What's new
By:
Filters

Israel-Hamas War

One Brow said:
I'm well aware there are no good choices for either side any more.
Click to expand...

There are still plenty of good choices left, but neither side is really willing to discuss them(and I particularly mean the specifics of any choice) because of their own public. If you speak to people in generalities, you don't have to explain any hard truths to them.

There is no one willing to tell the Palestinians that the refugees of 1948 and 1967 are never returning and there's no one willing to tell the Israelis that whether or not a land swap happens as part of a peace agreement, there will have to be a large dismantling of at least some of the settlements in the West Bank. These are just a couple of random examples. There are so many more.
 

“Rejecting the US State Department’s condemnation of calls for the resettlement of Palestinians outside of Gaza, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich on Wednesday reiterated his support for encouraging “voluntary emigration” of the Strip’s population to other countries as part of his postwar vision.

The leader of the far-right Religious Zionism party claimed in a statement that “more than 70 percent of the Israeli public today supports” encouraging emigration as “a humanitarian solution,” but did not provide a source for this statistic”.

……““The United States is our best friend, but first of all we will do what is best for the State of Israel: the migration of hundreds of thousands from Gaza will allow the residents of the [Gaza] envelope to return home and live in security and will protect the IDF soldiers,” Ben Gvir posted on X. “I really admire the United States of America but with all due respect, we are not another star in the American flag”.

In the relatively rare, unprompted statement, US State Department spokesman Matthew Miller labeled the calls by the far-right ministers as “inflammatory and irresponsible.”
 
JimLes said:
There are still plenty of good choices left, but neither side is really willing to discuss them(and I particularly mean the specifics of any choice) because of their own public. If you speak to people in generalities, you don't have to explain any hard truths to them.

There is no one willing to tell the Palestinians that the refugees of 1948 and 1967 are never returning and there's no one willing to tell the Israelis that whether or not a land swap happens as part of a peace agreement, there will have to be a large dismantling of at least some of the settlements in the West Bank. These are just a couple of random examples. There are so many more.
Click to expand...
Hard disagree with everything you said. Israelis are willing to have whatever conversation is necessary but that conversation has to involve reality.

Reality #1: No matter where you put a wall, if life is objectively better on one side of it then there will be conflict.​
Reality #2: Given the atrocities committed on October 7, the walls currently in place must be strengthened.​
Reality #3: The pull-out from Gaza two decades ago was exactly the solution you just proposed and it made life worse for everyone involved.​

There is only one realistic path out of this mess.

  • Establish law and order in the occupied areas and the negative influences need to be removed from the economically disadvantaged side.
  • Build schools, including trade schools for adults, in the territories and tightly control the learning materials used.
  • Foster a climate friendly to entrepreneurship with low taxes and regulation, lower than in Israel itself.

Publish a roadmap with specific metrics that when achieved will trigger concrete step changes that progressively increase freedoms, self-rule, and normalization between annexed and occupied regions.
Build a path, show the people where the path leads, and put the people on it. The only solution is to make life better in a sustainable way for those living in the unannexed areas. Trading land for peace does nothing to promote that process. Life is going to suck for the authorities in the line of fire, and the work is going to be hard for the people but there is no magic wand to make it all fine.
 
Okay great, but this sounds like compulsion. Obviously, one of the sides is essentially immune to that, while the other one has not shown great response to compulsion.

Never mind whether and how this would work, though? Who is going to do the compulsion? Who will occupy Gaza for a sufficient amount of time for all these changes to happen, because that's what would be needed: an occupation. Israel doing it isn't going to end well, we know that. The Palestinians would probably not react great to most countries who are friendly with Israel doing it, and most countries in general would be unlikely to want to get involved in something like this to begin with. Really, the only real candidates would be other Arab countries.

You can remove ones like Morocco or Algeria or Mauritania from this equation since they're not really in that region and have few incentives to do this. They're far enough that whatever happens will not destabilize them. You can also remove Syria, Yemen, Libya, and Sudan since they have their own civil wars going on. You can also basically add Lebanon and Iraq to this category. They may not have civil wars happening, but you can see them breaking out in one if they got involved in occupying Gaza. A few of the smaller ones like Bahrain or Kuwait simply don't have the population to allow for an adventure like this. That leaves us with Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and perhaps UAE who may well be in the too-small category.

Now, even if one of these countries(or perhaps multiple ones) wanted to step up, this isn't your classic peacekeeper/observer mission. The soldiers on the ground would be the sole force responsible for security in Gaza. Hamas is Hamas. They're not simply looking for a Palestine from the river to the sea, they're looking for Palestine from the river to the sea that is ruled by them, according to their views. We saw from the example of their civil war with Fatah that they have no qualms fighting against their own. They will treat the security presence of an Arab army the same way they'd treat the presence of the Israeli army. And even if by some miracle Hamas leadership agreed to this, it wouldn't matter. There will still be Islamic Jihad, there would likely be groups that would split off from Hamas, or you'd simply have new, more radical groups emerge on their own.

Even if these groups would not necessarily look for confrontation with an Arab force, they would certainly still be looking to attack Israel. If and when a terror attack happens, what then? Will this Arab force be able to deal with that with as much severity as Israel will demand? Will they hunt down the perpetrators and turn them over to Israel, knowing full well that this would require bloodshed? No Arab country is democratic, especially not the four candidates here, but they still have to worry about public opinion. The Palestinian cause is immensely popular in the Arab world, and the optics of an Arab force killing Palestinians would be awful. I think about the only country that could get away with it is Egypt, due to the decade-long insurgency in Sinai by Islamists close to Hamas leadership. Their populace may be able to swallow the idea that Hamas means ill to Egypt and need to be eliminated. Again though, Egypt is not a democracy and their treatment and the blockade of Gaza have not been much better than Israel's. It is entirely possible that Egyptian crackdown in Gaza would escalate into something very similar to what we're seeing now. Wanton destruction and callous disregard for the lives of Gazans.

And this is just security. What about the fact that so many of the problems in Gaza stem from the 80-year existence of massive refugee camps. 2/3 of Gaza's population are registered refugees, and something like a quarter of the population lives within refugee camps. Many of those who are registered refugees but don't live in camps live in what are essentially unofficial camps: shanty towns bordering refugee camps. Not only were Gaza's housing stock and infrastructure woefully inadequate before, but they have been almost destroyed in this current war. Even if they weren't, Gaza Strip has one of the highest population densities in the world. It doesn't matter what you do or how much you invest, it just can't support 2.5 million people. You can't just build housing for the million and a half with refugee status. This is a poor, arid area without a lot of economic potential.

The refugees can't be settled in Gaza, and they can't really be settled in the West Bank without causing mass upheaval there. They obviously can't "return" to Israel and that idea borders of fantasy. It would require a concerted effort by both Western and certain Arab countries to resettle and absorb these refugees. The refugees who, of course, would not want to leave. Now, Gaza could probably absorb a couple of hundred thousand, but that would still leave you with more than a million people you will need to force to leave. Of course their lives would be infinitely better if they were resettled in USA or Canada or Germany or UAE, but this is a hugely emotional issue. How do you do this? Which Palestinian (moral) authority will tell them to give up what they believe is their just claim on their homeland to be dispersed into exile? Who would have both the courage and the position to do it? What occupying force would compel these people to move?

And don't get me wrong. All the things I listed above ought to be done. You could even say they must be done for a comprehensive settlement, but who's going to undertake such a thankless job?
 
And in order not to be completely one-sided, let's touch more briefly on a similar issue on the other side. A viable Palestinian state cannot have 20 different piecemeal territories in the West Bank. It would have to be contiguous and the issue of settlers would have to be resolved. This is not nearly the insurmountable obstacle that it's made out to be. Yes, there are 500 thousand settlers in the West Bank, but more than half of that number is in 4 larger cities located immediately outside of Jerusalem. When you add some of the smaller settlements that are also next to the 1967 armistice line, not even 100 thousand live in various dispersed settlements all over the West Bank and it's these settlements that have been most detrimental to Palestinians and that have caused the PA to have authority over areas that aren't connected.

Land swap has been discussed and accepted in theory every since actual direct negotiations between Israel and Palestinians started 30 years ago. At Camp David in 2000, Arafat agreed that Israel would keep some settlements along the border and Palestine would receive a similar amount of land and perhaps even people in return. There are clusters of Muslim Arab villages in Israel that are right on the 1967 line, both south and north of Tulkarm that could be exchanged for the settlements around Jerusalem. Israel would also have no problem absorbing 100 thousand people who would have to move from West Bank. This whole process could actually be agreed upon fairly easily.

The problem is that no Israeli politician could survive this, politically but probably also literally. Rabin was assassinated by ultra-nationalists for much smaller concessions. We are talking about optics again. When Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, they demolished settlements and the army removed the unwilling settlers by force. This was 2005, though, and the situation was different. There were only about 8 thousand settlers in Gaza, the electorate was generally more moderate, and there was broad consensus in Israel that this should be done. In 2024, and especially after Oct 7th, the sight of soldiers removing Jews from their homes will not go over well with the public. Not just the more hardline segment, but with any segment of Israeli society.

And again, this should be done and probably needs to be done in order to have a lasting settlement, but who's going to do it? Unlike the Palestinians, Israel cannot be compelled by force to do anything, so that's basically it.
 
All these plans and ideas are just Legoland-level pretend. There will not be another occupation by a 3rd party. There's gonna be a war.

Israel has become their own terror. It has shown what they are to the world, and the US and GB have shown unwavering support for this unhinged genocide. The powers that are not united with these three now have every justification they will ever need.
 
Douchebag K said:
Pardon me for saying but you sound kinda unhinged with all this facism stuff. Seriously.
Click to expand...
The fact is people seldom know what is happening, while it is happening. And, at the moment, that very much seems to be happening in the United States. Hindsight, or so it’s said, is always 20/20. I’m just not in need of hindsight in this instance. Neither is Robert Reich. Neither is Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a brilliant scholar of fascism and its history. I don’t believe they are the least bit unhinged, for the effort they make in providing simple historical perspective. If warning people of what is happening, of which they themselves may be blind, is being unhinged, then I’m fine with that.

You call me unhinged, yet the growth of a fascist movemet, is apparent to observers far more knowledgeable than I am. Yet, I can still see it happening. At least I had no blinders at all where right wing populism of a fascist flavor was concerned. For that, I thank an education, one that did not prove otherwise all that relevant at times. But I sure recognized the appearance of a fascist-inclined authoritarian. And it is an absolute earth shattering development within the body politic of the United States. And we’re far from over it, far from an understanding of exactly how this will, or will not, transform this country.

At any rate, “all this fascism stuff” really couldn’t be more relevant to our present moment. And that is not my fault, and I am clearly not unhinged in recognizing that very simple, and quite visible, fact. Extreme right wing movements are appearing in several nations, MAGA is ours….

That said, I’ve believed all along that liberals and conservatives respond to the world in starkly different ways, and I must acknowledge that this fact may be part of the reason the two “world views”, for that is what they amount to, find it near impossible to understand where the other side is coming from. On top of which, in any democracy, a very healthy % of the electorate actually prefer authoritarianism, and that too plays into not being alarmed in the least by a Trump. So, regardless of where you stand, I’m certainly fine with you not understanding where the hell I’m even coming from. It’s almost a baseline condition in our body politic at the moment, for each side to see the other side as fundamentally mistaken/dangerous, as we prepare for what should be a most tumultuous 2024.

Nothing helps more in recognizing what’s happening, while it’s happening, than a good understanding of history. And the clearest understanding is reached of the present moment, IMHO, when one can achieve that. If we could all come back in a hundred years we could all learn what history has to say about the present moment. But we don’t have to depend on historical hindsight to at least recognize what historical forces are presently at work, if we work at reaching that understanding.

I do respect your opinion, and if fascism bears no relevance to you, in our present moment, then I can at least understand why you are sick of hearing it from me…..
 
Last edited:
JimLes said:
Who will occupy Gaza for a sufficient amount of time for all these changes to happen, because that's what would be needed: an occupation.
Click to expand...
The boots on the ground in Gaza would be Israeli.

JimLes said:
There will still be Islamic Jihad, there would likely be groups that would split off from Hamas, or you'd simply have new, more radical groups emerge on their own.
Click to expand...
Negative influences need to be removed from the economically disadvantaged side.

JimLes said:
What about the fact that so many of the problems in Gaza stem from the 80-year existence of massive refugee camps. 2/3 of Gaza's population are registered refugees
Click to expand...
So many Gazans are registered as refugees only because the definition of refugee was changed for Gaza. A kid born there to parents who were also born there is considered a refugee only in Gaza. Nowhere else on planet Earth are people classified in that manner. More to the point, it doesn’t matter. The people are there now and things have to be dealt with.

JimLes said:
Gaza Strip has one of the highest population densities in the world. It doesn't matter what you do or how much you invest, it just can't support 2.5 million people. You can't just build housing for the million and a half with refugee status. This is a poor, arid area without a lot of economic potential.
Click to expand...
It has a lower population density than Mexico City and half the population density of Singapore. Gaza receives more rainfall than where I live in San Diego and we have more people. There is also nothing keeping Palestinians in Gaza. They can leave to any country willing to take them, which admittedly aren’t many due to Palestinians having a history of attacking their host countries.

JimLes said:
they must be done for a comprehensive settlement, but who's going to undertake such a thankless job?
Click to expand...
The boots on the ground in Gaza would be Israeli with major funding from the United States. Israel will be called an apartheid state but they are called that already. It is a thankless job but kicking the can down the road isn’t solving the problem.
 
Last edited:
JimLes said:
A viable Palestinian state cannot have 20 different piecemeal territories in the West Bank. It would have to be contiguous and the issue of settlers would have to be resolved.
Click to expand...
Israel manages just fine with different piecemeal territories in the West Bank. I roundly reject the idea that Arabs cannot manage a thing Israel has proved possible.

JimLes said:
Land swap has been discussed and accepted in theory every since actual direct negotiations between Israel and Palestinians started 30 years ago.
Click to expand...
The pull-out from Gaza two decades ago was exactly the solution you just proposed and it made life worse for everyone involved. The negotiators 30 years ago did not have the benefit of hindsight that we now have.

JimLes said:
We are talking about optics again.
Click to expand...
Jew-haters are going to see things through the most hateful lenses regardless of what is done. The job is hard enough withing trying to accomplish the impossible task of making everyone like Israel. What needs to be done is what needs to be done. Let the haters hate.

JimLes said:
this should be done and probably needs to be done in order to have a lasting settlement,
Click to expand...
I'm happy to find agreement.
 
We could go on like that, and it proves nothing. You want to insist that because a Jewish person somewhere is attacked that it's every Jewish person vs the world?

You're caught in a victim cycle, and it is causing you to dehumanize innocent human beings. You are justifying the collective punishment of human shields. It is unethical in the extreme.
 
Have we figured out which side has all the good guys on it yet?

What's that? Neither side is good? Both sides have killed innocent people without a care (one side does it not out of indifference but by intention, the other side does it not out of specific intention supposedly but out of indifference when they have the capability of avoiding it if they wanted to).

People making arguments for which side is just and which side is to blame are on a fool's errand.
 
Engorged On Unborn Gore said:

View: https://www.instagram.com/reel/C0EuIqCrtOA/?igsh=MTYwZmM5Ynp0cjd4Yg==
Click to expand...

The October 7th attack, directed not at a strategic target, instead specifically directed at innocent people. Maybe you call them colonizers, so you consider them fair game. I do not. The goal of the attack was exactly what we are seeing now. It was never looking to reclaim territory, or to improve living conditions, or to have their rights better respected by Israel. It was intended to provoke Israel into an overreaction. It was heinous for the sake of being heinous because that would assure the most aggressive response by Israel.

What Israel is doing is exactly what Hamas wants them to be doing. This is the success Hamas was looking for when they executed a long planned attack on civilians. So forgive me if I'm not outraged on their behalf for getting exactly what they asked for.

There are no good guys here. There is no right side in this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top