a fair representation of the history of the peace process.

Since the most promising talks ever, the Camp David Summit, Israel has allowed over 750k settlers to move into the West Bank. A military regime has been installed and forced upon the occupied population contrary to international law. If getting the 30k settlers out of Gaza in 2005 was hard enough and almost caused an uproar inside the IDF, getting 750k settlers out of the West Bank will be straight up impossible without a major conflict.

There will never be two states and I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that this was in majority the doing of the Palestinians. We should talk a good look at all these facts when we start discussing this conflict and use them as a compass.

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.

Thank you for this comprehensive explanation of the situation.

You're welcome. It was quite eye opening to me when I read it first, so it was worth saving.

I absolutely don't think any of these propositions are outlandish or even remotely insulting. This was a hindsight problem. Given that we are now 20 years into the future, Palestinians would be stupid to not agree to these if it were proposed again. But that won't happen because of a multitude of reasons.

Again, all I was trying to say was that Oslo II was not the last time there was an attempt at a 2 state solution. Saying "take back to green line" is kind of dumb to me because that's no longer in scope of a solution.

"Oh man israel committed so many war crimes since they last gave the Palestinians a bad deal, that the previous deal looks amazing to the war crimes Palestinians are suffering from right now.

But instead of offering the Palestinians the previous deal israel will offer one that is far worse than the situation Palestinians are in right now".

You described the history of israel good job.

Yeah why not, that's how the world works. It's not like Palestinians are making their case any better. There was relative peace and stability in he area for 20ish years until Hamas decided to shit their pants. Why would Israel want to give them any benefit of the doubt when they are proving themselves to not be trustworthy?

I absolutely don’t think any of these propositions are outlandish or even remotely insulting.

When you look at it from the perspective of the Palestinians who want their own country with the sovereignty this entails, it absolutely is insulting. With those limitations they would be little more than a puppet state of Israel. Not only another state but one they have serious grievances and a bloody history with. There's no way they could accept this. Israel knew this very well!

I was ready to make a post on how the blockade didnt exist until Hamas took over and why but I would be interested to hear it from a Palestinian perspective.

I saw last night that Biden might be considering labelling them as sovereign. I feel like this would be a giant double edged sword for them. If Palestine becomes it's own nation and Israel was forced to open the blockade that would be great for Palestinians. If Hamas still decided to attack Israel at this point then the IDF would have justification to attack even harder.

Not even the Egyptians want them back in the Sinai now.

That is an extremely problematic view. It reminds me of the Évian Conference where Hitler was arguing that "no one wants the jews" since the US, UK, and other countries refused to take in german jewish refugees, and thus "the final solution" was spawned. It's an extremely dehumanising view that ended up in genocide. Please refrain from repeating such opinions.

Besides that, the Palestinians have a long history in Palestine. I don't understand what you're hinting at with "wanting them back". Back where? They already have a home.

You misconstrued what I said. I meant they don't have anything to offer either Israel nor Egypt. Even if they wanted to negotiate again, they don't have anything going for them. Don't twist my words to fit some other topic.

Tbh, if you don't want people to misunderstand the things you say, then you need to start saying things with your chest. Stop posting inscrutable and reactionary blandities and start posting clear and intelligible opinions supported by as many facts as you're able to muster. Lemmy will be a better place if you do :)

Wow so I don't play along and you hit me with the "reactionary blandities". You can confront what I said rather than spout off. I'm sure you have some great points to cover. I don't particularly like being made a scarecrow but please educate me.

The point that I'm trying to make is that your comments are so nonspecific that it is impossible to "educate you" for the same reasons that it is impossible to nail a cloud to a wall. For example, in your first comment, you say that it is "Interesting how you used Oslo II and not the failed camp David summit options that Israel tried" but you don't explain why you think it's interesting or why they failed or why you think they should have succeeded but didn't or any other jumping off point to give others a chance to agree with you or rebut you. You just said something bland and vague and impossible to pin down. How could anyone possibly agree or disagree or even have a discussion about a statement as generic as "I find this interesting!"?

Ummm all I tried to say was that it's unfair to use a temporary solution (Oslo II) as the metric. I find it interesting that you can't understand that. Do you want me to elaborate on why I find that interesting or do you want to address why the green line is still in contention? You seem to be an expert at deflecting.

Ummm all I tried to say was that it's unfair to use a temporary solution (Oslo II) as the metric

So say that with your chest! Say what you believe clearly and concisely exactly like you just did, explain why you believe what you do, and do it in a top-level comment without someone having to prompt you twice to do it. If you want bonus points, provide relevant citations for your claims.

That's how you make your posts corporeal rather than cloudlike. You have to put yourself out there and make your position known, and if you're going to do that then you might as well take the time to come correct

You are pretty patronizing lol you came into this conversation not saying anything with expectations. I am not trying to debate lord like the rest of you guys. I generally write here the same way i talk. I am not trying to win debates. If you have any more suggestions, my suggestion box is right here 🗑

4 more...

The do explain why you said “they don’t want them back”. When have the majority of Palestinians come from the Egyptian part of the Sinai peninsula? Since you’re obviously taking about this “back” it implies they must come from there, right? And please do explain what that message is hinting at or implying. Why would it even matter if someone “wanted them back”?

Let me put it this way for you: Do Europeans want the Ashkenazi Jews back? Does that even matter? Can you see how out of place this sounds now?

Why are you guys harping on one sentence.... All I meant was that Palestine has 0 friends here. They have no leverage yet they want fucking Oslo II to come back like if the last 20 years was a bad dream.

Because you’re clearly showing your true colours. There’s no point in having a genuine conversation with someone that talks in such a dehumanising manner.

My true colors is that Palestinians fucked up? Where am I being dehumanizing? I am just pointing out that Oslo II is not now nor not ever going to be a solution unless Gaza start shitting gold. Green line is a distant memory.

4 more...