Israel - Palestine Discussion | Post Respectfully | Discuss more, tweet less

[Laurencio]

Also

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...etanyahu-as-idf-pushes-further-into-gaza-city.

The US has far less influence over Israel than you think @Kaos

 

[africanspur]

Do you think it’s a terrible idea compared to realistic alternatives? Say, if the Palestinians were moved to Crete and given a state there. (I know that it can’t be actual Crete, but there are plenty of islands of similar sizes without the people)

I will never believe that ethnic cleaning is the best solution to something. It is a complete and utter failure in every way.

And depends on what you mean by realistic. The USA can and should rein Israel in. Israel acts with impunity because it knows that the USA will always support it militarily, morally and diplomatically, almost regardless of what they do. Even when Israel eventually do bomb Al-Shifa, which I'm sure is coming imminently, the USA will issue some mildly worded statement about keeping to international law, even while they funnel money, supplies and even fly and sail military assets adjacent to and over the country that is already by some distance the regional hegemon by some distance.

If we've decided that this is never going to change, that the power dynamic only going one way, that the Arabs have abandoned the Palestinians for good, that the Israelis will only finish this with genocide/ ethnic cleansing, because there is no longer any internal or external impetus on them to do anything....then sure. Ethnic cleansing wins out over genocide.

 

[Kaos]

Also

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...etanyahu-as-idf-pushes-further-into-gaza-city.

The US has far less influence over Israel than you think @Kaos

Not to come across overly cynical, but don't you think this is essentially a PR stunt for the US to absolve itself somewhat in its culpability? 'Oh let it be known we tried to tell them to tone it down abit'.

The fact remains the US can easily bring this to a halt. Israel relies heavily on the US for military, financial and diplomatic support. If they told the Israelis they'd cease any of the aforementioned support if they didn't oblige a ceasefire, you'd be certain the Israelis would fall in line. Same with the settlements, same with the occupation in general.

 

[owlo]

Look, I will always read your posts. I learn a ton from you. Hell, I would even fight for having you posting here. I'm no politician, no military expert, no geostrategist and can't give you any miracle solution. Only my own fairly uneducated opinion.

But you'll never drag me to the side, that many are currently choosing, where driving people out of their land is the most humane thing to do. Never.

The moment we start normalizing inhuman behavior, humankind has lost. That's how the biggest crimes against our own kind have happened in the past.

I don't have any answers unfortunately either, and I do want to stress thats just my personal extreme opinion, likely shared by nobody else on the planet. So it's really that important as it'd never happen. (Can you imagine Bibi offering reparations?)

I just look at my own experiences with childhood then war, and think of my own family when I see those horrific pictures coming out of Gaza. Strangely I was less angry on the 7th, when I viewed events with some sort of sad inevitability and dread as to what was coming. It was terrible, I said at the time it was going to be bad, but never did I imagine it was this level of savagery. It's not the airstikes themselves, though it may well transpire some are indefensible, it's the entire doctrine of 'we don't want a single soldier to die, so we're going to go slow, blast you to bits and starve you out' mentality. I look at all that, and I know Israel won't stop until they have killed every active Hamas cell they can find. I look at all this, and know it will only get worse for the people just caught up in it. And I ask what I'd prefer for my family in the situation. I think if they got to a safe spot they could live in peace and freedom, I'd be happy and relieved it was all over. And I say this as a Jew whose family had a history of displacement, in 1942, in 1979, and then for me personally in 2001. Jews are used to that if nothing else; when it becomes unsafe, you have to ethnically cleanse yourself or face the consequences.

 

[Laurencio]

Not to come across overly cynical, but don't you think this is essentially a PR stunt for the US to absolve itself somewhat in its culpability? 'Oh let it be known we tried to tell them to tone it down abit'.

The fact remains the US can easily bring this to a halt. Israel relies heavily on the US for military, financial and diplomatic support. If they told the Israelis they'd cease any of the aforementioned support if they didn't oblige a ceasefire, you'd be certain the Israelis would fall in line. Same with the settlements, same with the occupation in general.

No. I get why you think that though.

That last part would end the Biden presidency and send Israel to the arms of their new friends China or Russia. Well more realistically Biden would be impeached with support from both parties.

 

[owlo]

I will never believe that ethnic cleaning is the best solution to something. It is a complete and utter failure in every way.

And depends on what you mean by realistic. The USA can and should rein Israel in. Israel acts with impunity because it knows that the USA will always support it militarily, morally and diplomatically, almost regardless of what they do. Even when Israel eventually do bomb Al-Shifa, which I'm sure is coming imminently, the USA will issue some mildly worded statement about keeping to international law, even while they funnel money, supplies and even fly and sail military assets adjacent to and over the country that is already by some distance the regional hegemon by some distance.

If we've decided that this is never going to change, that the power dynamic only going one way, that the Arabs have abandoned the Palestinians for good, that the Israelis will only finish this with genocide/ ethnic cleansing, because there is no longer any internal or external impetus on them to do anything....then sure. Ethnic cleansing wins out over genocide.

It happens constantly though. Individuals use it as their solution regularly in conflict.

I don't think the US can rein Israel in at this point, I think they are completely off the reservation. All the US can do is try to moderate them and provide good ISR. And if Biden did try to act, he'd be out on his ass. And for that reason I think the bold is true. It set off deep shockwaves in Israeli society, which until then had only been localised, and it brought together stratas who would never give each other the time of day, letalone consider them allies. They've pushed so far, that even Iranian proxies are backing off wanting nothing to do with it. I see no hope for anything but pain this generation.

Maybe the power dynamic changes in 20 years, 50, 100, but is that worth the death?

The US won't even send them comfort or mercy which would be literally the only truly safe spots there....

 

[africanspur]

Also

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...etanyahu-as-idf-pushes-further-into-gaza-city.

The US has far less influence over Israel than you think @Kaos

This would have a lot more sway if the Americans didn't immediately send billions of dollars in aid to by far the richest non-oil country in the region, didn't immediately send weapons, to the regional superpower, didn't send their navy to shoot down missiles from elsewhere and threaten any other external actor with dire consequences if they got involved and weren't flying their drones over Gaza right now. Also if they weren't vetoing every single UNSC resolution for Israel.

Israel knows this won't stop. The USA knows it won't stop. I know it and you stop it.

So when Blinken says please think about the consequences of your actions, show some restraint. And the Israelis say no. They say no knowing that they can do so and the Americans will still support them in every possible way. And the Americans say it because they have to also try to keep the Arab states on board, as well as on paper hold the flag for the international rules based system (as long as you're with us, wink wink).

If Blinken said. Oh by the way, you can of course do what you want to. But if you don't stop bombing ambulances, there will be no more military aid. We're going to withdraw our drones and ships from the arena. We're not going to deter other actors in the region. We're going to sponsor ourselves resolutions condemning you in the UN.

That they would continue as they were?

We're not talking about how able a US presidency actually is to do that in their domestic context but there's no point pretending to ourselves that the Americans have no leverage over the Israelis. Considering the Israelis consistently beat the Arabs in large part due to their overwhelming air superiority (of US jets vs Soviet) and considering Russia's current performance in the Ukraine war, as well as semi sponsorship of Iran, Israel's current mortal enemy.....I don't really see Israel rushing to Russia. As for China, its a potential I guess, though I don't think Chinese hardware is tested at all so would be a big jump to jump into the Chinese sphere.

 

[owlo]

This would have a lot more sway if the Americans didn't immediately send billions of dollars in aid to by far the richest non-oil country in the region, didn't immediately send weapons, to the regional superpower, didn't send their navy to shoot down missiles from elsewhere and threaten any other external actor with dire consequences if they got involved and weren't flying their drones over Gaza right now. Also if they weren't vetoing every single UNSC resolution for Israel.

Israel knows this won't stop. The USA knows it won't stop. I know it and you stop it.

So when Blinken says please think about the consequences of your actions, show some restraint. And the Israelis say no. They say no knowing that they can do so and the Americans will still support them in every possible way. And the Americans say it because they have to also try to keep the Arab states on board, as well as on paper hold the flag for the international rules based system (as long as you're with us, wink wink).

If Blinken said. Oh by the way, you can of course do what you want to. But if you don't stop bombing ambulances, there will be no more military aid. We're going to withdraw our drones and ships from the arena. We're not going to deter other actors in the region. We're going to sponsor ourselves resolutions condemning you in the UN.

That they would continue as they were?

We're not talking about how able a US presidency actually is to do that in their domestic context but there's no point pretending to ourselves that the Americans have no leverage over the Israelis. Considering the Israelis consistently beat the Arabs in large part due to their overwhelming air superiority (of US jets vs Soviet) and considering Russia's current performance in the Ukraine war, as well as semi sponsorship of Iran, Israel's current mortal enemy.....I don't really see Israel rushing to Russia. As for China, its a potential I guess, though I don't think Chinese hardware is tested at all so would be a big jump to jump into the Chinese sphere.

It's their proxy in the region, just like Hezbollah is for Iran or Assad is for Russia. (ps. They have [a lot] of Gas. Some might belong to Jordan, we'll see.)

And the reason they have that ancillary support there is to moderate the Israeli response. If those missiles hit, the situation starts spinning out of control. The US want to keep a lid on regional instability, not encourage it. Similarly with the drones, they are probably providing ISR for targeting to try and help Israel care a bit more about civcas.

Lets say they don't. Let's say they say all that as you said, and Israel says feck you (which they absolutely would right now), the Arab countries sense weakness, and Iran along with others order an attack. The US becomes directly responsible for a bloody and quite probably nuclear war, and likely ends up having to send in marines before it gets to the point of Russian BTG's rolling into Israel. Meanwhile, the US would lose all sense of control of the situation, as the Israeli AF starts bombing the hell out of everything and panic sets in, whilst the nation begins discussing the Samson option seriously. Meanwhile you have the images coming out of Israel like Gaza now but far worse, and the world blaming the USA.

You're suppositioning your entire post on, 'if the US threatens Israel, Israel will behave' - that is not how Israel reacts. And it'd be a mighty gamble to hope it did this time.

 

[africanspur]

It happens constantly though. Individuals use it as their solution regularly in conflict.

I don't think the US can rein Israel in at this point, I think they are completely off the reservation. All the US can do is try to moderate them and provide good ISR. And if Biden did try to act, he'd be out on his ass. And for that reason I think the bold is true. It set off deep shockwaves in Israeli society, which until then had only been localised, and it brought together stratas who would never give each other the time of day, letalone consider them allies. They've pushed so far, that even Iranian proxies are backing off wanting nothing to do with it. I see no hope for anything but pain this generation.

Maybe the power dynamic changes in 20 years, 50, 100, but is that worth the death?

The US won't even send them comfort or mercy which would be literally the only truly safe spots there....

I mean....I don't think individuals have been doing it generally in the modern world. And the ones who have are generally not allies/ countries who see themselves as an integral part of the Western 'rules based order'.

That's because the Americans are hypocritical twats.

I already said earlier in this thread that the Israelis have comprehensively 'won' this conflict. I don't see much moral difference between the settlers in the 1920s and the settlers in the 2020s. Regardless, the Israelis have won. I'm not sure the Palestinians have realised it yet though.

What happens next, who knows. The world doesn't care. It will be awful for the Palestinians either way.

 

[owlo]

I mean....I don't think individuals have been doing it generally in the modern world. And the ones who have are generally not allies/ countries who see themselves as an integral part of the Western 'rules based order'.

That's because the Americans are hypocritical twats.

I already said earlier in this thread that the Israelis have comprehensively 'won' this conflict. I don't see much moral difference between the settlers in the 1920s and the settlers in the 2020s. Regardless, the Israelis have won. I'm not sure the Palestinians have realised it yet though.

What happens next, who knows. The world doesn't care. It will be awful for the Palestinians either way.

I think I replied to you, always enjoy reading your posts. Might have been a few days late as I decided I needed a bit of a break. I think the Americans are doing ok in this particular instance; the limits to their powers are being severely tested.

That was kind of the thrust of my idea though. Were the Palestinians to move en masse, and migrate to a nice Canadian or European island, they would be free, having lost nothing but dignity. And you can always get back dignity. You can't get back a ruined childhood or dead family member. Get the Israelis to pay for it with their newly found riches, and even better.

There's nothing but suffering for them here. Caught between Israel, Hamas, and Iran.

 

[Laurencio]

This would have a lot more sway if the Americans didn't immediately send billions of dollars in aid to by far the richest non-oil country in the region, didn't immediately send weapons, to the regional superpower, didn't send their navy to shoot down missiles from elsewhere and threaten any other external actor with dire consequences if they got involved and weren't flying their drones over Gaza right now. Also if they weren't vetoing every single UNSC resolution for Israel.

Israel knows this won't stop. The USA knows it won't stop. I know it and you stop it.

So when Blinken says please think about the consequences of your actions, show some restraint. And the Israelis say no. They say no knowing that they can do so and the Americans will still support them in every possible way. And the Americans say it because they have to also try to keep the Arab states on board, as well as on paper hold the flag for the international rules based system (as long as you're with us, wink wink).

If Blinken said. Oh by the way, you can of course do what you want to. But if you don't stop bombing ambulances, there will be no more military aid. We're going to withdraw our drones and ships from the arena. We're not going to deter other actors in the region. We're going to sponsor ourselves resolutions condemning you in the UN.

That they would continue as they were?

We're not talking about how able a US presidency actually is to do that in their domestic context but there's no point pretending to ourselves that the Americans have no leverage over the Israelis. Considering the Israelis consistently beat the Arabs in large part due to their overwhelming air superiority (of US jets vs Soviet) and considering Russia's current performance in the Ukraine war, as well as semi sponsorship of Iran, Israel's current mortal enemy.....I don't really see Israel rushing to Russia. As for China, its a potential I guess, though I don't think Chinese hardware is tested at all so would be a big jump to jump into the Chinese sphere.

I doubt it would even get out of the Oval before the cabinet relieved Biden of his duties for dementia or something. But Owlo is right, if the US did what you ask and it got all the way to actionable, and no one quickly stepped into the power vacuum, that scenario could easily happen.

The bottom line is that the idea that the US can and will threaten Israel like that is completely unrealistic and beyond the realm of possibility.

 

[africanspur]

It's their proxy in the region, just like Hezbollah is for Iran or Assad is for Russia. (ps. They have [a lot] of Gas. Some might belong to Jordan, we'll see.)

And the reason they have that ancillary support there is to moderate the Israeli response. If those missiles hit, the situation starts spinning out of control. The US want to keep a lid on regional instability, not encourage it. Similarly with the drones, they are probably providing ISR for targeting to try and help Israel care a bit more about civcas.

Lets say they don't. Let's say they say all that as you said, and Israel says feck you (which they absolutely would right now), the Arab countries sense weakness, and Iran along with others order an attack. The US becomes directly responsible for a bloody and quite probably nuclear war, and likely ends up having to send in marines before it gets to the point of Russian BTG's rolling into Israel. Meanwhile, the US would lose all sense of control of the situation, as the Israeli AF starts bombing the hell out of everything and panic sets in, whilst the nation begins discussing the Samson option seriously. Meanwhile you have the images coming out of Israel like Gaza now but far worse, and the world blaming the USA.

You're suppositioning your entire post on, 'if the US threatens Israel, Israel will behave' - that is not how Israel reacts. And it'd be a mighty gamble to hope it did this time.

We don't know how Israel reacts in these situations because they've almost always had the American security umbrella to operate under. In 1956, one of the few times they really pushed back (though of course the Soviets and Arabs will claim it was more to do with the Soviet threat of nuclear strikes), the Israelis were forced to cede the territory they'd conquered. In 73, they again airlifted massive military supplies because defeat looked genuinely possible.

Russian BTGs will never roll into Israel and the Israeli airforce would likely destroy any conventional airforce that tries to challenge it in the region. Of course, they wouldn't do so because the Egyptian army is a business masquerading as an army (and is far weaker than Israel), the Syrian army is ravaged by civil war (and is far weaker than Israel), the Jordanian army is far weaker than Israel's and Iran is nowhere physically near (and if they were, would likely suffer the same fate as multiple Arab armies have over the years).

These arguments essentially keep on coming back to a point whereby Israel/the USA essentially lack agency. That's fine if that's what we're working on but I'm not talking about what I think can happen right now. I'm pushing back on these comments about how the USA is doing such a great job. The USA is so insanely one sided, so as to be basically entirely pointless in this conflict now. Israel is the spoilt bully and the USA the mom who makes a half-hearted plea to ask her kid to stop shoving sand into the other kid's face, all while never punishing them in any way and taking them for ice cream afterwards. That's great for that kid and maybe for that mum but let's not pretend she's a good mum or in any way neutral here.

 

[africanspur]

I doubt it would even get out of the Oval before the cabinet relieved Biden of his duties for dementia or something. But Owlo is right, if the US did what you ask and it got all the way to actionable, and no one quickly stepped into the power vacuum, that scenario could easily happen.

The bottom line is that the idea that the US can and will threaten Israel like that is completely unrealistic and beyond the realm of possibility.

Again, that's fine. But please don't try to paint the USA as poor USA with little influence over Israel. They have a huge amount of potential influence and leverage. The fact the domestic situation precludes this does not then mean that the USA are this great neutral arbitrator for the 2 state solution. They are not.

 

[Laurencio]

We don't know how Israel reacts in these situations because they've almost always had the American security umbrella to operate under. In 1956, one of the few times they really pushed back (though of course the Soviets and Arabs will claim it was more to do with the Soviet threat of nuclear strikes), the Israelis were forced to cede the territory they'd conquered. In 73, they again airlifted massive military supplies because defeat looked genuinely possible.

Russian BTGs will never roll into Israel and the Israeli airforce would likely destroy any conventional airforce that tries to challenge it in the region. Of course, they wouldn't do so because the Egyptian army is a business masquerading as an army (and is far weaker than Israel), the Syrian army is ravaged by civil war (and is far weaker than Israel), the Jordanian army is far weaker than Israel's and Iran is nowhere physically near (and if they were, would likely suffer the same fate as multiple Arab armies have over the years).

These arguments essentially keep on coming back to a point whereby Israel/the USA essentially lack agency. That's fine if that's what we're working on but I'm not talking about what I think can happen right now. I'm pushing back on these comments about how the USA is doing such a great job. The USA is so insanely one sided, so as to be basically entirely pointless in this conflict now. Israel is the spoilt bully and the USA the mom who makes a half-hearted plea to ask her kid to stop shoving sand into the other kid's face, all while never punishing them in any way and taking them for ice cream afterwards. That's great for that kid and maybe for that mum but let's not pretend she's a good mum or in any way neutral here.

Great job? No one is suggesting they are doing a great job my friend. They are acting within the constraints of their room for political maneuvering. Several US presidents have dropped the ball on Israel and dealing with Bibi.

Again, that's fine. But please don't try to paint the USA as poor USA with little influence over Israel. They have a huge amount of potential influence and leverage. The fact the domestic situation precludes this does not then mean that the USA are this great neutral arbitrator for the 2 state solution. They are not.

Not at all. That would be a host of smaller European and larger Arab countries. Being neutral arbitrators I mean. The US is a bit of a problem to be fair. It makes everything too geopolitical

 

[africanspur]

Israel prepping the world for their strike on Al-Shifa hospital.

Senior Israeli adviser says Hamas had control centre under hospital

Mark Regev, an adviser to the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has told the UK's Channel 4 news that Israel believes that Hamas has “established its command and control" centre under the Al-Shifa hospital.

Regev goes on to say that if a combatant builds such a construction under civilian infrastructure it could become a "legitimate target".

Israel has previously claimed that Hamas is using the population in Gaza as human shields by placing part of its military system under civilian infrastructure.
As we've been reporting, the Hamas-run health ministry in Gaza has said at least 13 people have been killed in a blast outside that hospital – Gaza City's biggest.
The Israeli military has confirmed it struck an ambulance that it says was being used by Hamas operatives. It did not say where the air strike took place.

At least this time we'll be spared the tiresome armchair analysis of the size of the crater, trajectories of PIJ rockets or airstrikes and the number of potential casualties.

 

[Revan]

We don't know how Israel reacts in these situations because they've almost always had the American security umbrella to operate under. In 1956, one of the few times they really pushed back (though of course the Soviets and Arabs will claim it was more to do with the Soviet threat of nuclear strikes), the Israelis were forced to cede the territory they'd conquered. In 73, they again airlifted massive military supplies because defeat looked genuinely possible.

Russian BTGs will never roll into Israel and the Israeli airforce would likely destroy any conventional airforce that tries to challenge it in the region. Of course, they wouldn't do so because the Egyptian army is a business masquerading as an army (and is far weaker than Israel), the Syrian army is ravaged by civil war (and is far weaker than Israel), the Jordanian army is far weaker than Israel's and Iran is nowhere physically near (and if they were, would likely suffer the same fate as multiple Arab armies have over the years).

These arguments essentially keep on coming back to a point whereby Israel/the USA essentially lack agency. That's fine if that's what we're working on but I'm not talking about what I think can happen right now. I'm pushing back on these comments about how the USA is doing such a great job. The USA is so insanely one sided, so as to be basically entirely pointless in this conflict now. Israel is the spoilt bully and the USA the mom who makes a half-hearted plea to ask her kid to stop shoving sand into the other kid's face, all while never punishing them in any way and taking them for ice cream afterwards. That's great for that kid and maybe for that mum but let's not pretend she's a good mum or in any way neutral here.

To be fair, in 1956, Israel had no nuclear weapons which change the equation somehow. And yes, Khrushchev threatened to nuke Israel (and France and the UK). Which might have played some role.

However, agree with most of your post. I think that the US has gone from a somehow balanced position gradually to becoming completely one-sided. At this stage, they are Israel's proxy as much as the other way around. No idea why, probably the Christian evangelists being such a powerful voting block.

 

[Revan]

Again, that's fine. But please don't try to paint the USA as poor USA with little influence over Israel. They have a huge amount of potential influence and leverage. The fact the domestic situation precludes this does not then mean that the USA are this great neutral arbitrator for the 2 state solution. They are not.

To be fair, they were almost there. The Oslo agreements paved the path for a 2 state solution, and that was negotiated by the US. And then months before Clinton left, he put a wonderful deal on Arafat's table which Israel signed. Unfortunately, Arafat didn't, and the extremists on both sides soon took over.

 

[Laurencio]

To be fair, they were almost there. The Oslo agreements paved the path for a 2 state solution, and that was negotiated by the US. And then months before Clinton left, he put a wonderful deal on Arafat's table which Israel signed. Unfortunately, Arafat didn't, and the extremists on both sides soon took over.

The US is always the one to bring Israel to the table. Only country that can. Has been exceptionally difficult with Bibi though.

 

[africanspur]

I think I replied to you, always enjoy reading your posts. Might have been a few days late as I decided I needed a bit of a break. I think the Americans are doing ok in this particular instance; the limits to their powers are being severely tested.

That was kind of the thrust of my idea though. Were the Palestinians to move en masse, and migrate to a nice Canadian or European island, they would be free, having lost nothing but dignity. And you can always get back dignity. You can't get back a ruined childhood or dead family member. Get the Israelis to pay for it with their newly found riches, and even better.

There's nothing but suffering for them here. Caught between Israel, Hamas, and Iran.

Thank you. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this, the USA have laid the groundwork for where we are now.

I mean, I think deep down you know this isn't the reality. You spoke yourself about how you would go back to Israel to fight if you felt there was an existential threat to the country or its people. Ethnic cleaning, by its very definition, is an existential threat to a people and its culture. Not to mention that no European country or Canada would give up a single inch of their land for the Palestinians. The time of white Europeans drawing random lines on maps and forcing peoples around are over but the Palestinians are stuck in this limbo now.

I think the actual end result will be genuine ethnic cleaning, with no reparations, no Palestinian state anywhere and a steaming mass of millions of furious Palestinians simmering in neighbouring Arab countries, who will be unable to manage the acrimony they have for Israel (which some on here will doubtless still claim is solely due to anti-semitism) or the economic implications. The Europeans/North Americans will wash their hands of the refugees or come up with another clever scheme where they pay a country in the global south to keep people there. This will be a pretty unprecedented event in modern history (willing to be corrected) and it will all happen under our noses, by one of the West's closest allies.

Don't know when but that's my (incredibly sad) prediction for how this will ultimately end now.

 

[africanspur]

To be fair, they were almost there. The Oslo agreements paved the path for a 2 state solution, and that was negotiated by the US. And then months before Clinton left, he put a wonderful deal on Arafat's table which Israel signed. Unfortunately, Arafat didn't, and the extremists on both sides soon took over.

I mean, wonderful is a very relative term. Obviously infinitely better than what's happening now (or anything they're now ever likely to get sadly) but I personally wouldn't call a 'country' where the main bulk of the land is split into chunks, East Jerusalem lack of sovereignty, the Israelis would set up radar stations within the West Bank, use its airspace as they like, deploy troops as and when they wished, station troops along their border, be in control of its foreign policy with regards to alliances, have no standing army etc etc a wonderful deal.

Still, as I said, an infinitely better deal than whats on the table now and whats likely to be on the table for a long long time.

 

[Revan]

I mean, wonderful is a very relative term. Obviously infinitely better than what's happening now (or anything they're now ever likely to get sadly) but I personally wouldn't call a 'country' where the main bulk of the land is split into chunks, East Jerusalem lack of sovereignty, the Israelis would set up radar stations within the West Bank, use its airspace as they like, deploy troops as and when they wished, station troops along their border, be in control of its foreign policy with regards to alliances, have no standing army etc etc a wonderful deal.

Still, as I said, an infinitely better deal than whats on the table now and whats likely to be on the table for a long long time.

'Wonderful' in terms of balance of powers. Israel was a nuclear power and likely a top 10 army in the world, while Palestinians had nothing. So, in that context, it was far better than the Palestinians were going to get later.

 

[That_Bloke]

To be fair, they were almost there. The Oslo agreements paved the path for a 2 state solution, and that was negotiated by the US. And then months before Clinton left, he put a wonderful deal on Arafat's table which Israel signed. Unfortunately, Arafat didn't, and the extremists on both sides soon took over.

With all due respect, it's utter horseshit and another myth that needs to die.

You could start with simple look at the Wikipedia's page about the Camp David "Accords". If you can't spot why no leader in their right mind would agree on that, then I can't help you. East-Jerusalem is the thing we can nibble on to an extent, but the rest of those "oral" accords is an absolute farce.

@2cents can correct me if my assumption is erroneous or incomplete.

 

[owlo]

Thank you. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this, the USA have laid the groundwork for where we are now.

I mean, I think deep down you know this isn't the reality. You spoke yourself about how you would go back to Israel to fight if you felt there was an existential threat to the country or its people. Ethnic cleaning, by its very definition, is an existential threat to a people and its culture. Not to mention that no European country or Canada would give up a single inch of their land for the Palestinians. The time of white Europeans drawing random lines on maps and forcing peoples around are over but the Palestinians are stuck in this limbo now.

I think the actual end result will be genuine ethnic cleaning, with no reparations, no Palestinian state anywhere and a steaming mass of millions of furious Palestinians simmering in neighbouring Arab countries, who will be unable to manage the acrimony they have for Israel (which some on here will doubtless still claim is solely due to anti-semitism) or the economic implications. The Europeans/North Americans will wash their hands of the refugees or come up with another clever scheme where they pay a country in the global south to keep people there. This will be a pretty unprecedented event in modern history (willing to be corrected) and it will all happen under our noses, by one of the West's closest allies.

Don't know when but that's my (incredibly sad) prediction for how this will ultimately end now.

I'm not sure to the extent you can blame the USA for this. I'm an amateur at history, it's just a hobby. Probably somebody like 2cents could answer it more accurately, as all I'd give is 'feels' - 'Somewhat' is my feeling, but both Israel and Palestinians have missed many opportunities too.

Nah if you made me supreme Jewking [no antisemitism here, promise] my first proclamation would be, 'right lads, we're off. Do you fancy Tanzania or Nunavut?' Perhaps a little Zanzibar in there. I'd go back and fight if it was existential of course, but if the option was fight or go to Canada... well, I like bears and prefer the cold weather.

I do know deep down it can't happen. Islamaphobia/Xenophobia runs deep, and no western nation would actually accept a severely damaged generation of Palestinians with grievances on their borders. And obviously Israel is far too cnutish to pay reparations. The irony is that I do think an Israel could thrive in most western places, and away from conflict it wouldn't give people like Bibi a chance to rise. It would have been a far better option in 1948 or whatever. But then the colonial powers never did draw borders based on what was best for the people, only what was best for their own geopolitics. Such is Israel too. It would have been interesting to see what Palestine looked like now, if it was another Syria/Lebanon, or an independent state.

I sadly agree; they'll just become refugees instead eventually, homeless and hopeless. I disagree that it's unprecedented though; Kuwait did it to many of them only a few years ago. Turks are doing it now. Don't get me started on European refugee policy in general. It's not only a disgrace, it's clearly dumb as we need the younger and cheaper workforce. It'll just be yet another sad story in the world.

ps. On casualties vs Russia (I think it was you that mentioned it) - the obvious difference is the density and scale. Russia don't have the capability to do what Israel did from the air, and to start off, for some reason Putin thought it would be easy and Ukrainians would welcome them.... We saw how that worked out. They are reverting to form and heavily using fires now (artillery), but the warfare is less asymmetric, and the huge difference is that Ukraine also has artillery, in many cases more accurate with a longer range. This gives civs a chance to get out before the Russians encircle usually. Israel aren't yet using the brutality that Russia do, but what they are doing is extremely concerning. If you want a case study of Russian brutality, a better example than Ukraine is Syria, which is their weapon testing ground. That said, Israel have [probably] already killed more kids in Gaza in a month than Russia managed in 8 years. So grim either way.

 

[That_Bloke]

I mean, wonderful is a very relative term. Obviously infinitely better than what's happening now (or anything they're now ever likely to get sadly) but I personally wouldn't call a 'country' where the main bulk of the land is split into chunks, East Jerusalem lack of sovereignty, the Israelis would set up radar stations within the West Bank, use its airspace as they like, deploy troops as and when they wished, station troops along their border, be in control of its foreign policy with regards to alliances, have no standing army etc etc a wonderful deal.

Still, as I said, an infinitely better deal than whats on the table now and whats likely to be on the table for a long long time.

If that was a deal, then I understand why the Palestinians walked.

That's no country in any kind of shape or form, just a supersized Bantustan with no real autonomy, where the (former) occupier could do whatever they wanted, wherever they wanted, whenever they wanted. They basically wanted the Palestinians, who already agreed to give 78% of their land to the Israelis, to compromise on the compromise. The worst of it is that he would've effectively signed the renouncement to any further right and any further discussion. It was pure bullying.

Arafat or any other palestinian leader would've signed their own death warrant as well as any idea of having a true independent Palestine.

 

[Revan]

With all due respect, it's utter horseshit and another myth that needs to die.

You could start with simple look at the Wikipedia's page about the Camp David "Accords". If you can't spot why no leader in their right mind would agree on that, then I can't help you. East-Jerusalem is the thing we can nibble on to an extent, but the rest of those "oral" accords is an absolute farce.

@2cents can correct me if my assumption is erroneous or incomplete.

Not signed, but Barak was willing to sign and accepted it. It was not what Palestinians wanted, but it was quite good:

- They would have got around 90% of the West Bank and the entire Gaza. 90% is quite a lot more than 0% they had back then and have now.
- Custodians for the mosque and some administration in East Jerusalem. Again, the illusion that East Jerusalem will be part of a Palestinian state is just an illusion.
- A 30 billion fund for the refugees in other countries, Palestine, and a symbolic 100K refugees (or well, their descendants) in Israel.

That is far better than what they had back then. It is far better than what they have now. It is far better than what they will have 10, 50 or 100 years from now. Now, at best, they will get some autonomy in West Bank Zone A and B. Zone C is gonna be annexed by Israel soon, and it is de facto already annexed.

So yep, a large mistake on their part. 'You have to be realistic about these things'. When the opponent controls all the cards and is infinitely stronger than you, you have to make a compromise*. Or well, things will go from bad to worse. Which they did.

* Despite that 'we cannot make a compromise in the compromise' sounded nice, this was the compromise. The compromise that Arafat was saying the Palestinians made was not a compromise, it was losing the war.

 

[the_cliff]

Not signed, but Barak was willing to sign and accepted it. It was not what Palestinians wanted, but it was quite good:

- They would have got around 90% of the West Bank and the entire Gaza. 90% is quite a lot more than 0% they had back then and have now.
- Custodians for the mosque and some administration in East Jerusalem. Again, the illusion that East Jerusalem will be part of a Palestinian state is just an illusion.
- A 30 billion fund for the refugees in other countries, Palestine, and a symbolic 100K refugees (or well, their descendants) in Israel.

That is far better than what they had back then. It is far better than what they have now. It is far better than what they will have 10, 50 or 100 years from now. Now, at best, they will get some autonomy in West Bank Zone A and B. Zone C is gonna be annexed by Israel soon, and it is de facto already annexed.

So yep, a large mistake on their part. 'You have to be realistic about these things'. When the opponent controls all the cards and is infinitely stronger than you, you have to make a compromise*. Or well, things will go from bad to worse. Which they did.

* Despite that 'we cannot make a compromise in the compromise' sounded nice, this was the compromise. The compromise that Arafat was saying the Palestinians made was not a compromise, it was losing the war.

Now at best they'll get the south of Gaza.

 

[Amarsdd]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/67312754

Players being sacked for calling for an end to the violence.

Calling for ethnic cleansing as the best solution is more accepted than calling for an end to the violence these days...

 

[the_cliff]

Apologies if already posted but this is heart breaking.

 

[RedDevilQuebecois]

Seeing the thing in action is really something else. You really can't unsee it when you have seen it.

On Nasrallah's speech:

The meme with Homer Simpson hiding in the bushes is just so apt.

The following article below might have been shared in one of the many tweets out there, but I wonder what everyone makes of this. Elections were supposed to take place in Gaza last October. Don't you think this conflict as a whole is just too convenient for both Hamas and Netanyahu at a time when their political demise was looming closer on the horizon?

What Palestinians Really Think of Hamas (Foreign Affairs)

Both have to fecking go.

 

[reelworld]

"International humanitarian law"

I just can't imagine a worst way to ending your presidency than fully supporting a genocide.
Any "good" that this administration and Dems have done (if any) would not be remember and rightly so. Dems are fecked for a foreseeable future

 

[calodo2003]

I just can't imagine a worst way to ending your presidency than fully supporting a genocide.
Any "good" that this administration and Dems have done (if any) would not be remember and rightly so. Dems are fecked for a foreseeable future

Dems aren't fecked for a foreseeable future.

 

[RedDevilQuebecois]

I just can't imagine a worst way to ending your presidency than fully supporting a genocide.
Any "good" that this administration and Dems have done (if any) would not be remember and rightly so. Dems are fecked for a foreseeable future

Have you seen what the top GOP candidate (you know who) is proposing? Something far more egregious against Palestinians and other pro-Palestinian protesters that is.

 

[The United]

Have you seen what the top GOP candidate (you know who) is proposing? Something far more egregious against Palestinians and other pro-Palestinian protesters that is.

The very Muslims friendly guy?

 

[Giggsyking]

 

[Giggsyking]

Please tell me you are taking the piss and somebody didn't actually say that?

Eh, I see now that they did. feck me.

Not only one.

 

[Giggsyking]

"International humanitarian law"

He as been torn into pieces in the comments. I wonder if he reads the replies.

 

[RoadTrip]

They frequently do actually. They never do anything publicly against Isreal, or even hint towards there being any disagreement between them diplomatically. Hence why you never hear about it in the news. However in private discussions and in diplomatic meetings it's a different story. Presidents have raged about how Isreali politicians have stopped them from securing their legacy, often to their faces. The US is in no way a "neutral", but it would be a stretch to say Isreal is a geopolitical extension of the US.

What is this based on? It just seems like conjecture to me.

 

[reelworld]

Have you seen what the top GOP candidate (you know who) is proposing? Something far more egregious against Palestinians and other pro-Palestinian protesters that is.

The disillusioned Dems voters would not suddenly vote Republicans, but many would not vote at all or just vote for minority party.
At this point, voting for the lesser of two evils become a moot point when it's less obvious that Dems is the "less evil" one.

Dems aren't fecked for a foreseeable future.

They'll be fecked in 2024 and people wont forget about their part in the genocide for a while.

 

[Giggsyking]

To be fair, they were almost there. The Oslo agreements paved the path for a 2 state solution, and that was negotiated by the US. And then months before Clinton left, he put a wonderful deal on Arafat's table which Israel signed. Unfortunately, Arafat didn't, and the extremists on both sides soon took over.

Wonderful? I would not call it wonderful.

 

[calodo2003]

The disillusioned Dems voters would not suddenly vote Republicans, but many would not vote at all or just vote for minority party.
At this point, voting for the lesser of two evils become a moot point when it's less obvious that Dems is the "less evil" one.

They'll be fecked in 2024 and people wont forget about their part in the genocide for a while.

All politics is local.

Depending on the age demographic, Israel's atrocities probably won't even crack the top five in terms of voting intention for the Dems, top ten for the Repubs.