[throw310822]

I know I shouldn't, but let's try to have a dialogue. Do you think that if Hamas disappeared and Palestinians became friendly and peaceful, Israel would forever stop expanding its colonies? Can you answer succinctly with a yes or a no avoiding introducing new elements, if possible?

[throw627933788]

This is a common trope pushed by Iran and others, which is ridiculous if you just look at a map and zoom out until you can see all the Arab countries - Israel becomes barely visible.

Since 1967 the total area under control by Israel has shrunk significantly, with the return of Sinai to Egypt in exchange of lasting peace - that hasn’t been broken in 40 years.

In 2005, Gaza was ethnically cleansed from Jews and all settlements dismantled by Israel.

So the idea that Muslims have to fear an ever expanding Israel is ridiculous.

[mhb]

Yes.

[throw310822]

And do you think that the many nationalist, extremist elements in the Israeli society (settlers, right wing parties, the Likud itself that in its founding charter declares that "between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty") want this to happen? To have to give up forever any dream and promise of colonising the entire historical Palestine?

[mhb]

It didn't take long for that dialogue idea to go out the window.

[throw310822]

Why, I don't get it. You don't think there are extremists or far-right nationalists in Israel? The National Religious Party–Religious Zionism is part of the government. The Likud charter is clear. If you have given a serious thought to the issue, you must have wondered what their attitude would be towards an end to the expansion of Israel.

[mhb]

Conflating the desires of the most extreme Israeli political factions as Israeli policy is disingenuous. And even they don't seek to conquer Gaza. If Israel wanted to overrun Gaza, they could do it in a week. Why hadn't they done this by October 6?

Is this you trying to say that Hamas isn't supported by a huge number of Palestinians who were seen cheering on October 7? Or that they don't explicitly seek to destroy Israel? Even though Hamas, in its wildest imagination couldn't conquer Israel, they foolishly thought it was worth a try. The parallel that you are trying to manufacture exists only in your imagination.

[throw310822]

Ah no, but I'm not trying to "manufacture a parallel". I am trying to argue (from the beginning of this thread) that those who have a political/ ideological/ religious/ economic interests in the continued expansion of Israel have no interest in putting themselves in a situation that would make it harder to justify an advancement of the colonisation. Since at the end of every single outburst of violence, the party that gains territory is Israel and the one that loses is Palestine, the prospect of new settlements acts as a perverse incentive in stoking tensions. This is why I proposed to set a border first and make it eternal and inviolable from both sides- this removes the incentive to violence.

> Conflating the desires of the most extreme Israeli political factions as Israeli policy is disingenuous

Ok, let's look at these factions then. Current government:

Likud: its 1999 party platform states "The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel". They got 23% of the votes at the last elections.

National Religious Party–Religious Zionism + Otzma: "Otzma Yehudit calls for a one-state solution, including the annexation of the West Bank and complete Israeli rule of the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea." NRP: its leader Bezalel Smotrich "is a supporter of expanding Israeli settlements in the West Bank, and opposes Palestinian statehood." (He is also a settler living in an illegal settlement). These got 10.8% of the votes

New hope: led by Gideon Sa'ar, who has stated that he is opposed to a two-state solution, arguing "There is no two-state solution; there is at most a two-state slogan", and that it would be "a mistake to return to the idea of establishing a Palestinian state in Judea, Samaria and Gaza as a solution to the conflict."- 4.7% of the votes.

Blue and white, led by Benny Gantz, one of the most moderate parties in the government. "In his first major political speech on 29 January 2019, Gantz pledged to strengthen Israeli settlement blocs in the West Bank and said that Israel would never leave the Golan Heights. He neither endorsed nor rejected a two-state solution to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict."- 6.6% of the votes.

Shas: a religious party. Their position: "by the 2010s it had moved to the right, opposing any freeze in Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank.". Votes: 8.25%

United Torah Judaism: "United Torah Judaism (UTJ) supports and facilitates the growth of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, driven by ideological, housing, and political motives. Key Haredi, or ultra-Orthodox, population hubs in the West Bank, such as Modiin Illit and Beitar Illit, are central to their interests, holding 30% of the Haredi settler population.". 5.9% of the votes.

These are the parties in the government coalition. The most moderate position among them is that of "Blue and white", which only proposes to keep everything they settled so far, and "strengthen" it. Together they make 60% of the electorate. I didn't even check the opposition parties. Are you still convinced that Israel's policy is different from the positions expressed here?