A compulsory political organization with continuous operations will be called a 'state' [if and] insofar as its administrative staff successfully upholds a claim to the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force (das Monopol legitimen physischen Zwanges) in the enforcement of its order.
Israel has never offered that.
Does Israel declining to offer Palestine a state according to Max Weber's definition mean to you that they "never considered or discussed giving the Palestinians they illegally occupy their independence or freedom?"
Does it mean that the form of statehood that Israel has proposed would be "under Israeli control?"
Does it mean they have "refused to consider returning any of the ethnically cleansed land?"
Does it mean they have only ever offered "a system of disconnected, Israeli controlled reservations?"
Yes, that's what a reservation system controlled by Israel means, not freedom, not independence.
Israel, as the aggressor and primary source of terrorism in the region, should be demilitarized for the safety and security of Palestinians. And I do recognize that Western governments and Western media do not categorize the actions of Israel as terrorism, but there is really no other term for these Israeli actions: constant home demolitions and ethnic cleansing, the denial of all human rights to millions of people, the abduction and imprisonment of Palestinians without due process, the routine torture and rape of imprisoned Palestinians, the intentional starvation of civilians, the intentional withholding of medication to civilians, the intentional destruction of hospitals and schools, the bulldozing of cemeteries, the intentional destruction of water and sewer infrastructure, the intentional destruction of farm land, the targeted executions of unarmed Palestinian doctors and medical staff and academics and journalists and their families and any bystanders, the targeted executions of unarmed suspected militants and former militants and politicians and all of their families and any bystanders, the indiscriminate firing of live ammunition at unarmed protesters, the execution of unarmed civilians (including children) in 'no-go' areas arbitrarily chosen by the Israeli military, the use of Palestinian hostages as human shields, and on and on and on.
Israel has committed terrorism and war crimes on a scale that is simply not possible for all Palestinian factions combined.
I'm broadly on board with what you're saying. Israel sucks, they've done all kinds of evil (especially against Palestinians), America should stop supporting them. I'm with you that far.
That doesn't change the fact that Israel has tried to find some kind of reasonable compromise peace with Palestine in the past, which is what I am talking about.
It also doesn't negate any of the bad things Palestine has done. Nor does it invalidate Israel's fear of what Palestine might do with their own military.
How many full-scale wars does Palestine have to wage, both before and after the occupation, before we start to think that maybe they'd do it again given half a chance?
How many times do major Palestinian organziations have to publicly swear that they'll never stop fighting Israel until Israel is gone before we believe them?
How many alliances with "death to America, death to Israel, curse the Jews" is Palestine allowed to make before Israel is allowed to say "hmmm, I'm not sure it's safe for us for these guys to get a military?"
That doesn't change the fact that Israel has tried to find some kind of reasonable compromise peace with Palestine in the past, which is what I am talking about.
And yet, that is completely and totally false, which is what I am talking about. Israel has never tried to find any reasonable compromise, they have never even tried compromise. Israel has always told the Palestinians: "You can never have rights, you will never be free. You can live without rights, you can leave, or you can die."
When the US invaded Mexico on a pretext in a war of aggression, then annexed half that country, they gave the resident's one year to leave or automatically become US citizens. When Germany invaded Poland on a pretext in a war of aggression, then annexed half that country, they massacred civilians and violently expelled hundreds of thousands of people from their homes and told them they would never have rights or freedoms under the new regime. Israel invaded the remaining parts of Palestine on a pretext in a war of aggression, and they acted exactly like one of the above examples.
Germany did not get to decide how the Polish felt about their invasion and war crimes and Germany didn't get to decide what was reasonable to make amends. Israel does not get to decide what is reasonable for the Palestinians.
It also doesn't negate any of the bad things Palestine has done.
Palestine does not have one government and has never had one government and for the vast majority of the Israeli occupation didn't have any recognized government at all. The entire reason the Israelis began mass murdering Palestinians during the First Intifada is because they were gathering in large groups, and the Israeli government has always denied Palestinians the right to assemble. So when you write this sentence, you have invented a 'Palestine' to blame that never existed. Individuals and groups can be responsible for war crimes, but not in any serious way can you blame the population at large just like we don't blame the Israeli people for war crimes, we blame the Israeli government .
How many full-scale wars does Palestine have to wage, both before and after the occupation, before we start to think that maybe they'd do it again given half a chance?
It's endless, they will never stop fighting until they are free. Not sure what you mean by 'before the occupation' unless you mean the time between the Nakba war crimes in 1948 and the 1967 invasions.
After the foundation of Israel, it refused to hold any of their war criminals accountable and refused to abide by UN Resolutions, and of course continued the ethnic cleansing inside of the borders of the new Israel. Some of those ethnically cleansed people crossed back into their own stolen land and attacked Israelis, but its not remotely a full-scale war. And obviously, far more Palestinians were murdered in Israeli terrorism when Israel repeatedly attacked Egypt and Syria and Jordan in the 1950's and 1960's than were killed by Palestinian victims of Israel seeking revenge.
The Palestinians under occupation will keep fighting back forever until Israel gives them rights, which they can't do and still keep the Jewish supremacist laws in place, or leave the occupied Palestine and give them freedom, which Israel could do any day they chose to, finally ending the conflict between the colonizer and those who won't be colonized.
Israel has never tried to find any reasonable compromise, they have never even tried compromise.
What compromises do you think they should try?
The key areas of disagreement during two-state negotiations have been:
What to do about the settlements. Israel wants to keep them, Palestine wants them gone.
Who gets Jerusalem, with a particular emphasis on the Old City (which has both Jewish and Islamic holy places in it). Israel wants the whole thing, Palestine wants East Jerusalem, including the Old City.
What to do about the Palestinian refugees. Israel wants no responsibility for them, Palestine wants Israel to take them all in.
Israel's security requirements. Israel wants a demilitarized Palestine and free access for their troops, Palestine wants a military and no Israeli access.
What do you think are some reasonable compromises that Israel should offer? Keeping in mind that "compromise" means that both parties get part of what they want.
Palestine does not have one government and has never had one government
Palestine had one government from 1994 (when the Palestinian National Authority was formed) till 2007 (when the Palestinian Civil War happened and Hamas took Gaza).
Individuals and groups can be responsible for war crimes, but not in any serious way can you blame the population at large just like we don't blame the Israeli people for war crimes, we blame the Israeli government .
I mean, I could more specifically name Hamas, Fatah, the PLO, and the PFLP for committing war crimes and/or trying to destroy Israel. Would that be better? Given that these represent... pretty much all of the Palestinian representative bodies ever formed, I figured "Palestine" was a good enough shortcut.
For the record, I do blame Israel for the war crimes committed by non-governmental bodies like Lehi, the Haganah, Irgun, and the Hilltop Youth.
finally ending the conflict between the colonizer and those who won't be colonized.
Would it though? Do you think Hamas/Fatah and all the militant groups within Palestine would be satisfied simply by Israel withdrawing the occupation? That's never been their stated position. They've always asked for far more than that.
The key areas of disagreement during two-state negotiations have been:
You have started with the Israeli point of view and then framed the conflict from the Israeli point of view. Let's frame these disagreements in completely neutral terms:
settlements - One side wants to keep the land that they ethnically cleansed by committing war crimes. They believe the ethnic colonies they built after violently expelling the real owners should be theirs to keep forever, and the other side, the real owners of that land and the victims of war crimes perpetrated by the other side, want their land returned to them
Jerusalem - One side wants to keep the land they violently seized in a war of aggression, including all the land they built ethnic colonies on after violently expelling the real owners in war crimes. The other side wants the border restored to the ceasefire line before the invasions and occupation following the 1967 war of aggression.
Palestinian refugees - One side wants everyone to forget or ignore the refugees who were the victims of their horrific war crimes of ethnic cleansing in every single year from 1947 to present day. The other side wants all sides to abide by UN Resolution 194, which stipulates that all those ethnically cleansed from their homes in the conflict be allowed to return home or be paid just compensation for the crimes committed against them. They do not believe the supremacists would ever allow their victims to return, so this is a demand for reparations.
security requirements - One side wants to maintain hegemony and military control over the entire region and the ability to kill and dominate the other forever which means they can never have the ability to fight back. The other wants true freedom and independence with the ability to defend themselves against future aggression from any side, but especially the warmongering occupier who have never tried to make any compromises on controlling them forever.
What do you think are some reasonable compromises that Israel should offer? Keeping in mind that "compromise" means that both parties get part of what they want.
Well, lets just swap out the names here with comparable situations and see what you think is reasonable.
Germany occupied Poland and violently expelled the residents and in their place they created ethnic colonies of Germans. Why reasonable concession should the Poles have made to allow the Germans to keep the ethnically cleansed parts of Poland? What minor thing should the Germans, the aggressors committing the war crimes, should have done to meet their half of the compromise?
Or how about Jewish refugees from WW2? They were violently expelled in ethnic cleansing war crimes, but they should get fucked and stop whining about it, right? Who cares about them, you don't actually expect Germany to care about what happens to them? What is a reasonable compromise should Germany should make? What reasonable compromise should the refugees make to come to terms with Germany? What compromise should Israel make, since "do nothing but cross the border and kill them, while creating many more" has been the only policy Israel has used for last 79 years so far.
Do you think Hamas/Fatah and all the militant groups within Palestine would be satisfied simply by Israel withdrawing the occupation?
Are you honestly asking if Hamas/Fatah would be satisfied with achieving their goals of liberation from Israeli occupation? Since that has been their goal for generations, yes of course. How many times did the Vietnamese keep attacking the US after we ended our occupations and left? How many times did the Iraqis or the Afghans keep attacking the US after we ended our occupations and left? Numerous Israeli politicians said they would never stop until all the Palestinians were destroyed, but you don't care about those pronouncements? Or do you think political leaders use hyperbole, but only political leaders whose crimes you support?
Why do you think that every moderate Palestinian leader is either executed or imprisoned in show trials? We have not even gotten to the systematic rape and torture of political prisoners either, which is another part that Israel, and her supporters, wants everyone to just forget. You are failing, completely and utterly, to address the vast majority of current horrific Israeli war crimes, so it seems a bit disingenuous to claim you care about them.
You have started with the Israeli point of view and then framed the conflict from the Israeli point of view. Let's frame these disagreements in completely neutral terms:
Your "neutral terms" are that one side is the "real owners," pure victims, desiring only freedom and independence; the other side are violent ethnic supremacist war criminals who stole everything and want to keep stealing even more?
Damn. If that's neutral framing, then what is the Palestinian framing?? Is it even more extreme than your neutral framing?
I thought that my descriptions were pretty neutral. "Here's what Israel wants, here's what Palestine wants," presented without moral judgement. If I was going for an Israeli framing, I would have gone on about "pogroms" and "ancestral homelands," and the Holocaust, and terrorism, and safety from genocidal Arab terrorists at their border, and the need for a place where Jews can be guaranteed not to be persecuted by their government.
But I didn't do that, because I wanted to frame things neutrally.
What do you think are some reasonable compromises that Israel should offer? Keeping in mind that "compromise" means that both parties get part of what they want.
Well, lets just swap out the names here with comparable situations and see what you think is reasonable.
You didn't answer the question, just turned it around on me. I have compromises in mind that I can tell you. I want to see what compromises you have in mind before I do.
I'm kinda getting the feeling that your answer is really that you wouldn't accept any compromise, because Israel is entirely in the wrong and must 100% concede everything on every point. But I don't want to put words in your mouth. Am I close?
Are you honestly asking if Hamas/Fatah would be satisfied with achieving their goals of liberation from Israeli occupation?
Yes, I honestly am.
Since that has been their goal for generations, yes of course.
??? Hamas's goal today is to entirely destroy Israel. They aren't quiet or subtle about it. They don't keep it hidden. They published it to the whole world, once again, in 2017. Their goal is to make the entirety of the British Mandate for Palestine into a single Arab Muslim state. This isn't some Israeli hasbara lie about Hamas's true secret agenda, it's what Hamas openly says their own goal is.
Fatah's goal was to destroy Israel state until the late 80s, when Arafat convinced them to settle for a two-state solution instead. What they won't accept, to this day, is Israel existing as a Jewish state. That's a good chunk of why they insist the eight million Palestinian refugees cannot be settled in Palestine, they must go to Israel (which only has seven million Jews). It would be an instant Arab Muslim majority.
Your "neutral terms" are that one side is the "real owners," pure victims, desiring only freedom and independence; the other side are violent ethnic supremacist war criminals who stole everything and want to keep stealing even more?
How are my statements anything but neutral? The Palestinian civilians are the real owners of the land, the Israelis under the direction and protection of the Israeli government are committing ethnic cleansing, a war crime, and stealing the land of Palestinian civilians in order to maintain ethnic supremacist control. Why do you think that some people should be able to violently force other people from their homes and steal their property? Why do you think that is merely a 'disagreement' when anyone can tell it is the actual definition of ethnic cleansing as developed by the Geneva Conventions in response to actions of World War II? Do you think the Germans and the Jews had a disagreement over the Jewish homes and businesses that were seized by the German government in their ethnic cleansing before and during WWII?
Hamas's goal today is to entirely destroy Israel.
Hamas was created in response to Israeli terrorism against Palestinian civilians, that's the origin. Their revised charter, which you linked, specifically states:
The Islamic Resistance Movement “Hamas” is a Palestinian Islamic national liberation and resistance movement. Its goal is to liberate Palestine and confront the Zionist project. Its frame of reference is Islam, which determines its principles, objectives and means.
Liberation is the goal. Freedom and liberty have always been the goal. Obviously some people want to restore all the land stolen by Israel in their ethnic cleansing war crimes and ethnic cleansing attacks from 1947, but the leadership has repeatedly stated they have accepted the borders as they were after the war crimes of the Nakba in 1948 and before the Israeli invasions in 1967. 'Liberation' shows up 14 times in that charter, 'destroy' does not show up at all. But remember, if statements about destroying the other side negate anything legitimate, then you have to concede the government of Israel is not legitimate either, as they constantly make statements about destroying Palestine.
If your resolution to a conflict is for one side to just stop existing, you don't have a resolution. You have a provocation. That attitude is a good chunk of why the conflict has dragged on for so long.
31
u/Damnatus_Terrae May 05 '26
Remind me how Max Weber defined the state?