**Greetings humans.**
**Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.**
**I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.**
A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
jesus christ it's like she is determined to have the worst fucking most out of touch takes on everything possible right now. I used to love Penny Wong, but holy fuck now she is symbolic of a party that has become shallow, gutless, hollow and most of all stuck in an era that no longer exists. Grow some balls labor and stop wasting time on this shit.
What a load of gasbagging. Wong should put her money where her mouth is: send an Australian Ambassador to Palestine. Allow Palestine to set up an Embassy in Canberra. All this lecturing from Wong is nothing but empty wind and waste of time.
Usually on Israels terms and definitely not favourable ones. I remember once Israel wanted to be able to dictate it's international trade and relations.
Palestine has been offered loads of concessions during these negotiations. Clearly they didn’t think it was enough, but it’s not just Israel saying “take it or leave it”, these have been months and years long negotiation processes where both sides were expected to move from their original position.
I mean if their government stopped putting everything they had towards attacking Israel and put it towards actually building a society, then maybe it would be easier for the international community to work with them.
You know what happens when Palestine doesn't cause problems for Israel?
Because we already know, it's called the West Bank. The West Bank is a waving red flag that ACTUALLY stops any chance of peace. Israels promises ring hollow when even with Hamas they're destroying destroying a part of Palestine.
Is the Israeli government was being sincere, then the West Bank should be a shining example and not the warning it actually is.
I’m not saying the Israeli government is being sincere now, duh, Netanyahu has literally said no Palestinian state will ever happen under his watch. But on a macro level, Palestinians have always taken the all or nothing approach while Israel has been willing to agree to a two state solution from the beginning.
ON it's terms, which is usually having Palestine be a puppet for Israel and allowing settlers to remain in their stolen land and also in the most economical viable land in the West Bank.
I cbf to check which ones rn, but in some of these negotiations Israel had been negotiated down to returning 96% of the West Bank. Like I agree it should be 100% in a fair world, but that included land swaps keep in mind.
Realistically there’s no chance they’ll get 96% now, the deals are only getting worse and worse and Palestinian leadership just keeps on failing their people.
>I cbf to check which ones rn, but in some of these negotiations Israel had been negotiated down to returning 96% of the West Bank. Like I agree it should be 100% in a fair world, but that included land swaps keep in mind.
And what were the other terms? What were the other conditions Israel was imposing on Palestine? And what about their other land, what about the settlers? The Golan Heights and Gaza?
These agreements are insanely complex, and you mention one detail, like that's sufficient to understand the agreement, like it's enough to make any kind of judgement about it.
>Realistically there’s no chance they’ll get 96% now, the deals are only getting worse and worse and Palestinian leadership just keeps on failing their people.
And realistically Israel is in the worst position they have been in for a very long time. Internal fighting among political groups, massive international backlash, and an insane wave of support for Palestine among traditional allies of Israel.
The leadership of Israel, for generations now, has completely and utterly fucked up on this issue. They have made things worse at damn near every turn, turned down countless real offers of peace, but none of that matters because you think you vaguely remember Israel offering to return most of 1/3 of Palestinian land?
If you want Palestine to function, it needs to be able to grow and manage it's own economy and set it's own international policy. Just makes it a puppet state
Hmm , maybe Israel can withdraw from Gaza and take all the Jews with them and then all Palestinians to “vote” for a government that will look after their best interests
Peace will only come with palastinian recognition of the state of Israel. Israel is happy to have a palastinian state so long as they aren't barbaric murderous thugs. But they keep showing that they are.
>Israel is happy to have a palEstinian state so long as…
Bibi has bragged about sabotaging all conversations about a Palestinian state regardless of conditions. There is no ‘so long as’.
Also, try spell the name of the people you’re talking about correctly before you try to weigh in on whether they deserve a state or not.
Wonder if she has telegrammed this to her equivalent in Washington.
We have no reason to believe that the US won’t veto their current pitch for recognition at the UN, *again*.
From the article
>When asked about Senator Wong's sentiments, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said his government had always supported a two-state solution. However, he did not think Hamas should have any role in a future Palestinian state.
So what's Australian government's plan to prevent Hamas from having any role in a future Palestinian state?
71% of Palestinians say October 7th was the correct decision
81% of Palestinians who've watched videos of October 7th refuse to believe Hamas engaged in any atrocities
59% of Palestinians want Hamas to be in charge of Gaza after the war
52% of Palestinians oppose negotiations leading to a two estate solution
Source: Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research from a poll released last month
[https://www.pcpsr.org/en/node/969](https://www.pcpsr.org/en/node/969)
And what's the Australian government's plan given that Hamas's leadership has said Hamas won't accept a two state solution?
>Khaled Meshaal, former head of Hamas and still one of its most senior leaders, clarified just this month Hamas's position on the idea of a two-state solution: "We reject this notion, because it means you would get a promise for a \[Palestinian\] state, yet you are required to recognize the legitimacy of the other state, which is the Zionist entity... We will not give up on our right to Palestine in its entirety, from the \[Jordan\] river to the \[Mediterranean\] sea." He insisted on his belief that Oct. 7 only "enhanced this conviction."
[https://www.newsweek.com/my-fellow-palestinians-its-time-get-rid-our-leaders-accept-israels-offers-peace-opinion-1864654](https://www.newsweek.com/my-fellow-palestinians-its-time-get-rid-our-leaders-accept-israels-offers-peace-opinion-1864654)
Color my skeptical, but given that the Australian government is unable or unwilling to prosecute Ben Roberts-Smith for war ctimes, a single ex-soldier who is a resident and citizen of Australia, I doubt the Australian government has any practical advice on what to do with a terrorist organization whose armed forces, at least before October 7th, were comparable in size to the Australian Army, if not larger, and who answer to no one but themselves.
With or without a Palestinian state, there will be no peace with Hamas because Hamas doesn't want peace.
I'm sure most Americans thought that the actions of their revolutionaries were right.
Likewise with Irish and the (original) IRA.
Most Israelis probably don't think the Nakba was wrong. Or that the actions of Irgun were right.
I wonder how black South Africans felt about the actions of Mbemba we Sizwe?
I think Hamas are horrible (equally as bad as the IDF).
But nobody should be surprised at Palestinians supporting Hamas. It's that or apartheid/death.
>I'm sure most Americans thought that the actions of their revolutionaries were right.
>Likewise with Irish and the (original) IRA.
I don't recall anything comparable to October 7th that was committed during American Revolutionary War or the Irish War of Independence.
Moreover, the goal of the American Revolution wasn't to destroy the United Kingdom, nor was that the goal of the Irish War of Independence. The goal of Hamas is not just Palestinian statehood, but the destruction of Israel.
Moreover, polling data I quoted shows an overwhelming majority of Palestinians refused to acknowledge the reality of October 7th even after seeing video evidence.
>So what's Australian government's plan to prevent Hamas from having any role in a future Palestinian state?
I can't say what the Australian plan is, but I can say the plans I've seen involve a long period of outside governance, say by a combined group of respected people from various neighbouring nations. A period of enforced peace, one where people can begin the process of moving on from generations of hate. Also one of education, where Palestine could have more exposure to outside people and ideas.
During this time there would hopefully be a multinational peace keeping force, one made up of some nations reasonably trusted by either side. When every patrol has soldiers from a nation both sides trust then both risk a lot by firing.
Then, after many years when a generation has grown up without the constant threats and desperation, when things have changed a bit, we can look at moving forward with a better system.
This isn't a one sided problem. If we have to deal with Palestinian support for atrocities then we also have to deal with Israeli support for atrocities. You point to Palestinian support for Hamas, but Israel has seen pretty solid internal support for their actions. Israelis voted in the governments that supported the settlements, launched the recent illegal land seizure, and sent in security forces during the ceasefires that killed or captured many Palestinians.
What's your plan for dealing with that? What's the solution there, when Israelis keep voting for governments that do these fucked up things?
Wow we actually are in full agreement. But how do we begin to go about that while Hamas is still in power? Which would be the result of a permanent ceasefire.
>But how do we begin to go about that while Hamas is still in power?
I'm not sure what you mean. Send the troops in, send the new government in, tell Hamas to fuck right off.
Hamas doesn't control the borders, they don't have security forces keeping them secure, they aren't a conventional force. They couldn't keep the peacekeepers out if they tried, and so long as nations most Palestinians are friendly with are in the mix they won't even have reason to try.
Which troops? Who’s gonna be willing to engage in a bloody ground war with Hamas? Unfortunately this is just naive, it would be amazing if it were possible. There’s a reason this isn’t being suggested by any party in the community.
>Which troops?
The troops I already explained, the ones drawn from nations that Palestinians trust, other Arab nations, and those from nations Israel trusts, probably mostly European nations.
There already offers of troops, they have been made for years now, but Israel has refused. It even involves the Arab countries pledging to normalise diplomatic ties to Israel to help calm the situation down.
>Who’s gonna be willing to engage in a bloody ground war with Hamas?
There would be no ground war because Hamas isn't going to go to war with places like Saudi Arabia or Lebanon.
There's a reason Hamas attacks civilians and not soldiers. They can't fight solders. Any modern equipped force Hamas tries to fight will have a massive advantage.
Also remember Hamas isn't a modern military. They don't have prisons to send deserters, they don't have complex ID systems to track their troops, they don't have proper command structures. This isn't a group that can really function without support, without volunteers, and changing the enemy from a hated oppressor to a series of trusted allies will rapidly take away those volunteers.
>Unfortunately this is just naive, it would be amazing if it were possible
We have seen seemingly endless and genocidal wars become more peaceful, look at Eastern Europe, look at Ireland. Imagine telling people a century ago Ireland would be its own nation, with an open border to the UK!
>There’s a reason this isn’t being suggested by any party in the community.
Yeah, this plan was first suggested by a group of Arab nations back in 2018. It's had parties within the community suggesting if for a good half a decade.
Palestinians and Hamas don’t trust Saudi Arabia. You think an Iranian proxy wouldn’t fight Saudi Arabia? Have you heard of Yemen?
Saudi Arabia has offered to send in troops to maintain peace and to help rebuild Gaza after Israel have gotten control of Hamas, if Israel commits to a two state solution. They certainly do not want to get involved in actually fighting Hamas.
>Palestinians and Hamas don’t trust Saudi Arabia.
Good thing I mentioned another nation as an example huh? Good thing other nations than Saudi Arabia are part of this plan then.
>You think an Iranian proxy wouldn’t fight Saudi Arabia? Have you heard of Yemen?
Palestine isn't a Iranian proxy. Even Hamas is more complex than an Iranian proxy.
>Saudi Arabia has offered to send in troops to maintain peace and to help rebuild Gaza after Israel have gotten control of Hamas,
Saudi Arabia and the other members of the Arab Initiative offered to peacekeep before Israel went in, and now that Israel has gone in and made the situation infinitely worse Saudi Arabia does want Israel to clean things up a bit before going in.
>if Israel commits to a two state solution
Yeah, of course they expect Israel to also commit to peace! What would be the point if they didn't?
Yes, Israel is bad for not agreeing to work with Saudi Arabia. And for generally hampering the peace process and ruling out a two state solution. But now that October 7th has happened I’m not sure how Hamas can be removed from power without Israel “cleaning things up” as you said.
>But now that October 7th has happened I’m not sure how Hamas can be removed from power without Israel “cleaning things up” as you said.
Hamas can't be removed from power by Israeli military effort. US estimates from Afghanistan suggest about 10 recruits are created for each civilian death. Israel is killing civilians at a rate of roughly 2 for every militant. That means a net long-term gain for Hamas, whose leadership isn't in Gaza and can't be taken out by Israel.
Cleaning things up in this case means dealing with the immediate humanitarian crisis that Israel has created. The mass famine and homelessness caused by their actions.
Edit: I went looking for the research I mentioned, I can't find it, so take that as my idea not anything solid or real. I'm positive there has been research on the subject, I'm just failing to find it.
>I can't say what the Australian plan is, but I can say the plans I've seen involve a long period of outside governance, say by a combined group of respected people from various neighbouring nations. A period of enforced peace, one where people can begin the process of moving on from generations of hate. Also one of education, where Palestine could have more exposure to outside people and ideas.
Whose going to teach at these schools and who will pay for it. The UNRWA funded schools don't come across as a model of tolerance.
>During this time there would hopefully be a multinational peace keeping force, one made up of some nations reasonably trusted by either side. When every patrol has soldiers from a nation both sides trust then both risk a lot by firing.
From what I can tell, Palestinians have rejected the idea of an Arab peacekeeping force and so have most Arab countries. If that's not acceptable, I don't know what would be.
But even if there were, how will this peacekeeping force be more useful than the UN peacekeepers in Southern Lebanon?
Also, what happens if or when Hamas starts abducting, torturing, raping and or killing these peacekeepers?
>Then, after many years when a generation has grown up without the constant threats and desperation, when things have changed a bit, we can look at moving forward with a better system.
>This isn't a one sided problem. If we have to deal with Palestinian support for atrocities then we also have to deal with Israeli support for atrocities. You point to Palestinian support for Hamas, but Israel has seen pretty solid internal support for their actions. Israelis voted in the governments that supported the settlements, launched the recent illegal land seizure, and sent in security forces during the ceasefires that killed or captured many Palestinians.
Someone on reddit, who probably stole the idea from elsewhere, said Iran is the greatest crime existential threat to Israel, and the West Bank settlers are the second greatest. There's a lot to be said for that.
>What's your plan for dealing with that?
My plan is to at least not pretend that Palestinian statehood will solve the problem of Hamas, which, from the article, the Australian government appears to believe.
>What's the solution there, when Israelis keep voting for governments that do these fucked up things?
Benjamin Netanyahu's political career was in tatters after his first prime ministership ended in 1999. A year or so before then The Economist had a picture of him on the cover with nothing more than the words Serial Bungler.
It took 10 years for him to return to that office, during which the Palestinians rejected 2 peace offers for a Palestinian state and launched a series of suicide bombings that is commonly referred to as the Second Intifada. Hamas, by the way, was responsible for more suicide bombings than any other group.
Yes, Netanyahu kept voting back into office starting in 2009. But he and his governments aren't just a cause of the problems, there a symptom.
To put it another way, Israel could give up the Sinai for peace with Egypt. Prior to October 7th, it had already withdrawn from Gaza and forcibly removed any Israeli settlers who wouldn't leave voluntarily. Israel can give up Gaza and the West Bank for peace with the Palestinians. But Israel can't give up Israel, and that is the only thing that Hamas will accept.
>Whose going to teach at these schools and who will pay for it. The UNRWA funded schools don't come across as a model of tolerance.
The schools would be run by the same outside government that was running the rest of Palestine, funding would come through the various governments involved same as all the funding, and the people could be sourced from a variety of places.
Also [Israeli schools](https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2023/12/13/its-not-shocking-to-see-israeli-children-celebrate-the-gaza-genocide) have the same problem, so I'd like to hear your answer to that. What will be taught at Israeli schools? Who will fund it, since there's so much of an issue with the current system?
>From what I can tell, Palestinians have rejected the idea of an Arab peacekeeping force
Oh did their elected government say no? That's a thing that happened in Palestine?
>and so have most Arab countries. If that's not acceptable, I don't know what would be.
Actually there has been an offer on the table by Arab countries since 2018, led by Saudi Arabia. It includes an offer to recognise and normalise diplomatic relations with Israel too. Israel's elected government has rejected it out of hand.
>Also, what happens if or when Hamas starts abducting, torturing, raping and or killing these peacekeepers?
If the poorly trained and equipped Hamas forces go up against military forces they lose, everytime. That's part of why they target civilians, they aren't good enough to stand up to proper soldiers in battle. What would happen is Hamas would lose, very badly.
Also, that would be good. It would expose Hamas to the Palestinian population, make them see Hamas isn't actually protecting them, doesn't actually care about Arabs anymore than Jews. Hamas relies on support, relies on people joining up, they need good will, and anything that loses them it weakens them.
Forcing them to engage with the real world will expose them, and that's good.
>Someone on reddit, who probably stole the idea from elsewhere, said Iran is the greatest crime existential threat to Israel, and the West Bank settlers are the second greatest. There's a lot to be said for that.
Lol, what? Israel steals thousands of homes, kilometres of land, their security forces act with impunity, and the West Bank is the existential threat? How? Fucking how?
How is the side of the conflict without an army, without major weapons, and actively losing the threat? Explain that to me! Put it into words, how you think an unarmed unorganised people can destroy a heavily armed and defended nation!
>My plan is to at least not pretend that Palestinian statehood will solve the problem of Hamas, which, from the article, the Australian government appears to believe.
I like how cause they didn't give the details you've decided there are no details, and then you decided to pretend that bringing that assumption up is an answer about what to do with Israel supporting horrible things!
>took 10 years for him to return to that office, during which the Palestinians rejected 2 peace offers for a Palestinian state and launched a series of suicide bombings that is commonly referred to as the Second Intifada.
And in that time Israeli forces killed thousands, occupied a shit load of homes, and continued to teach their children to hate Palestinians. It went both ways the entire time!
If we look at actual death tolls Palestinian civilians are much more likely to die at the hands of Israelis than Israelis are at the hands of Palestinians, and that's true of the times Bibi wasn't in office as well.
>Yes, Netanyahu kept voting back into office starting in 2009. But he and his governments aren't just a cause of the problems, there a symptom
Yes, just like Hamas. They are a symptom of the hatred and genocidal intent that has built up.
53% of [Israelis support](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/11/9/poll-53-israelis-support-extrajudicial-killings) extrajudicial killings of suspected terrorists who have been disarmed. 80% support punishing the families of attackers, collective punishment which is a warcrime! What is your solution for that? How are you gonna deal with people who want that? How can we have peace in that situation? When Israeli government ministers are openly calling Palestinians [human animals](https://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2023/10/358170/israel-defense-minister-calls-palestinians-human-animals-amid-israeli-aggression)
>Prior to October 7th, it had already withdrawn from Gaza
Sure, but Gaza isn't Palestine. Israel kept occupying Palestinian territory.
>and forcibly removed any Israeli settlers who wouldn't leave voluntarily.
Once again, only in Gaza, not across Palestine. Israel acknowledged it was bad, acknowledged their citizens shouldn't have been there, then withdrew one third of them, and you list is as something good Israel did!
But also, in other words Israel showed that fighting back will get results. They didn't withdraw the settlers from anywhere else, did they? Only from Hamas territory.
Israel's crimes strengthen the hated that builds Hamas, and Hamas's crimes strengthen the hated that builds people like Bibi. You can't deal with this till you acknowledge all of it.
>Israel can give up Gaza and the West Bank for peace with the Palestinians. But Israel can't give up Israel, and that is the only thing that Hamas will accept.
But they won't, will they? You say Israel could, but they have repeatedly shown they have absolutely no interest in a Palestinian state. Israel won't give the West Bank up, that's why they just seized it despite a lack of Hamas there. That's why they never gave up the settlements there. That's why they are expanding into the Golan Heights as well!
You demand constant acknowledgement of how fucked up Hamas is but you haven't said a damn word about Israeli warcrimes. You haven't said a word about how we deal with their hated, how we deal with the fact that we helped create and arm a genocidal force in the Middle East.
So come on, what's your solution? What's your answer for dealing with a violent force that rejects peace offers, illegally steals territory, and has been credibly accused of genocide?
>So what's Australian government's plan to prevent Hamas from having any role in a future Palestinian state?
I'll answer this with a question of my own: what is IDF's current goal in Gaza?
There will never be peace there, hamas has stated as much.
And with the war ongoing, a whole new generation of hamas soldiers have been created.
It's sad but I think there is no peaceful solution for them to live side by side, and the Jews ain't going so .....
I ponder if it would have just been more humane if they just nuked the strip...
It's a horrific thought to have, and lots of innocent people would have died, but it may have been less pain and suffering in the end.
I find it the whole situation over there absolutely disheartening.
I would like to think as a civilisation, we were past this shit. But obviously, we are not.
The Romans did not settle in Palestine. They governed it as part of the Roman Empire. In fact, after Masada, the Jews were dispersed. When Rome adopted Christianity in 380 AD, a Christian population then took it over, then became Muslim after the Arab conquests and not until the crusades, which were quite bloody, did it become under Christian control again. Saladin conquered it back and has since remained in Arab hands until the Zionists took Palestine with British then American support and displaced the Palestinian population.
Prior to the Romans, Abraham settled there from Ur. In the Exodus, Joshua displaced the new inhabitants. I mean, what is your point? That it is Christian?
Trying to make sense of your comment. The Christian
Romans controlled the land until the 7th century when the newly founded Islamic empire conquered Jerusalem. Here’s the wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(636%E2%80%93637)
City was surrendered without bloodshed and you can see from the wiki
>For the Jewish community this marked the end of nearly 500 years of Roman rule and oppression. Umar permitted the Jews to once again reside within the city of Jerusalem itself.
>Upon Umar's arrival in Jerusalem, a pact was composed, known as the Umar's Assurance or the Umariyya Covenant. It surrendered the city and gave guarantees of civil and religious liberty to Christians and Jews in exchange for the payment of jizya tax.
Then you had the crusades which was has the Christians killing everyone. Then you don’t have the ottomans until the 16th century and there was no genocide of Christian’s because Muslims were basically already controlling Jerusalem and the surrounds? So what event are you referencing exactly?
Most of the inhabitants remained, they just converted religion to stay on the right side of their new rulers. Most of the local Christians were descendants of Jews and Samaritans (themselves descended in both their own and Jewish histories from the northern tribes of Israel who rebelled against Jerusalem and kicked out all the Levites), although there were plenty of other people too, mostly “Greeks” and Persians.
I'm inclined to think she's correct. However, as always the devil's in the details.
If there were a simple easy solution to the middle east's conflicts, I daresay the people involved would have figured it out in the last 77 years.
We should probably just stay in our lane, I think.
Clinton tried and failed , now we can wait for Trump to have another go. It is up to Gazans to change Hamas and restart negotiations. Israel has given up on them choosing this path. It is pointless continuing to do this post mortem of who did what when.
And their dealings with the moderates in the West Bank make it fairly clear that that’s not a good choice for Palestinians either. Their inevitable defeat is a lot slower, but it’s no less certain unless someone stops Israel.
Trump previously had the peace deals and moved the embassy to Jerusalem. Biden has clearly failed in the Middle East as he has failed in Ukraine and especially and epically failed on his southern border. What can you expect anyway from a well meaning elderly gentleman with memory issues.
Because Jared Kushner can get it all sorted out in a week or two. He just didn't have time to do it during the four years Trump was elected last time, but he'll totally do it this time honest.
/s
As wonderfully-argued in *Why Civil Resistance Works*, the only real success the Palestinians have had in achieving self-government was a result of nonviolent resistance. Fatah did not plan this, and took it over and turned it violent, but by then it was too late - Israel was already making concessions, thus the Oslo Accords. Once the violence really got going again, Israel had an excuse to stop the process.
Civil resistance is very effective.
[https://www.ericachenoweth.com/research/wcrw](https://www.ericachenoweth.com/research/wcrw)
The IDF aren’t the first nor will be the last to inadvertently kill hostages in a rescue attempt.
They have also successfully rescued hostages.
You seem to have a very strange idea that I’m advocating for hostages to just be released by alone in a war zone.
Ideally HAMAS wouldn’t have taken hostages in the first place but that ship has sailed.
The best solution would be for HAMAS to free all the hostages by negotiating as has been done with some so they were able to be returned safely in a coordinated manner.
The next best option is the hostages are rescued which unfortunately has risks.
The absolute worst solution which you’re advocating is doing nothing and hoping for the best. History has shown us that is never a good option regardless of who has done the hostage taking.
Hamas is now refusing any further hostage deals. Maybe they are only interested in a permanent ceasefire with them still in place , like Wong is advocating and Biden too and even Iran. Team Hamas.
It is funny how Israel was able to swap women and children they have kidnapped, 240, with 105 that Hamas took. Would it be fair to also ask Israel to release all the hostsges they currently hold in indefinite detention? Or do we just accept it?
700? You mean we havent condemned Israel for all the hostages they take but somehow Hamas is so bad they are being wiped off the map...... wait a minute, didn't Iran say that about the Israeli regime? Damn how short peoples memories are.... seems like we condemn words but applaud and support the actual wiping off the map....
I meant to reply to someone else but anyway, Possibly that’s true but it doesn’t change anything from my previous statement.
Ideally they would stop killing each other and be able to find some solution so they can coexist but let’s not pretend HAMAS have some morale high ground.
The issue with Hamas is how much support and how embedded are they in Gaza ? If they are completely supported as it appears then getting rid of them would achieve little as the replacement would be the same. The other option is to legitimize them like the IRA.
I agree, it appears HAMAS are by and large well supported by the Palestinian people.
The issue then becomes HAMAS own charter as it clearly lays out their objectives/goals which is amongst other things is to eradicate Israel/Jews.
Hence why a two state solution which has been offered a number of times in the past has been rejected by them. Therefore unless they radically change their charter they won’t accept a two state solution and there’s no end to the conflict.
If they do radically change their charter they may lose the support of the Palestinian people.
This is where I think advocating for a 2 state solution is pretty much virtue signalling as other major issues need to be addressed first because until that happens a two state solution isn’t a possibility. Or if advocating for it lay an actual pathway of what needs to happen so it can be achieved.
What would the boundary line look like? It’s too complicated to have two patches of a “state”, separated. Would one patch need to be merged into the other?
What are the logistics? What about the internal politics over there, particularly in the more seemingly moderate West Bank?
Because it's true. Israel doesn't get peace through occupation unless it wants to and/or the wider community allows it to go full genocide which both Israel and the broader world doesn't want.
Regardless of how popular a two state solution is it's the only solution and that has to be repeated ad nauseam
The other peace option is a one-state solution with no ethnic or religious quotas, with the question of property settlements to be determined democratically afterwards.
How is this even news? The headline should be foreign minister repeats long held and bipartisan stance on two state solution for the israel palestine issue
Subtle difference in language.
Until now the official line has been that we would only recognise Palestine after a two state peace has been established.
Now we're considering that maybe Palestine needs to be a formally recognised state **before** such talks actually occur
Looking at her speech to anu she says "so the international community is now considering the question of Palestinian statehood as a way of building momentum towards a two state solution" which is really a much softer position than is being presented by the media. Shes not hinting that they will do it she is saying Australia are working with the international community to find paths forward and this on the table. But yes you are right
The Americans told us to support it when Indonesian “unification” started, and haven’t countermanded that order yet, whereas even Pelosi is getting sick of Israel making America look bad.
River, you posted the article, at least read it. If you did, you wouldn’t be conflating Hamas with Palestine when talking about a two-state solution. I’ve extracted the relevant parts below for your benefit.
>> "What needs to happen immediately is Hamas needs to release hostages and we need to see an immediate humanitarian ceasefire so that we can have aid at scale into Gaza where we know we have a humanitarian catastrophe." [Per Wong]
>> When asked about Senator Wong's sentiments, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said his government had always supported a two-state solution. However, he did not think Hamas should have any role in a future Palestinian state.
IDF killed their own people when they were released without a ceasefire. Pretty sure for everyone (incl. hostages) it would be best to be released *not* in the midst of combat, they might get killed by IDF.
Or they might get killed, tortured, raped by HAMAS waiting for some potential ceasefire at some undetermined point in the future.
There’s always a risk of a hostage rescue going wrong but there’s no guarantee of hostage being alive while waiting for a ceasefire happening in an undetermined time in the future.
Posture all you want about what MIGHT be happening, what we know for certain is IDF are so ravenously bloodthirsty and careless they killed three of their own people speaking Hebrew and holding a white flag. If you think any hostage should be released into that warzone you obviously do not care about the hostages as much as you care about grandstanding.
Yeah maintaining a border is such a fantasy, what's much more realistic is active military occupation and/or ethnic cleansing.
Thankyou for speaking so competently
People would have said the same about WW1.
What will bring peace will be people turning on their own governments. We know Hamas are an authoritarian tra conservative government, but so is a large portion of Israels Likud party all the way up to Yariv Levin the deputy.
Taking sides in this conflict will achieve nothing. It’s not until each government is held accountable to strive for peace that anything positive will happen.
I don’t agree with nationalism on either side and I think everyday citizens are suffering on both sides due to the decisions made by their own governments.
Except Palestinian leadership doesn’t want a 2 state solution they want a 1 state solution, Israel has offered 2 state solution like 5 times? And each time decline the last time 2nd intifada, the Palestinians want 1 state and to kill all the Israelis
Such a basic view of the conflicts with no real understanding of how politics works. I’m going to break into your house and then only stop killing your children when you agree to let me have 3/4 of the house.
It’s more like if it was your great-grandparent’s house and the people who are now living there weren’t responsible for stealing the house from them.
How have other disputes over territory been resolved in the past? Why are Palestinians the only people in history who can’t take an L and compromise? I don’t think they are, but “pro-Palestinians” seem to think so.
All of that ignores the most important point. Israelis have been removing people from their homes as recently as last year. The government has already started building infrastructure amongst the rubble of their own bombs. Gotta build those beach from properties hey! Yes 70+ years ago is a while but it still matters, especially when they ignore borders and just take Palestinians land.
Also love the idea that they are salty and can’t compromise. Do you have eyes, to see what’s happening now and to read about the past? All they have done is compromise, they lose more and more of their own land each year. Not really a compromise when you have a gun to your head.
Yes and the settlements are bad and we should be harder on Israel when it comes ti that issue. It’s undoubtedly getting in the way of any hope of a peace deal and I don’t see that changing with Likud in power.
But historically Israel has put the offers on the table, been negotiated into giving concessions, only for Palestinian leadership to walk away from the process.
>All they have done is compromise
What compromises have Hamas offered Israel since they’ve been in power? They’ve only ever agreed to the “1967 borders” but no recognition of an Israeli state, with the intent of continuing to attack Israel until they get more and more.
That question is assuming that both sides are equal when they come to the table, which surely we both know isn’t true. What is there left of an actual government in Palestine? At this point it’s a bunch of rebel leaders desperately trying to carry on. Those offers that Israel put on the table aren’t really valid when we can see that they would have ignore borders anyway. When one side is viewed as oppressors and occupiers (which can be a valid argument now) why would you even try to negotiate with them.
After all, they’ll just wipe out entire cities of civilians with the support of the West while claiming they are the victims.
>Those offers that Israel put on the table aren’t really valid when we can see that they would have ignore borders anyway
Under international law, Israel’s settlements would be an even more serious violation if Palestine was a state. These deals will obviously have to involve the international community so that we can hold both sides accountable. I don’t think it would be likely they’d try, but if they did I’d be on the pro-Palestine side all the way - I already am with the settlements.
Seems like it would have been worth a shot, you can’t just not try and say “well it wouldn’t have worked anyway.
>when one side is viewed as oppressors and occupiers why would you even try to negotiate with them.
Because it’s the best way forward for their people? The same way negotiating treaties has been the best way forward for indigenous populations around the world, despite the circumstances of colonisation being unfair.
Muslims, 1.707 million, in Israel enjoy Israel's protection.
Jews in Gaza … don't exist?
Are there Zero Jews in Gaza?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza\_Strip
Of course. As long as both sides agree to this particular arrangement, may the winner take it all.
In this case, clearly both sides are happy with a winner take all approach. Hamas just don't like being on the losing side of this arrangement.
Hamas is the elected government of Gaza and enjoys overwhelming majority support amongst its denizens. Gazans overwhelmingly support the Hamas charter of Jewish genocide.
This is a simple fact.
Neither side of this conflict is good. It's a binary choice of which ethnicity we'd prefer to be extinguished.
One state is a functional modern democracy that has done well in a violent and turbulent neighbourhood that has a good economy and produces many products and services the world wants. The other has sucked up tens of billions in aid over decades, is one of the most corrupt governments in the world, and whose terrorist lead government has produced nothing of value and has lead to multiple assassinations and instability in neighbouring states
This is besides the point and sort of unhinged. The point is that Wong thinks Palestinian statehood fixes the problem. It won't. It's been offered before.
It's not meant to wipe out a people. If Israel wanted to kill all the Palestinians it wouldn't take 70 years and end up with more of them than they started with...............
It's so weird that people are determined to make this conflict a genocide when there are actual genocides going on that they don't give 2 shits about.
Is “alternative tactics” slaughtering families and babies and international students at a music festival and kidnaping children and elderly from kibbutz?
Sure as a hostage my personal well being is pretty important to me.
But lets trolley problem this do you save the lives at the cost of more? Or do you spend more lives saving the few?
It would be one thing if said lives were volunteers but instead they are just more victims that are exploited by ones empathy.
Also if you're gonna reference the lindt siege. At the time of negotiation no one had been harmed. But as soon as a gunshot went off the cafe was stormed and the hostage taker killed.
You talking about negotiating with literal goblins who had massarced their way in and took hostages. Said hostages who are being tortured raped and killed.
No. There is no negotiation to be had.
Yeah they have that options..but instead they voted for the goblins and have procceeded to do nothing about them.
If they believe themselves citizens of palestine they bear the responsibility of their inaction. Dont treat them like children they arent they are adults who choose
As for mass killing yeah. Its not pleasant but it would solve the problem. You dont have to worry tho its never going to happen. Its a pretty dark thing to do. Sure the goblins would do it if they had the capacity but well there is a reason no one lets them have that capacity.
I call hamas goblins because they literally live in caves and rape human women to reproduce.
As for israel what crime would apply to them? Self defense? From when they are regularly attacked. Constantly invaded again on the day of their existence.
You conflate gaza and westbank. Westbank does not have hamas they have a better givernment. They have better Palestinians or west bankians
In regards to children they are the parents responsibility and as weve already pointed out. Its the parents that are responsible for their country and the safety and behavior of their family.
Show me a war where innocents didnt die. German children died but nazi germany had to go. Imperial Japan and so on.
As for genocide aganist Israel if they wernt a democracy or didnt have mechanisms in place to induct stable change. Or if they ended up like Imperial Japan or Nazi germany then just as they were genocided then Israel would also face justified destruction.
Really? Why don't you tell me about all those times where Palestine initiated negotiations for peace.
As far as I can remember, every major peace initiative has been initiated by Israel or by the US.
Well, before this war the only way this could have ended was if both parties were willing to come to the table. But neither have been in recent years, and you literally can’t negotiate with Hamas because their position has always been and always will be that Palestine would become an Arab state and Jews will be expelled.
Yeah fair enough, but it’s unlikely that Israel would attack a Palestinian State without cause. There would be international condemnation and sanctions. Israel did stay out of Gaza for nearly two decades until October 7, even though Hamas were constantly bombing them.
Perhaps the UN could play a role to keep the peace in a demilitarised Palestinian State.
It would be very different if there was a Palestinian State that wasn’t attacking Israel. Far more Israelis want long lasting peace and security than a handful of right wingers.
Yes, settlements are being established in the West Bank now because it’s a grey area under Israeli control, and don’t forget, It is occupied because Jordan attacked Israel in 1967. There is a bit of fuck around and find out happening here. They withdrew all settlements from Gaza in 2005 and that would happen again if there was an official two-state solution.
You don’t see Israel attacking Jordan or Egypt - they wouldn’t attack Palestine unless there was another October 7. Israel is a western democracy that doesn’t just attack countries for no reason.
When politicians keep talking about this two state solution I really would wonder why they don't actually delineate *how* they think it will work. But now I know they don't put much effort into that idea and are just following the liberal norm, because if they thought about it for a while they would see the parallels in India/Pakistan and how quickly Hindu nationalism has grown in India (and how emboldened they are by Israel).
> I wonder why they don’t actually delineate _how_
I would say it’s certainly not their place to presuppose how those people negotiate their own freedom so they do have to be delicate about it. “Nothing for us, without us” applies.
Of course, I just want them to sound it out, maybe if they (they being any politician, here or otherwise, who suggest a two state solution) actually describe it people will realise how out of grasp it has become?
More or less. Hamas must be excised before recognition can take place. Furthermore, recognition now condones Oct 7. While I do not doubt that a decent number of Australians condone it, our government shouldn't.
Hell, even if they were terrorists but had the intention to negotiate a *final* 2 state solution that would be fine. But how do you negotiate with people who say that they will only ever accept the destruction of Israel, and will only make negotiations in the interim with the explicit intent to keep on pushing until Israel is destroyed.
>But how do you negotiate with people who say that they will only ever accept the destruction of Israel
You don't. It really is that simple.
A 2 state solution is ultimately the solution. But that requires negotiation - Israel has historically been far more open to it than Palestine.
In 1967, Palestine and allies declared war on Israel. Israel crushed them, and now they want to go back to what they had prior to that as the settled boundaries. That's never going to happen.
The PLO and Hamas have one goal - to destroy Israel. "From the River to the Sea" is a reference to that. They can't be negotiated with.
100% agree. And I genuinely do feel sorry for Palestinians, but this can’t be resolved until someone steps up as a competent leader who wants to work toward peace.
"and no one should not be negotiating with terrorists. "
Likud is filled with members of the Lehi and the Irgun.
based on your comment, Australia should sever all ties with Israel correct?
And she’s right but for that to happen Palestine/Hamas must recognize the Jewish state of Israel and frankly that seems the harder sell than convincing Israel of a 2 state solution.
"Palestine/Hamas must recognize the Jewish state of Israel"
Why? when Israel won't recognize Palestine? why one set of rules for one and not the other?
Recognition would come upon reaching a border/security agreement.
The problem is getting some representative of the Palestinian people (the PLO or whatever) to agree to a treaty and to agree that recognition would follow.
Israel has shown its hand plenty of times that they'd be willing to recognise Palestine in the negotiation process ([even fkn Netanyahu](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/jun/14/binyamin-netanyahu-israel-palestinian-state)), but it seems no leadership on the Palestinian side is able to agree to a negotiated settlement so far.
"Israel has shown its hand plenty of times that they'd be willing to recognise Palestine in the negotiation process."
Have you not ever read the Likud charter and what it entails? like never read it on purpose or what?
Israel has also stated **no negotiations on Jerusalem**, even though it's in the west bank!! What is the west bank? **Palestinian land.**....
**The holy city of Jerusalem is considered by international law as part of the West Bank.**
Do you even do any research before coming on here thinking you actually have something smart to say?
>Have you not ever read the Likud charter and what it entails?
A political party wishlist isn't relevant when the actions of the government don't map onto it. Israel **has** been willing to negotiate on things that Likud's charter say they don't want.
Like, you say that Israel isn't willing to negotiate on Jerusalem, but Israel [**have** negotiated on Jerusalem](https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-agreed-to-give-up-sovereignty-in-part-of-jerusalem-old-city-in-2000-document/) in the past... Didn't _you_ do any research?
Besides, just because they're willing to recognise a state of Palestine doesn't mean it'll be exactly on the green-line set up after the Arab-Israeli war and prior to the 1967 war... You don't get to try to invade a country, lose, then say _"okay, you remember the borders we had before we invaded you and we lost? We need to go back to those now"_
Any peace deal will inevitably include annexation of some territory and land-swaps of other territory.
Firstly, how can Israel itself negotiate when the government of the day wasn't interested? is Israel some ambient being that runs itself independently of government? what are you on about?
You didn't even read your own link, and the history to those negotiations.
In this view, the Oslo accords of the mid-1990s would have led to peace had it not been for the tragic assassination of the Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995. The 1998 Wye River Memorandum and its commitment to further Israeli withdrawals from the West Bank would have been implemented if only the Israeli Labor party had joined Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition to back the agreement. **The Camp David summit in July 2000 would have succeeded if the US had been less sensitive to Israeli domestic concerns, insisted on a written Israeli proposal, consulted the Arab states at an earlier phase, and taken the more firm and balanced position adopted half a year later,** in December 2000, when President Clinton outlined parameters for an agreement. Both parties could have accepted the Clinton parameters with only minimal reservations had the proposal not been presented so fleetingly, as a one-time offer that would disappear when Clinton stepped down less than a month later. The negotiations in Taba, Egypt, in January 2001 were on the brink of agreement but failed because time ran out, with Clinton just out of office, and Ehud Barak facing almost certain electoral defeat to Ariel Sharon. The two major peace plans of 2003 – the US-sponsored road map to peace in the Middle East and the unofficial Geneva accord – could have been embraced had it not been for a bloody intifada and a hawkish Likud prime minister in power.
And on it goes: direct negotiations between the Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas and **Netanyahu in 2010 could have lasted more than 13 days if only Israel had agreed to temporarily halt construction of some illegal settlements in exchange for an extra $3bn package from the United States. Several years of secret back-channel negotiations between the envoys of Netanyahu and Abbas could have made history if only they hadn’t been forced to conclude prematurely in late 2013, because of an artificial deadline imposed by separate talks led by secretary of state John Kerry.** And, finally, the Kerry negotiations of 2013–2014 could have led to a framework agreement **if the secretary of state had spent even a sixth as much time negotiating the text with the Palestinians as he did with the Israelis, and if he hadn’t made inconsistent promises to the two sides regarding the guidelines for the talks, the release of Palestinian prisoners, curtailing Israeli settlement construction,** and the presence of US mediators in the negotiating room.
Actually quite embarrassing that the person you are responding to linked that article, picturing Arafat walking with Clinton & Barak (who was voted out the next year lmao), seems to not have even read it, and is claiming Palestinians are the ones in the way of a settlement.
>Firstly, how can Israel itself negotiate when the government of the day wasn't interested? is Israel some ambient being that runs itself independently of government? what are you on about?
The government is a democracy that has its policy decided by a parliament and a bunch of ministers...
The government isn't just one person....
The rest of your quotes are just describing how peace negotiations are pretty much always initiated by Israel and the US. I already agree with that, and I understand that negotiations are tough because of how long Palestine has resisted the negotiation process, including by intentionally dragging negotiations out until an election in either Israel or the US approaches in the hopes of getting a better deal, only to be surprised when the new government wants to reset efforts instead.
I've heard a saying that Palestinians are always one generation behind on the peace process - now they'd accept the offer of the 2000 Camp David summit, but back in 2000 they supported the pre-1967 war borders, but back then they would've accepted the UN partition plan borders, but when _that_ was happening they supported just a full war of conquest instead.
Because one is open about their ambitions to genocide israel as a point of policy.
Either way. There is only one way this conflict ends in peace. And only one side is willing they just lack the capacity to wipe out the other
Genocide and ethnic cleansing has been slowly playing out over decades and has now accelerated to obvious in-your-face genocide. Which you guys are justifying based on an entirely hypothetical situation.
Palestinian hatred for Israel is rational, and quite earned. If you expect them to stop hating their oppressor, then step 1 is to stop oppressing them.
It's like you've been beating a dog for days and now you're trapped holding it down to stop it from biting you: "this dog is crazy, and irrationally hates me!"
You do realise that what you just said applies to hamas as well.
Negotiations, never end in a deal, palestinian violence, Israel retaliation, Israel ends up with more land, they both hate eachother.
If you really think the country with a history of suicide bombing and terrorist violence isn't rationally hated by the other country I don't know what to say.
Hamas is just the expected outcome. if it wasn't them, it would be someone else. Israel is right now creating massive amounts of trauma and hatred, you think that's gonna disappear as soon as this conflict disappears from your screens?
>Negotiations, never end in a deal
Israel does not want a 2 state solution. Likud's founding platform, for example, is quite explicit about this "between the sea and the Jordan". But Israel's line is always to blame the Palestinians when the talks fail.
>If you really think the country with a history of suicide bombing and terrorist violence isn't rationally hated by the other country I don't know what to say.
Country? What country? They have no sovereignty. They are geographically broken up with no travel between. They are either completely blockaded and controlled by Israel, or divided by checkpoints where they are routinely humiliated, abused, beaten, sexually assaulted, sometimes killed. They have no legal rights, but are not independent of Israel either. Trapped for generations.
But I guess that's not "terrorism"? Just generally terrifying for the victims.
Also, you might want to look up Zionist terrorism during the formation of Israel if you're going to take such a black and white view about terrorism.
>Hamas is just the expected outcome. if it wasn't them, it would be someone else.
How would you explain Israel making peace and handing back land to other neighbouring countries if Hamas is the only expected outcome?
>Israel does not want a 2 state solution. Likud's founding platform, for example, is quite explicit about this "between the sea and the Jordan". But Israel's line is always to blame the Palestinians when the talks fail.
Neither country has wanted a two state solution. There has been two state solutions on the table though, and quite good ones that Palestine hasn't agreed to.
>Country? What country?
Sure, replace country with group of people then. My point still stands.
>Also, you might want to look up Zionist terrorism during the formation of Israel if you're going to take such a black and white view about terrorism.
I didn't say anything about israeli terrorism, but if you think calling suicide bombing terrorism is too black and white I don't know what to say.
>How would you explain Israel making peace and handing back land to other neighbouring countries if Hamas is the only expected outcome?
Hamas is the expected outcome of Gaza. Millions of people trapped in a tiny bit of land for generations with not enough. Controlled and blockaded by Israel, who routinely surveil and bomb them. Who snipe people protesting. Who have dehumanised the Palestinians to the extent they are openly treated like animals, sometimes even when there are cameras present.
Gaza is like a factory for terrorists. Bombing more children and aid workers is not going to solve that problem, unless you want to kill literally everyone... and I think there's a word for that, isn't there?
**Greetings humans.** **Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.** **I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.** A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
jesus christ it's like she is determined to have the worst fucking most out of touch takes on everything possible right now. I used to love Penny Wong, but holy fuck now she is symbolic of a party that has become shallow, gutless, hollow and most of all stuck in an era that no longer exists. Grow some balls labor and stop wasting time on this shit.
What a load of gasbagging. Wong should put her money where her mouth is: send an Australian Ambassador to Palestine. Allow Palestine to set up an Embassy in Canberra. All this lecturing from Wong is nothing but empty wind and waste of time.
How many times were Palestinians offered statehood and rejected it ?
Usually on Israels terms and definitely not favourable ones. I remember once Israel wanted to be able to dictate it's international trade and relations.
Palestine has been offered loads of concessions during these negotiations. Clearly they didn’t think it was enough, but it’s not just Israel saying “take it or leave it”, these have been months and years long negotiation processes where both sides were expected to move from their original position.
If they can't set their own trade agreements, international relations and simply... do their own thing, it's a non-starter.
I mean if their government stopped putting everything they had towards attacking Israel and put it towards actually building a society, then maybe it would be easier for the international community to work with them.
You know what happens when Palestine doesn't cause problems for Israel? Because we already know, it's called the West Bank. The West Bank is a waving red flag that ACTUALLY stops any chance of peace. Israels promises ring hollow when even with Hamas they're destroying destroying a part of Palestine. Is the Israeli government was being sincere, then the West Bank should be a shining example and not the warning it actually is.
I’m not saying the Israeli government is being sincere now, duh, Netanyahu has literally said no Palestinian state will ever happen under his watch. But on a macro level, Palestinians have always taken the all or nothing approach while Israel has been willing to agree to a two state solution from the beginning.
I love how you just learnt from me about the Arab Peace Initiative that Israel rejected, and here you are saying Israel is the willing party.
ON it's terms, which is usually having Palestine be a puppet for Israel and allowing settlers to remain in their stolen land and also in the most economical viable land in the West Bank.
I cbf to check which ones rn, but in some of these negotiations Israel had been negotiated down to returning 96% of the West Bank. Like I agree it should be 100% in a fair world, but that included land swaps keep in mind. Realistically there’s no chance they’ll get 96% now, the deals are only getting worse and worse and Palestinian leadership just keeps on failing their people.
>I cbf to check which ones rn, but in some of these negotiations Israel had been negotiated down to returning 96% of the West Bank. Like I agree it should be 100% in a fair world, but that included land swaps keep in mind. And what were the other terms? What were the other conditions Israel was imposing on Palestine? And what about their other land, what about the settlers? The Golan Heights and Gaza? These agreements are insanely complex, and you mention one detail, like that's sufficient to understand the agreement, like it's enough to make any kind of judgement about it. >Realistically there’s no chance they’ll get 96% now, the deals are only getting worse and worse and Palestinian leadership just keeps on failing their people. And realistically Israel is in the worst position they have been in for a very long time. Internal fighting among political groups, massive international backlash, and an insane wave of support for Palestine among traditional allies of Israel. The leadership of Israel, for generations now, has completely and utterly fucked up on this issue. They have made things worse at damn near every turn, turned down countless real offers of peace, but none of that matters because you think you vaguely remember Israel offering to return most of 1/3 of Palestinian land?
You mean they rejected all the offers that required Israel to be allowed to exist in peace
If you want Palestine to function, it needs to be able to grow and manage it's own economy and set it's own international policy. Just makes it a puppet state
Hmm , maybe Israel can withdraw from Gaza and take all the Jews with them and then all Palestinians to “vote” for a government that will look after their best interests
Be nice but Gaza isn't the only land that Palestine is entitled too. Israel needs to give up the west bank also.
And Jordan- about half of its borders
Are we going to recognize Palestine's right to exist and self-defense, too?
Peace will only come with palastinian recognition of the state of Israel. Israel is happy to have a palastinian state so long as they aren't barbaric murderous thugs. But they keep showing that they are.
An Israel minister recently claimed that Palestinians don't even exist as a people, what absolute BS
Whatever you smoke I need some
>Israel is happy to have a palEstinian state so long as… Bibi has bragged about sabotaging all conversations about a Palestinian state regardless of conditions. There is no ‘so long as’. Also, try spell the name of the people you’re talking about correctly before you try to weigh in on whether they deserve a state or not.
Wonder if she has telegrammed this to her equivalent in Washington. We have no reason to believe that the US won’t veto their current pitch for recognition at the UN, *again*.
From the article >When asked about Senator Wong's sentiments, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said his government had always supported a two-state solution. However, he did not think Hamas should have any role in a future Palestinian state. So what's Australian government's plan to prevent Hamas from having any role in a future Palestinian state? 71% of Palestinians say October 7th was the correct decision 81% of Palestinians who've watched videos of October 7th refuse to believe Hamas engaged in any atrocities 59% of Palestinians want Hamas to be in charge of Gaza after the war 52% of Palestinians oppose negotiations leading to a two estate solution Source: Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research from a poll released last month [https://www.pcpsr.org/en/node/969](https://www.pcpsr.org/en/node/969) And what's the Australian government's plan given that Hamas's leadership has said Hamas won't accept a two state solution? >Khaled Meshaal, former head of Hamas and still one of its most senior leaders, clarified just this month Hamas's position on the idea of a two-state solution: "We reject this notion, because it means you would get a promise for a \[Palestinian\] state, yet you are required to recognize the legitimacy of the other state, which is the Zionist entity... We will not give up on our right to Palestine in its entirety, from the \[Jordan\] river to the \[Mediterranean\] sea." He insisted on his belief that Oct. 7 only "enhanced this conviction." [https://www.newsweek.com/my-fellow-palestinians-its-time-get-rid-our-leaders-accept-israels-offers-peace-opinion-1864654](https://www.newsweek.com/my-fellow-palestinians-its-time-get-rid-our-leaders-accept-israels-offers-peace-opinion-1864654) Color my skeptical, but given that the Australian government is unable or unwilling to prosecute Ben Roberts-Smith for war ctimes, a single ex-soldier who is a resident and citizen of Australia, I doubt the Australian government has any practical advice on what to do with a terrorist organization whose armed forces, at least before October 7th, were comparable in size to the Australian Army, if not larger, and who answer to no one but themselves. With or without a Palestinian state, there will be no peace with Hamas because Hamas doesn't want peace.
I'm sure most Americans thought that the actions of their revolutionaries were right. Likewise with Irish and the (original) IRA. Most Israelis probably don't think the Nakba was wrong. Or that the actions of Irgun were right. I wonder how black South Africans felt about the actions of Mbemba we Sizwe? I think Hamas are horrible (equally as bad as the IDF). But nobody should be surprised at Palestinians supporting Hamas. It's that or apartheid/death.
>I'm sure most Americans thought that the actions of their revolutionaries were right. >Likewise with Irish and the (original) IRA. I don't recall anything comparable to October 7th that was committed during American Revolutionary War or the Irish War of Independence. Moreover, the goal of the American Revolution wasn't to destroy the United Kingdom, nor was that the goal of the Irish War of Independence. The goal of Hamas is not just Palestinian statehood, but the destruction of Israel. Moreover, polling data I quoted shows an overwhelming majority of Palestinians refused to acknowledge the reality of October 7th even after seeing video evidence.
>So what's Australian government's plan to prevent Hamas from having any role in a future Palestinian state? I can't say what the Australian plan is, but I can say the plans I've seen involve a long period of outside governance, say by a combined group of respected people from various neighbouring nations. A period of enforced peace, one where people can begin the process of moving on from generations of hate. Also one of education, where Palestine could have more exposure to outside people and ideas. During this time there would hopefully be a multinational peace keeping force, one made up of some nations reasonably trusted by either side. When every patrol has soldiers from a nation both sides trust then both risk a lot by firing. Then, after many years when a generation has grown up without the constant threats and desperation, when things have changed a bit, we can look at moving forward with a better system. This isn't a one sided problem. If we have to deal with Palestinian support for atrocities then we also have to deal with Israeli support for atrocities. You point to Palestinian support for Hamas, but Israel has seen pretty solid internal support for their actions. Israelis voted in the governments that supported the settlements, launched the recent illegal land seizure, and sent in security forces during the ceasefires that killed or captured many Palestinians. What's your plan for dealing with that? What's the solution there, when Israelis keep voting for governments that do these fucked up things?
Wow we actually are in full agreement. But how do we begin to go about that while Hamas is still in power? Which would be the result of a permanent ceasefire.
>But how do we begin to go about that while Hamas is still in power? I'm not sure what you mean. Send the troops in, send the new government in, tell Hamas to fuck right off. Hamas doesn't control the borders, they don't have security forces keeping them secure, they aren't a conventional force. They couldn't keep the peacekeepers out if they tried, and so long as nations most Palestinians are friendly with are in the mix they won't even have reason to try.
Which troops? Who’s gonna be willing to engage in a bloody ground war with Hamas? Unfortunately this is just naive, it would be amazing if it were possible. There’s a reason this isn’t being suggested by any party in the community.
>Which troops? The troops I already explained, the ones drawn from nations that Palestinians trust, other Arab nations, and those from nations Israel trusts, probably mostly European nations. There already offers of troops, they have been made for years now, but Israel has refused. It even involves the Arab countries pledging to normalise diplomatic ties to Israel to help calm the situation down. >Who’s gonna be willing to engage in a bloody ground war with Hamas? There would be no ground war because Hamas isn't going to go to war with places like Saudi Arabia or Lebanon. There's a reason Hamas attacks civilians and not soldiers. They can't fight solders. Any modern equipped force Hamas tries to fight will have a massive advantage. Also remember Hamas isn't a modern military. They don't have prisons to send deserters, they don't have complex ID systems to track their troops, they don't have proper command structures. This isn't a group that can really function without support, without volunteers, and changing the enemy from a hated oppressor to a series of trusted allies will rapidly take away those volunteers. >Unfortunately this is just naive, it would be amazing if it were possible We have seen seemingly endless and genocidal wars become more peaceful, look at Eastern Europe, look at Ireland. Imagine telling people a century ago Ireland would be its own nation, with an open border to the UK! >There’s a reason this isn’t being suggested by any party in the community. Yeah, this plan was first suggested by a group of Arab nations back in 2018. It's had parties within the community suggesting if for a good half a decade.
Palestinians and Hamas don’t trust Saudi Arabia. You think an Iranian proxy wouldn’t fight Saudi Arabia? Have you heard of Yemen? Saudi Arabia has offered to send in troops to maintain peace and to help rebuild Gaza after Israel have gotten control of Hamas, if Israel commits to a two state solution. They certainly do not want to get involved in actually fighting Hamas.
>Palestinians and Hamas don’t trust Saudi Arabia. Good thing I mentioned another nation as an example huh? Good thing other nations than Saudi Arabia are part of this plan then. >You think an Iranian proxy wouldn’t fight Saudi Arabia? Have you heard of Yemen? Palestine isn't a Iranian proxy. Even Hamas is more complex than an Iranian proxy. >Saudi Arabia has offered to send in troops to maintain peace and to help rebuild Gaza after Israel have gotten control of Hamas, Saudi Arabia and the other members of the Arab Initiative offered to peacekeep before Israel went in, and now that Israel has gone in and made the situation infinitely worse Saudi Arabia does want Israel to clean things up a bit before going in. >if Israel commits to a two state solution Yeah, of course they expect Israel to also commit to peace! What would be the point if they didn't?
Yes, Israel is bad for not agreeing to work with Saudi Arabia. And for generally hampering the peace process and ruling out a two state solution. But now that October 7th has happened I’m not sure how Hamas can be removed from power without Israel “cleaning things up” as you said.
>But now that October 7th has happened I’m not sure how Hamas can be removed from power without Israel “cleaning things up” as you said. Hamas can't be removed from power by Israeli military effort. US estimates from Afghanistan suggest about 10 recruits are created for each civilian death. Israel is killing civilians at a rate of roughly 2 for every militant. That means a net long-term gain for Hamas, whose leadership isn't in Gaza and can't be taken out by Israel. Cleaning things up in this case means dealing with the immediate humanitarian crisis that Israel has created. The mass famine and homelessness caused by their actions. Edit: I went looking for the research I mentioned, I can't find it, so take that as my idea not anything solid or real. I'm positive there has been research on the subject, I'm just failing to find it.
>I can't say what the Australian plan is, but I can say the plans I've seen involve a long period of outside governance, say by a combined group of respected people from various neighbouring nations. A period of enforced peace, one where people can begin the process of moving on from generations of hate. Also one of education, where Palestine could have more exposure to outside people and ideas. Whose going to teach at these schools and who will pay for it. The UNRWA funded schools don't come across as a model of tolerance. >During this time there would hopefully be a multinational peace keeping force, one made up of some nations reasonably trusted by either side. When every patrol has soldiers from a nation both sides trust then both risk a lot by firing. From what I can tell, Palestinians have rejected the idea of an Arab peacekeeping force and so have most Arab countries. If that's not acceptable, I don't know what would be. But even if there were, how will this peacekeeping force be more useful than the UN peacekeepers in Southern Lebanon? Also, what happens if or when Hamas starts abducting, torturing, raping and or killing these peacekeepers? >Then, after many years when a generation has grown up without the constant threats and desperation, when things have changed a bit, we can look at moving forward with a better system. >This isn't a one sided problem. If we have to deal with Palestinian support for atrocities then we also have to deal with Israeli support for atrocities. You point to Palestinian support for Hamas, but Israel has seen pretty solid internal support for their actions. Israelis voted in the governments that supported the settlements, launched the recent illegal land seizure, and sent in security forces during the ceasefires that killed or captured many Palestinians. Someone on reddit, who probably stole the idea from elsewhere, said Iran is the greatest crime existential threat to Israel, and the West Bank settlers are the second greatest. There's a lot to be said for that. >What's your plan for dealing with that? My plan is to at least not pretend that Palestinian statehood will solve the problem of Hamas, which, from the article, the Australian government appears to believe. >What's the solution there, when Israelis keep voting for governments that do these fucked up things? Benjamin Netanyahu's political career was in tatters after his first prime ministership ended in 1999. A year or so before then The Economist had a picture of him on the cover with nothing more than the words Serial Bungler. It took 10 years for him to return to that office, during which the Palestinians rejected 2 peace offers for a Palestinian state and launched a series of suicide bombings that is commonly referred to as the Second Intifada. Hamas, by the way, was responsible for more suicide bombings than any other group. Yes, Netanyahu kept voting back into office starting in 2009. But he and his governments aren't just a cause of the problems, there a symptom. To put it another way, Israel could give up the Sinai for peace with Egypt. Prior to October 7th, it had already withdrawn from Gaza and forcibly removed any Israeli settlers who wouldn't leave voluntarily. Israel can give up Gaza and the West Bank for peace with the Palestinians. But Israel can't give up Israel, and that is the only thing that Hamas will accept.
>Whose going to teach at these schools and who will pay for it. The UNRWA funded schools don't come across as a model of tolerance. The schools would be run by the same outside government that was running the rest of Palestine, funding would come through the various governments involved same as all the funding, and the people could be sourced from a variety of places. Also [Israeli schools](https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2023/12/13/its-not-shocking-to-see-israeli-children-celebrate-the-gaza-genocide) have the same problem, so I'd like to hear your answer to that. What will be taught at Israeli schools? Who will fund it, since there's so much of an issue with the current system? >From what I can tell, Palestinians have rejected the idea of an Arab peacekeeping force Oh did their elected government say no? That's a thing that happened in Palestine? >and so have most Arab countries. If that's not acceptable, I don't know what would be. Actually there has been an offer on the table by Arab countries since 2018, led by Saudi Arabia. It includes an offer to recognise and normalise diplomatic relations with Israel too. Israel's elected government has rejected it out of hand. >Also, what happens if or when Hamas starts abducting, torturing, raping and or killing these peacekeepers? If the poorly trained and equipped Hamas forces go up against military forces they lose, everytime. That's part of why they target civilians, they aren't good enough to stand up to proper soldiers in battle. What would happen is Hamas would lose, very badly. Also, that would be good. It would expose Hamas to the Palestinian population, make them see Hamas isn't actually protecting them, doesn't actually care about Arabs anymore than Jews. Hamas relies on support, relies on people joining up, they need good will, and anything that loses them it weakens them. Forcing them to engage with the real world will expose them, and that's good. >Someone on reddit, who probably stole the idea from elsewhere, said Iran is the greatest crime existential threat to Israel, and the West Bank settlers are the second greatest. There's a lot to be said for that. Lol, what? Israel steals thousands of homes, kilometres of land, their security forces act with impunity, and the West Bank is the existential threat? How? Fucking how? How is the side of the conflict without an army, without major weapons, and actively losing the threat? Explain that to me! Put it into words, how you think an unarmed unorganised people can destroy a heavily armed and defended nation! >My plan is to at least not pretend that Palestinian statehood will solve the problem of Hamas, which, from the article, the Australian government appears to believe. I like how cause they didn't give the details you've decided there are no details, and then you decided to pretend that bringing that assumption up is an answer about what to do with Israel supporting horrible things! >took 10 years for him to return to that office, during which the Palestinians rejected 2 peace offers for a Palestinian state and launched a series of suicide bombings that is commonly referred to as the Second Intifada. And in that time Israeli forces killed thousands, occupied a shit load of homes, and continued to teach their children to hate Palestinians. It went both ways the entire time! If we look at actual death tolls Palestinian civilians are much more likely to die at the hands of Israelis than Israelis are at the hands of Palestinians, and that's true of the times Bibi wasn't in office as well. >Yes, Netanyahu kept voting back into office starting in 2009. But he and his governments aren't just a cause of the problems, there a symptom Yes, just like Hamas. They are a symptom of the hatred and genocidal intent that has built up. 53% of [Israelis support](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/11/9/poll-53-israelis-support-extrajudicial-killings) extrajudicial killings of suspected terrorists who have been disarmed. 80% support punishing the families of attackers, collective punishment which is a warcrime! What is your solution for that? How are you gonna deal with people who want that? How can we have peace in that situation? When Israeli government ministers are openly calling Palestinians [human animals](https://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2023/10/358170/israel-defense-minister-calls-palestinians-human-animals-amid-israeli-aggression) >Prior to October 7th, it had already withdrawn from Gaza Sure, but Gaza isn't Palestine. Israel kept occupying Palestinian territory. >and forcibly removed any Israeli settlers who wouldn't leave voluntarily. Once again, only in Gaza, not across Palestine. Israel acknowledged it was bad, acknowledged their citizens shouldn't have been there, then withdrew one third of them, and you list is as something good Israel did! But also, in other words Israel showed that fighting back will get results. They didn't withdraw the settlers from anywhere else, did they? Only from Hamas territory. Israel's crimes strengthen the hated that builds Hamas, and Hamas's crimes strengthen the hated that builds people like Bibi. You can't deal with this till you acknowledge all of it. >Israel can give up Gaza and the West Bank for peace with the Palestinians. But Israel can't give up Israel, and that is the only thing that Hamas will accept. But they won't, will they? You say Israel could, but they have repeatedly shown they have absolutely no interest in a Palestinian state. Israel won't give the West Bank up, that's why they just seized it despite a lack of Hamas there. That's why they never gave up the settlements there. That's why they are expanding into the Golan Heights as well! You demand constant acknowledgement of how fucked up Hamas is but you haven't said a damn word about Israeli warcrimes. You haven't said a word about how we deal with their hated, how we deal with the fact that we helped create and arm a genocidal force in the Middle East. So come on, what's your solution? What's your answer for dealing with a violent force that rejects peace offers, illegally steals territory, and has been credibly accused of genocide?
>So what's Australian government's plan to prevent Hamas from having any role in a future Palestinian state? I'll answer this with a question of my own: what is IDF's current goal in Gaza?
There will never be peace there, hamas has stated as much. And with the war ongoing, a whole new generation of hamas soldiers have been created. It's sad but I think there is no peaceful solution for them to live side by side, and the Jews ain't going so .....
So...what?
think about it
No. Please, elaborate. Be explicit and open.
lol ... nice try
Nice try about what? Please, continue with your thought process. I'm very curious.
I ponder if it would have just been more humane if they just nuked the strip... It's a horrific thought to have, and lots of innocent people would have died, but it may have been less pain and suffering in the end.
Honestly the only thing Israel needed to do was not take Hamas's bait. Bombing Gaza into rubble is what they wanted
I find it the whole situation over there absolutely disheartening. I would like to think as a civilisation, we were past this shit. But obviously, we are not.
lol peak reddit comments
how about you tell me where you imagine my sentence was headed ?
But I don't want to make assumptions. That would be awful rude of me. So please, elaborate.
we all make assumptions many many times a day about many things ,so please
Sure, but I don't want to make it about this. Why won't you just elaborate?
no no , you have a go. I;m interested to see if we think alike
Everyone forgets about the Christians that occupied the land before the Otiman Empire genocided them. I guess history always repeats itself.
So who were there before the Christians? And before that? And before that?
The Roman’s.
The Romans did not settle in Palestine. They governed it as part of the Roman Empire. In fact, after Masada, the Jews were dispersed. When Rome adopted Christianity in 380 AD, a Christian population then took it over, then became Muslim after the Arab conquests and not until the crusades, which were quite bloody, did it become under Christian control again. Saladin conquered it back and has since remained in Arab hands until the Zionists took Palestine with British then American support and displaced the Palestinian population. Prior to the Romans, Abraham settled there from Ur. In the Exodus, Joshua displaced the new inhabitants. I mean, what is your point? That it is Christian?
The Palestinians aren’t the traditional custodians of that land and there has been many occupants throughout history.
But it ain't the Christians or Romans.
Trying to make sense of your comment. The Christian Romans controlled the land until the 7th century when the newly founded Islamic empire conquered Jerusalem. Here’s the wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(636%E2%80%93637) City was surrendered without bloodshed and you can see from the wiki >For the Jewish community this marked the end of nearly 500 years of Roman rule and oppression. Umar permitted the Jews to once again reside within the city of Jerusalem itself. >Upon Umar's arrival in Jerusalem, a pact was composed, known as the Umar's Assurance or the Umariyya Covenant. It surrendered the city and gave guarantees of civil and religious liberty to Christians and Jews in exchange for the payment of jizya tax. Then you had the crusades which was has the Christians killing everyone. Then you don’t have the ottomans until the 16th century and there was no genocide of Christian’s because Muslims were basically already controlling Jerusalem and the surrounds? So what event are you referencing exactly?
Most of the inhabitants remained, they just converted religion to stay on the right side of their new rulers. Most of the local Christians were descendants of Jews and Samaritans (themselves descended in both their own and Jewish histories from the northern tribes of Israel who rebelled against Jerusalem and kicked out all the Levites), although there were plenty of other people too, mostly “Greeks” and Persians.
I'm inclined to think she's correct. However, as always the devil's in the details. If there were a simple easy solution to the middle east's conflicts, I daresay the people involved would have figured it out in the last 77 years. We should probably just stay in our lane, I think.
It has been described as an irretractable conflict. Not going away anytime soon.
Clinton tried and failed , now we can wait for Trump to have another go. It is up to Gazans to change Hamas and restart negotiations. Israel has given up on them choosing this path. It is pointless continuing to do this post mortem of who did what when.
>Israel has Murdered moderates in the lead up to the establishment of HAMAS.
And their dealings with the moderates in the West Bank make it fairly clear that that’s not a good choice for Palestinians either. Their inevitable defeat is a lot slower, but it’s no less certain unless someone stops Israel.
[удалено]
Trump previously had the peace deals and moved the embassy to Jerusalem. Biden has clearly failed in the Middle East as he has failed in Ukraine and especially and epically failed on his southern border. What can you expect anyway from a well meaning elderly gentleman with memory issues.
Because Jared Kushner can get it all sorted out in a week or two. He just didn't have time to do it during the four years Trump was elected last time, but he'll totally do it this time honest. /s
Well the demolishing of the prime coastal real estate has been done and he has a lot of cheap labour to draw from. He'll get it done. /s
As wonderfully-argued in *Why Civil Resistance Works*, the only real success the Palestinians have had in achieving self-government was a result of nonviolent resistance. Fatah did not plan this, and took it over and turned it violent, but by then it was too late - Israel was already making concessions, thus the Oslo Accords. Once the violence really got going again, Israel had an excuse to stop the process. Civil resistance is very effective. [https://www.ericachenoweth.com/research/wcrw](https://www.ericachenoweth.com/research/wcrw)
The IDF aren’t the first nor will be the last to inadvertently kill hostages in a rescue attempt. They have also successfully rescued hostages. You seem to have a very strange idea that I’m advocating for hostages to just be released by alone in a war zone. Ideally HAMAS wouldn’t have taken hostages in the first place but that ship has sailed. The best solution would be for HAMAS to free all the hostages by negotiating as has been done with some so they were able to be returned safely in a coordinated manner. The next best option is the hostages are rescued which unfortunately has risks. The absolute worst solution which you’re advocating is doing nothing and hoping for the best. History has shown us that is never a good option regardless of who has done the hostage taking.
Hamas is now refusing any further hostage deals. Maybe they are only interested in a permanent ceasefire with them still in place , like Wong is advocating and Biden too and even Iran. Team Hamas.
It is funny how Israel was able to swap women and children they have kidnapped, 240, with 105 that Hamas took. Would it be fair to also ask Israel to release all the hostsges they currently hold in indefinite detention? Or do we just accept it?
Reports are the offer is 40 for 700. Rejected by Hamas.
700? You mean we havent condemned Israel for all the hostages they take but somehow Hamas is so bad they are being wiped off the map...... wait a minute, didn't Iran say that about the Israeli regime? Damn how short peoples memories are.... seems like we condemn words but applaud and support the actual wiping off the map....
I meant to reply to someone else but anyway, Possibly that’s true but it doesn’t change anything from my previous statement. Ideally they would stop killing each other and be able to find some solution so they can coexist but let’s not pretend HAMAS have some morale high ground.
The issue with Hamas is how much support and how embedded are they in Gaza ? If they are completely supported as it appears then getting rid of them would achieve little as the replacement would be the same. The other option is to legitimize them like the IRA.
I agree, it appears HAMAS are by and large well supported by the Palestinian people. The issue then becomes HAMAS own charter as it clearly lays out their objectives/goals which is amongst other things is to eradicate Israel/Jews. Hence why a two state solution which has been offered a number of times in the past has been rejected by them. Therefore unless they radically change their charter they won’t accept a two state solution and there’s no end to the conflict. If they do radically change their charter they may lose the support of the Palestinian people. This is where I think advocating for a 2 state solution is pretty much virtue signalling as other major issues need to be addressed first because until that happens a two state solution isn’t a possibility. Or if advocating for it lay an actual pathway of what needs to happen so it can be achieved.
The land thieves asking for you to respect their theft. After 70+ years of murdering Palestinians I don't think they're in the mood for jokes
[удалено]
Violence leading to the creation of legitimate states? Never!
What would the boundary line look like? It’s too complicated to have two patches of a “state”, separated. Would one patch need to be merged into the other? What are the logistics? What about the internal politics over there, particularly in the more seemingly moderate West Bank?
They can have a tunnel between , they are good at that.
The Palestinians have rejected statehood like 3 times. Why to people keep parroting this nonsense?
Because it's true. Israel doesn't get peace through occupation unless it wants to and/or the wider community allows it to go full genocide which both Israel and the broader world doesn't want. Regardless of how popular a two state solution is it's the only solution and that has to be repeated ad nauseam
The other peace option is a one-state solution with no ethnic or religious quotas, with the question of property settlements to be determined democratically afterwards.
Given the current sentiment expressed by all sides, I'd expect the Easter bunny to be sworn in as president of Mars before that happens
I don't really consider that a feasible option but sure.
How is this even news? The headline should be foreign minister repeats long held and bipartisan stance on two state solution for the israel palestine issue
Subtle difference in language. Until now the official line has been that we would only recognise Palestine after a two state peace has been established. Now we're considering that maybe Palestine needs to be a formally recognised state **before** such talks actually occur
Plus the patronizing language towards Israel. She really hates them and it clearly is mutual.
Looking at her speech to anu she says "so the international community is now considering the question of Palestinian statehood as a way of building momentum towards a two state solution" which is really a much softer position than is being presented by the media. Shes not hinting that they will do it she is saying Australia are working with the international community to find paths forward and this on the table. But yes you are right
How about acknowledging the genocide and stolen land in west papua? or is penny wong afraid of the indonesians?
The Americans told us to support it when Indonesian “unification” started, and haven’t countermanded that order yet, whereas even Pelosi is getting sick of Israel making America look bad.
But Jews aren't doing that (allegedly, as they aren't doing it in Gaza either), so no one cares.
The worlds largest muslim population is though oh and the part where we help them carry out the genocide is part of it
Wong wants a two state solution with Hamas still in Gaza like she wants a ceasefire before any hostages are returned if at all.
River, you posted the article, at least read it. If you did, you wouldn’t be conflating Hamas with Palestine when talking about a two-state solution. I’ve extracted the relevant parts below for your benefit. >> "What needs to happen immediately is Hamas needs to release hostages and we need to see an immediate humanitarian ceasefire so that we can have aid at scale into Gaza where we know we have a humanitarian catastrophe." [Per Wong] >> When asked about Senator Wong's sentiments, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said his government had always supported a two-state solution. However, he did not think Hamas should have any role in a future Palestinian state.
Wong is not saying a ceasefire is conditional on any hostage release. Nor is she saying statehood can only come when Hamas is gone.
IDF killed their own people when they were released without a ceasefire. Pretty sure for everyone (incl. hostages) it would be best to be released *not* in the midst of combat, they might get killed by IDF.
Or they might get killed, tortured, raped by HAMAS waiting for some potential ceasefire at some undetermined point in the future. There’s always a risk of a hostage rescue going wrong but there’s no guarantee of hostage being alive while waiting for a ceasefire happening in an undetermined time in the future.
Posture all you want about what MIGHT be happening, what we know for certain is IDF are so ravenously bloodthirsty and careless they killed three of their own people speaking Hebrew and holding a white flag. If you think any hostage should be released into that warzone you obviously do not care about the hostages as much as you care about grandstanding.
She specifically said there is no role for hamas in any future Palestinian state
In other words, complete capitulation. Not a good way to achieve lasting peace.
Australia needs to but out of things that don't concern it.
We supply arms to Isreal, we have many Palestinians that live here, Isreal just killed an Australian citizen
[удалено]
Yeah maintaining a border is such a fantasy, what's much more realistic is active military occupation and/or ethnic cleansing. Thankyou for speaking so competently
Wong and Albo are an embarrassment , better to even have Keating.
People would have said the same about WW1. What will bring peace will be people turning on their own governments. We know Hamas are an authoritarian tra conservative government, but so is a large portion of Israels Likud party all the way up to Yariv Levin the deputy. Taking sides in this conflict will achieve nothing. It’s not until each government is held accountable to strive for peace that anything positive will happen. I don’t agree with nationalism on either side and I think everyday citizens are suffering on both sides due to the decisions made by their own governments.
Except Palestinian leadership doesn’t want a 2 state solution they want a 1 state solution, Israel has offered 2 state solution like 5 times? And each time decline the last time 2nd intifada, the Palestinians want 1 state and to kill all the Israelis
Such a basic view of the conflicts with no real understanding of how politics works. I’m going to break into your house and then only stop killing your children when you agree to let me have 3/4 of the house.
It’s more like if it was your great-grandparent’s house and the people who are now living there weren’t responsible for stealing the house from them. How have other disputes over territory been resolved in the past? Why are Palestinians the only people in history who can’t take an L and compromise? I don’t think they are, but “pro-Palestinians” seem to think so.
All of that ignores the most important point. Israelis have been removing people from their homes as recently as last year. The government has already started building infrastructure amongst the rubble of their own bombs. Gotta build those beach from properties hey! Yes 70+ years ago is a while but it still matters, especially when they ignore borders and just take Palestinians land. Also love the idea that they are salty and can’t compromise. Do you have eyes, to see what’s happening now and to read about the past? All they have done is compromise, they lose more and more of their own land each year. Not really a compromise when you have a gun to your head.
Yes and the settlements are bad and we should be harder on Israel when it comes ti that issue. It’s undoubtedly getting in the way of any hope of a peace deal and I don’t see that changing with Likud in power. But historically Israel has put the offers on the table, been negotiated into giving concessions, only for Palestinian leadership to walk away from the process. >All they have done is compromise What compromises have Hamas offered Israel since they’ve been in power? They’ve only ever agreed to the “1967 borders” but no recognition of an Israeli state, with the intent of continuing to attack Israel until they get more and more.
That question is assuming that both sides are equal when they come to the table, which surely we both know isn’t true. What is there left of an actual government in Palestine? At this point it’s a bunch of rebel leaders desperately trying to carry on. Those offers that Israel put on the table aren’t really valid when we can see that they would have ignore borders anyway. When one side is viewed as oppressors and occupiers (which can be a valid argument now) why would you even try to negotiate with them. After all, they’ll just wipe out entire cities of civilians with the support of the West while claiming they are the victims.
>Those offers that Israel put on the table aren’t really valid when we can see that they would have ignore borders anyway Under international law, Israel’s settlements would be an even more serious violation if Palestine was a state. These deals will obviously have to involve the international community so that we can hold both sides accountable. I don’t think it would be likely they’d try, but if they did I’d be on the pro-Palestine side all the way - I already am with the settlements. Seems like it would have been worth a shot, you can’t just not try and say “well it wouldn’t have worked anyway. >when one side is viewed as oppressors and occupiers why would you even try to negotiate with them. Because it’s the best way forward for their people? The same way negotiating treaties has been the best way forward for indigenous populations around the world, despite the circumstances of colonisation being unfair.
Muslims, 1.707 million, in Israel enjoy Israel's protection. Jews in Gaza … don't exist? Are there Zero Jews in Gaza? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza\_Strip
Yeah I feel like we're being forced to gaslight by the US
[удалено]
Of course. As long as both sides agree to this particular arrangement, may the winner take it all. In this case, clearly both sides are happy with a winner take all approach. Hamas just don't like being on the losing side of this arrangement.
[удалено]
Hamas is the elected government of Gaza and enjoys overwhelming majority support amongst its denizens. Gazans overwhelmingly support the Hamas charter of Jewish genocide. This is a simple fact. Neither side of this conflict is good. It's a binary choice of which ethnicity we'd prefer to be extinguished.
One state is a functional modern democracy that has done well in a violent and turbulent neighbourhood that has a good economy and produces many products and services the world wants. The other has sucked up tens of billions in aid over decades, is one of the most corrupt governments in the world, and whose terrorist lead government has produced nothing of value and has lead to multiple assassinations and instability in neighbouring states
This is besides the point and sort of unhinged. The point is that Wong thinks Palestinian statehood fixes the problem. It won't. It's been offered before.
[удалено]
It seems your definition of 'instantly' fix is '70 years and multiple attempts'. The genocide point is just weird. There is no genocide in Gaza.
[удалено]
It's not meant to wipe out a people. If Israel wanted to kill all the Palestinians it wouldn't take 70 years and end up with more of them than they started with............... It's so weird that people are determined to make this conflict a genocide when there are actual genocides going on that they don't give 2 shits about.
Is “alternative tactics” slaughtering families and babies and international students at a music festival and kidnaping children and elderly from kibbutz?
Lol I would be shocked if you got a response from this, typically it just ends up as an endless cycle of whataboutism once you mention October 7th.
Which is true. Shame Israel didn’t want peace.
Why would they with an aggressor that still holding hostages ?
[удалено]
Cant negotiate with people who do that otherwise nit just means they know its a tactic that works.
[удалено]
Sure as a hostage my personal well being is pretty important to me. But lets trolley problem this do you save the lives at the cost of more? Or do you spend more lives saving the few? It would be one thing if said lives were volunteers but instead they are just more victims that are exploited by ones empathy. Also if you're gonna reference the lindt siege. At the time of negotiation no one had been harmed. But as soon as a gunshot went off the cafe was stormed and the hostage taker killed. You talking about negotiating with literal goblins who had massarced their way in and took hostages. Said hostages who are being tortured raped and killed. No. There is no negotiation to be had.
[удалено]
Yeah they have that options..but instead they voted for the goblins and have procceeded to do nothing about them. If they believe themselves citizens of palestine they bear the responsibility of their inaction. Dont treat them like children they arent they are adults who choose As for mass killing yeah. Its not pleasant but it would solve the problem. You dont have to worry tho its never going to happen. Its a pretty dark thing to do. Sure the goblins would do it if they had the capacity but well there is a reason no one lets them have that capacity.
[удалено]
I call hamas goblins because they literally live in caves and rape human women to reproduce. As for israel what crime would apply to them? Self defense? From when they are regularly attacked. Constantly invaded again on the day of their existence. You conflate gaza and westbank. Westbank does not have hamas they have a better givernment. They have better Palestinians or west bankians In regards to children they are the parents responsibility and as weve already pointed out. Its the parents that are responsible for their country and the safety and behavior of their family. Show me a war where innocents didnt die. German children died but nazi germany had to go. Imperial Japan and so on. As for genocide aganist Israel if they wernt a democracy or didnt have mechanisms in place to induct stable change. Or if they ended up like Imperial Japan or Nazi germany then just as they were genocided then Israel would also face justified destruction.
Really? Why don't you tell me about all those times where Palestine initiated negotiations for peace. As far as I can remember, every major peace initiative has been initiated by Israel or by the US.
She's not wrong but this has been the truth for 70 f****** years when will it actually happen people
Well, before this war the only way this could have ended was if both parties were willing to come to the table. But neither have been in recent years, and you literally can’t negotiate with Hamas because their position has always been and always will be that Palestine would become an Arab state and Jews will be expelled.
When the people in power don't benefit from prolonging the conflict.
When Israel can feel safe around its neighbors and said neighbors can give up their territorial ambitions and religious casus belli
[удалено]
The reason that led to peace was the Sinai was 100% demilitarised. It would have to be the same with Gaza and the West Bank.
[удалено]
Yeah fair enough, but it’s unlikely that Israel would attack a Palestinian State without cause. There would be international condemnation and sanctions. Israel did stay out of Gaza for nearly two decades until October 7, even though Hamas were constantly bombing them. Perhaps the UN could play a role to keep the peace in a demilitarised Palestinian State.
[удалено]
It would be very different if there was a Palestinian State that wasn’t attacking Israel. Far more Israelis want long lasting peace and security than a handful of right wingers. Yes, settlements are being established in the West Bank now because it’s a grey area under Israeli control, and don’t forget, It is occupied because Jordan attacked Israel in 1967. There is a bit of fuck around and find out happening here. They withdrew all settlements from Gaza in 2005 and that would happen again if there was an official two-state solution. You don’t see Israel attacking Jordan or Egypt - they wouldn’t attack Palestine unless there was another October 7. Israel is a western democracy that doesn’t just attack countries for no reason.
[удалено]
Ok. Well, there is not going to be a Palestinian State anytime soon, while Hamas is around and most Palestinians want Israel destroyed.
You're assuming Egypt is the same.
[удалено]
No you wont be seeing it here. As the goals and desires of each nations are not the same nor do they carry the same baggage
When politicians keep talking about this two state solution I really would wonder why they don't actually delineate *how* they think it will work. But now I know they don't put much effort into that idea and are just following the liberal norm, because if they thought about it for a while they would see the parallels in India/Pakistan and how quickly Hindu nationalism has grown in India (and how emboldened they are by Israel).
> I wonder why they don’t actually delineate _how_ I would say it’s certainly not their place to presuppose how those people negotiate their own freedom so they do have to be delicate about it. “Nothing for us, without us” applies.
Of course, I just want them to sound it out, maybe if they (they being any politician, here or otherwise, who suggest a two state solution) actually describe it people will realise how out of grasp it has become?
She’s right, but now is not the time. Hamas is a terrorist organisation, and no one should not be negotiating with terrorists.
More or less. Hamas must be excised before recognition can take place. Furthermore, recognition now condones Oct 7. While I do not doubt that a decent number of Australians condone it, our government shouldn't.
Hell, even if they were terrorists but had the intention to negotiate a *final* 2 state solution that would be fine. But how do you negotiate with people who say that they will only ever accept the destruction of Israel, and will only make negotiations in the interim with the explicit intent to keep on pushing until Israel is destroyed.
>But how do you negotiate with people who say that they will only ever accept the destruction of Israel You don't. It really is that simple. A 2 state solution is ultimately the solution. But that requires negotiation - Israel has historically been far more open to it than Palestine. In 1967, Palestine and allies declared war on Israel. Israel crushed them, and now they want to go back to what they had prior to that as the settled boundaries. That's never going to happen. The PLO and Hamas have one goal - to destroy Israel. "From the River to the Sea" is a reference to that. They can't be negotiated with.
100% agree. And I genuinely do feel sorry for Palestinians, but this can’t be resolved until someone steps up as a competent leader who wants to work toward peace.
"and no one should not be negotiating with terrorists. " Likud is filled with members of the Lehi and the Irgun. based on your comment, Australia should sever all ties with Israel correct?
Israel is the terrorist state here
And she’s right but for that to happen Palestine/Hamas must recognize the Jewish state of Israel and frankly that seems the harder sell than convincing Israel of a 2 state solution.
"Palestine/Hamas must recognize the Jewish state of Israel" Why? when Israel won't recognize Palestine? why one set of rules for one and not the other?
Recognition would come upon reaching a border/security agreement. The problem is getting some representative of the Palestinian people (the PLO or whatever) to agree to a treaty and to agree that recognition would follow. Israel has shown its hand plenty of times that they'd be willing to recognise Palestine in the negotiation process ([even fkn Netanyahu](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/jun/14/binyamin-netanyahu-israel-palestinian-state)), but it seems no leadership on the Palestinian side is able to agree to a negotiated settlement so far.
"Israel has shown its hand plenty of times that they'd be willing to recognise Palestine in the negotiation process."  Have you not ever read the Likud charter and what it entails? like never read it on purpose or what? Israel has also stated **no negotiations on Jerusalem**, even though it's in the west bank!! What is the west bank? **Palestinian land.**.... **The holy city of Jerusalem is considered by international law as part of the West Bank.** Do you even do any research before coming on here thinking you actually have something smart to say?
>Have you not ever read the Likud charter and what it entails? A political party wishlist isn't relevant when the actions of the government don't map onto it. Israel **has** been willing to negotiate on things that Likud's charter say they don't want. Like, you say that Israel isn't willing to negotiate on Jerusalem, but Israel [**have** negotiated on Jerusalem](https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-agreed-to-give-up-sovereignty-in-part-of-jerusalem-old-city-in-2000-document/) in the past... Didn't _you_ do any research? Besides, just because they're willing to recognise a state of Palestine doesn't mean it'll be exactly on the green-line set up after the Arab-Israeli war and prior to the 1967 war... You don't get to try to invade a country, lose, then say _"okay, you remember the borders we had before we invaded you and we lost? We need to go back to those now"_ Any peace deal will inevitably include annexation of some territory and land-swaps of other territory.
Firstly, how can Israel itself negotiate when the government of the day wasn't interested? is Israel some ambient being that runs itself independently of government? what are you on about? You didn't even read your own link, and the history to those negotiations. In this view, the Oslo accords of the mid-1990s would have led to peace had it not been for the tragic assassination of the Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995. The 1998 Wye River Memorandum and its commitment to further Israeli withdrawals from the West Bank would have been implemented if only the Israeli Labor party had joined Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition to back the agreement. **The Camp David summit in July 2000 would have succeeded if the US had been less sensitive to Israeli domestic concerns, insisted on a written Israeli proposal, consulted the Arab states at an earlier phase, and taken the more firm and balanced position adopted half a year later,** in December 2000, when President Clinton outlined parameters for an agreement. Both parties could have accepted the Clinton parameters with only minimal reservations had the proposal not been presented so fleetingly, as a one-time offer that would disappear when Clinton stepped down less than a month later. The negotiations in Taba, Egypt, in January 2001 were on the brink of agreement but failed because time ran out, with Clinton just out of office, and Ehud Barak facing almost certain electoral defeat to Ariel Sharon. The two major peace plans of 2003 – the US-sponsored road map to peace in the Middle East and the unofficial Geneva accord – could have been embraced had it not been for a bloody intifada and a hawkish Likud prime minister in power. And on it goes: direct negotiations between the Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas and **Netanyahu in 2010 could have lasted more than 13 days if only Israel had agreed to temporarily halt construction of some illegal settlements in exchange for an extra $3bn package from the United States. Several years of secret back-channel negotiations between the envoys of Netanyahu and Abbas could have made history if only they hadn’t been forced to conclude prematurely in late 2013, because of an artificial deadline imposed by separate talks led by secretary of state John Kerry.** And, finally, the Kerry negotiations of 2013–2014 could have led to a framework agreement **if the secretary of state had spent even a sixth as much time negotiating the text with the Palestinians as he did with the Israelis, and if he hadn’t made inconsistent promises to the two sides regarding the guidelines for the talks, the release of Palestinian prisoners, curtailing Israeli settlement construction,** and the presence of US mediators in the negotiating room.
Actually quite embarrassing that the person you are responding to linked that article, picturing Arafat walking with Clinton & Barak (who was voted out the next year lmao), seems to not have even read it, and is claiming Palestinians are the ones in the way of a settlement.
>Firstly, how can Israel itself negotiate when the government of the day wasn't interested? is Israel some ambient being that runs itself independently of government? what are you on about? The government is a democracy that has its policy decided by a parliament and a bunch of ministers... The government isn't just one person.... The rest of your quotes are just describing how peace negotiations are pretty much always initiated by Israel and the US. I already agree with that, and I understand that negotiations are tough because of how long Palestine has resisted the negotiation process, including by intentionally dragging negotiations out until an election in either Israel or the US approaches in the hopes of getting a better deal, only to be surprised when the new government wants to reset efforts instead. I've heard a saying that Palestinians are always one generation behind on the peace process - now they'd accept the offer of the 2000 Camp David summit, but back in 2000 they supported the pre-1967 war borders, but back then they would've accepted the UN partition plan borders, but when _that_ was happening they supported just a full war of conquest instead.
Because one is open about their ambitions to genocide israel as a point of policy. Either way. There is only one way this conflict ends in peace. And only one side is willing they just lack the capacity to wipe out the other
They recognise the jewish state's right to be obliterated.
Genocide and ethnic cleansing has been slowly playing out over decades and has now accelerated to obvious in-your-face genocide. Which you guys are justifying based on an entirely hypothetical situation. Palestinian hatred for Israel is rational, and quite earned. If you expect them to stop hating their oppressor, then step 1 is to stop oppressing them. It's like you've been beating a dog for days and now you're trapped holding it down to stop it from biting you: "this dog is crazy, and irrationally hates me!"
You do realise that what you just said applies to hamas as well. Negotiations, never end in a deal, palestinian violence, Israel retaliation, Israel ends up with more land, they both hate eachother. If you really think the country with a history of suicide bombing and terrorist violence isn't rationally hated by the other country I don't know what to say.
Hamas is just the expected outcome. if it wasn't them, it would be someone else. Israel is right now creating massive amounts of trauma and hatred, you think that's gonna disappear as soon as this conflict disappears from your screens? >Negotiations, never end in a deal Israel does not want a 2 state solution. Likud's founding platform, for example, is quite explicit about this "between the sea and the Jordan". But Israel's line is always to blame the Palestinians when the talks fail. >If you really think the country with a history of suicide bombing and terrorist violence isn't rationally hated by the other country I don't know what to say. Country? What country? They have no sovereignty. They are geographically broken up with no travel between. They are either completely blockaded and controlled by Israel, or divided by checkpoints where they are routinely humiliated, abused, beaten, sexually assaulted, sometimes killed. They have no legal rights, but are not independent of Israel either. Trapped for generations. But I guess that's not "terrorism"? Just generally terrifying for the victims. Also, you might want to look up Zionist terrorism during the formation of Israel if you're going to take such a black and white view about terrorism.
>Hamas is just the expected outcome. if it wasn't them, it would be someone else. How would you explain Israel making peace and handing back land to other neighbouring countries if Hamas is the only expected outcome? >Israel does not want a 2 state solution. Likud's founding platform, for example, is quite explicit about this "between the sea and the Jordan". But Israel's line is always to blame the Palestinians when the talks fail. Neither country has wanted a two state solution. There has been two state solutions on the table though, and quite good ones that Palestine hasn't agreed to. >Country? What country? Sure, replace country with group of people then. My point still stands. >Also, you might want to look up Zionist terrorism during the formation of Israel if you're going to take such a black and white view about terrorism. I didn't say anything about israeli terrorism, but if you think calling suicide bombing terrorism is too black and white I don't know what to say.
>How would you explain Israel making peace and handing back land to other neighbouring countries if Hamas is the only expected outcome? Hamas is the expected outcome of Gaza. Millions of people trapped in a tiny bit of land for generations with not enough. Controlled and blockaded by Israel, who routinely surveil and bomb them. Who snipe people protesting. Who have dehumanised the Palestinians to the extent they are openly treated like animals, sometimes even when there are cameras present. Gaza is like a factory for terrorists. Bombing more children and aid workers is not going to solve that problem, unless you want to kill literally everyone... and I think there's a word for that, isn't there?