Macron says France will recognize a Palestinian state at UN General Assembly this fall

[ElChupacabra]

Yup. They literally ruled themselves.

Except for what they didn't.

Not really - that's how reality works. When you reject an offer to instead launch an armed conflict, and then lose said conflict, the original offer does not become the default that you automatically get as soon as violence doesn't work out to get even more for you. The offer is now off the table because you swept it off the table to choose conflict instead.

Understood. So there's really not much choice for the Palestinians in this regard. Good to know.

.... I mean.... you live in a liberal democracy. Does the government control your ability to drive somewhere and attack someone? Or do they punish you if you choose to do so in a way where they can accumulate the evidence to prove you did it?

(it is the latter. neither the United States nor Israel keep their citizens physically controlled at all times)

That's quite the stretch, because I was not saying the government can control people at all times. What they can do is discourage actions through the legal system to prevent certain actions, and that's what Israel is failing to do with its settlers.

In the short term, yeah. I'm from the American south, where we were raised to be aware of the consequences of choosing violence and launching a war that results in your utter defeat: Occupation, until you conform to the more powerful force's requirements. Germany and Japan learned the same lesson.

Except neither Germany nor Japan were invaded and had their people relegated to certain parts of their countries and the US claim the rest as its own. Just a subtle difference there.

Well. Israel is no longer willing to accept a deal where Palestinians get a state because Israelis have become completely reasonably convinced that Palestinians would simply use that to launch another wave of horrific violence. Palestinians are seemingly unwilling to accept a two-state solution because they remain wedded to a maximalist genocidal dream where they can wipe out all the Jews who don't flee and take everything.

So I would say the "Play" is that

A) First, Palestinians need to give up on the maximalist genocide dream, and accept that they need to pursue peace with Israel (this is why I've been so critical of the UK and France choosing now to recognize Palestinian statehood - they are helping to convince Palestinians that More Violence Is The Answer).

B) Second, Israelis need to get to a point where they can reasonably believe that Palestinians have decided to pursue peace and that a Palestinian state would not just immediately become what Gaza became when Israel turned it over to them.

I think this will take probably about a generation to accomplish.


Or, as you point out:



they can just keep doing this for several generations. That is also an option.

I am increasingly worried they won't choose it.... but that's a separate point.

Yeah, I'm not sure what the way out here is because it's been a vicious cycle since the founding of Israel.

 

[cpwill]

Not to mention the reality of not being a citizen of anywhere which raises the questions of why. So is your position the Palestinians have to forget about their past?

Nope. I think they need to give up the dream that, if they just keep the fighting going, they will one day be able to wipe out all the Jews and take the entire thing.

It sure sounds like this "indoctrination" is really more a replacement with new indoctrination

Absolutely. All children are indoctrinated as they age and are taught into belief systems. We need to replace the belief system that Jews are pig-monkeys and that the best way to be a good person is to kill a lot of Jews until one magical day you've killed them all with a very different set of beliefs indeed. One way to do that is via the education system, which is why the people who pushed the current belief system shouldn't be in charge of the next one.

What exactly did they rule?

Gaza. Themselves. They lived under their own elected government, under their own law, with their own education, healthcare, and security systems.

Were they able to fish their own coasts

Yup, though Israel put limits on their ability to go deep sea.

However, a lack of deep sea fishing does not mean you do not have self rule. Tajikistan has no sea fishing whatsoever, and this does not stop Tajikistan from existing, or from ruling itself.

or negotiate trade etc.?

Also yes, again with restrictions, because HAMAS had a bad habit of importing rockets, which they then shot at Israel. Externally-imposed trade restrictions, however, also do not obviate self-rule. For example, the US had quite a lot of trade restrictions put on Russia after it invaded Ukraine, and broad sanctions regimes enforced against Iraq after the Gulf War. In neither of these cases did the impacted countries cease to exist, or their governments suddenly cease to rule them as a result.

Gazans were given self rule. HAMAS' complaints about how far into the water their boats could go, or the lack of a functioning airport, or restraints on foreign trade do not change that reality. Nor is it a serious complaint in this context. HAMAS did not launch Oct 7th and keep this war going because they were upset about their lack of deep sea fishing - they did it because they want to kill all the Jews in Israel and wipe that state off the map.

That technically qualifies, but not the same existential threat as when the militaries of neighboring nations invaded.

It was the largest pogrom and slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust, and achieved strategic - horrific - surprise.

....yeah... I think it counts, especially since what we are discussing here is that impacts the Israeli worldview.

Indeed, and these groups have been soundly defeated, but the move to protect the Druze will be interesting in the context of now inserting themselves in the Syrian power vacuum.

True. The Western powers were apparently going to send Thoughts and Prayers (as they have for other wiped-out Syrian elements, with the notable exception of the Kurds, who proved immensely useful in the D-ISIS campaign).

The removal of Iran from the board is going to quiet things down, that I agree with.

Hopefully (crosses fingers)?

The thing about the Iranian regime is that it truly doesn't want direct conflict - that's why it uses it's proxies to launch attacks for it. We could (cpwill's opinion) probably end Houthi attacks on shipping if we held the Iranian navy at risk for it.

I think it runs deeper than that because groups like HAMAS are based on ideas, and while the grievances that allow for groups like that to form, it's just a game of whack-a-mole.

You're not wrong. That is why (see above) I am so keen on not allowing UNWRA to keep teaching Palestinians these ideas, and want new ideas injected instead.

 

[cpwill]

Except for what they didn't.

Sure - they didn't rule Tel Aviv (which they want) or all of Jerusalem (which they want), or Spain (which, believe it or not, Islamists think they still rightfully own).

But they did rule Gaza.

Understood. So there's really not much choice for the Palestinians in this regard. Good to know.

There is a lot of choice. Unfortunately, due to their previous choices, there are no plausible quick roads to Statehood.

That's quite the stretch, because I was not saying the government can control people at all times.

I mean, if the standard is "The Israeli Government can ensure that no Israelis be violent dicks to any Palestinians"..... yeah, man, I mean, that is kind of what it requires.

What they can do is discourage actions through the legal system to prevent certain actions, and that's what Israel is failing to do with its settlers.

Ah. See, that is a different standard, and indeed one they can do, and one they do do, as they do indeed arrest and charge violent Israelis where they can. You can say they are insufficiently enthusiastic or aggressive about it if you like (and I find myself sympathetic to the plausibility of that claim), but that is an argument about degree, not kind.

Except neither Germany nor Japan were invaded and had their people relegated to certain parts of their countries and the US claim the rest as its own. Just a subtle difference there.

1. Both countries were indeed invaded.

2. The US and allies did indeed claim control over all of their territory, and ruled it directly before turning over some of it years later when they thought that the deprogramming portion of the exercise was sufficiently complete - but even then, we retained direct military control over portions of their territory, which we used to house a whole lot of threatening weaponry just to drive the point home in case they got second thoughts. We also spent years afterwards controlling their foreign and security policy.

3. In Germany's case, this rather famously did indeed involve splitting the capital and the country apart for (at the time ) presumably forever, though it ended up being about 45 years.

3.a. However, I also reject utterly the implication that all of the land rightfully belongs solely to the Palestinians. It does not, and they need to give up on this claim if they want to live in it in peace.​

Yeah, I'm not sure what the way out here is because it's been a vicious cycle since the founding of Israel.

* since the Arab states responded to the founding of Israel by invading it, and then (to their horror and the world's surprise) losing.

 

[Tigerace117]

Sure - they didn't rule Tel Aviv (which they want) or all of Jerusalem (which they want), or Spain (which, believe it or not, Islamists think they still rightfully own).

But they did rule Gaza.




There is a lot of choice. Unfortunately, due to their previous choices, there are no plausible quick roads to Statehood.



I mean, if the standard is "The Israeli Government can ensure that no Israelis be violent dicks to any Palestinians"..... yeah, man, I mean, that is kind of what it requires.



Ah. See, that is a different standard, and indeed one they can do, and one they do do, as they do indeed arrest and charge violent Israelis where they can. You can say they are insufficiently enthusiastic or aggressive about it if you like (and I find myself sympathetic to the plausibility of that claim), but that is an argument about degree, not kind.



1. Both countries were indeed invaded.

2. The US and allies did indeed claim control over all of their territory, and ruled it directly before turning over some of it years later when they thought that the deprogramming portion of the exercise was sufficiently complete - but even then, we retained direct military control over portions of their territory, which we used to house a whole lot of threatening weaponry just to drive the point home in case they got second thoughts. We also spent years afterwards controlling their foreign and security policy.

3. In Germany's case, this rather famously did indeed involve splitting the capital and the country apart for (at the time ) presumably forever, though it ended up being about 45 years.

3.a. However, I also reject utterly the implication that all of the land rightfully belongs solely to the Palestinians. It does not, and they need to give up on this claim if they want to live in it in peace.​

* since the Arab states responded to the founding of Israel by invading it, and then (to their horror and the world's surprise) losing.

Gee dude, by Israel’s own standard the Arab states would have been entirely justified in invading, since Israel used terrorism to gain independence.

 

[ElChupacabra]

Nope. I think they need to give up the dream that, if they just keep the fighting going, they will one day be able to wipe out all the Jews and take the entire thing.

Well, that's if you're only going by HAMAS' original charter where they were more unrealistic in their goals of eliminating Israel. Their 2017 charter changed the tone, and I'm not sure whether that was just for PR or the realization they cannot wipe out all Jews. HAMAS never had the ability to wipe out all of the Jews.

Absolutely. All children are indoctrinated as they age and are taught into belief systems. We need to replace the belief system that Jews are pig-monkeys and that the best way to be a good person is to kill a lot of Jews until one magical day you've killed them all with a very different set of beliefs indeed. One way to do that is via the education system, which is why the people who pushed the current belief system shouldn't be in charge of the next one.

How well do you think that education system will work teaching them those limiting their freedom aren't an issue if the next generation grows up under the limited rule Palestinians have been under in both Gaza and the West Bank? This isn't just about education, but the environment they grow up in. What's more complex now is people have more access to see what life is elsewhere, and eventually questions about why they do not have the same liberty as others starts arising.

Gaza. Themselves. They lived under their own elected government, under their own law, with their own education, healthcare, and security systems.

Right, but they were essentially trapped there but sure, they had their own elected government. It's the kind of technicality that doesn't really address the other issues.

Yup, though Israel put limits on their ability to go deep sea.

However, a lack of deep sea fishing does not mean you do not have self rule. Tajikistan has no sea fishing whatsoever, and this does not stop Tajikistan from existing, or from ruling itself.

Not a good comparison because it's a land locked nation. I think you know what the point here is, which is about having access and control of your own resources.

 

[ElChupacabra]

Part 2

Also yes, again with restrictions, because HAMAS had a bad habit of importing rockets, which they then shot at Israel. Externally-imposed trade restrictions, however, also do not obviate self-rule. For example, the US had quite a lot of trade restrictions put on Russia after it invaded Ukraine, and broad sanctions regimes enforced against Iraq after the Gulf War. In neither of these cases did the impacted countries cease to exist, or their governments suddenly cease to rule them as a result.

You're trying to narrow down self rule to the most basic level, which is a bit silly.

Gazans were given self rule. HAMAS' complaints about how far into the water their boats could go, or the lack of a functioning airport, or restraints on foreign trade do not change that reality. Nor is it a serious complaint in this context. HAMAS did not launch Oct 7th and keep this war going because they were upset about their lack of deep sea fishing - they did it because they want to kill all the Jews in Israel and wipe that state off the map.

Applies to my comment above.

It was the largest pogrom and slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust, and achieved strategic - horrific - surprise.

....yeah... I think it counts, especially since what we are discussing here is that impacts the Israeli worldview.

Or it could be a terrorist attack, much like 9/11 was which killed three times the amount of people and classified as such. I guess you can say the difference here is HAMAS is a "state actor", but they're not technically a country.

True. The Western powers were apparently going to send Thoughts and Prayers (as they have for other wiped-out Syrian elements, with the notable exception of the Kurds, who proved immensely useful in the D-ISIS campaign).

Hopefully (crosses fingers)?

The thing about the Iranian regime is that it truly doesn't want direct conflict - that's why it uses it's proxies to launch attacks for it. We could (cpwill's opinion) probably end Houthi attacks on shipping if we held the Iranian navy at risk for it.

After the defeat of their proxies and the fact they weren't even able to fend off Israeli aerial attacks shed some serious light on the reason why. That said, an invasion of Iran is an entirely different proposition given the complexities of that kind of conflict. It's not just about the ability to invade and win, but what remains after that.

You're not wrong. That is why (see above) I am so keen on not allowing UNWRA to keep teaching Palestinians these ideas, and want new ideas injected instead.

That would be one thing, but I still don't think that would change much if the conditions remain the same.

 

[ElChupacabra]

Sure - they didn't rule Tel Aviv (which they want) or all of Jerusalem (which they want), or Spain (which, believe it or not, Islamists think they still rightfully own).

But they did rule Gaza.

True, they did rule what they were limited in ruling which I don't think anyone in the free world would consider actual self rule in the context of self determination.

There is a lot of choice. Unfortunately, due to their previous choices, there are no plausible quick roads to Statehood.

So no options then. If their past choices will always be a reason not to pave a road to statehood then it sounds like we're looking at limited self governance.

I mean, if the standard is "The Israeli Government can ensure that no Israelis be violent dicks to any Palestinians"..... yeah, man, I mean, that is kind of what it requires.

The standard should be "The Israeli Government can take action against Israelis who are violent dicks to any Palestinians" in much the same way if Israeli right wing nutters suddenly turned on their fellow Jews. Kind of how we have laws to prevent that from happening here. The problem there is the government doesn't do much to make this unacceptable behavior, in part because they need the support of the right wing nutters.

Ah. See, that is a different standard, and indeed one they can do, and one they do do, as they do indeed arrest and charge violent Israelis where they can. You can say they are insufficiently enthusiastic or aggressive about it if you like (and I find myself sympathetic to the plausibility of that claim), but that is an argument about degree, not kind.

Sure, but a rather significant degree.

1. Both countries were indeed invaded.

Indeed. Now remind where the US then displaced the local population and claimed a large portion of each country as its new religious homeland.

2. The US and allies did indeed claim control over all of their territory, and ruled it directly before turning over some of it years later when they thought that the deprogramming portion of the exercise was sufficiently complete - but even then, we retained direct military control over portions of their territory, which we used to house a whole lot of threatening weaponry just to drive the point home in case they got second thoughts. We also spent years afterwards controlling their foreign and security policy.

get back

3. In Germany's case, this rather famously did indeed involve splitting the capital and the country apart for (at the time ) presumably forever, though it ended up being about 45 years.

3.a. However, I also reject utterly the implication that all of the land rightfully belongs solely to the Palestinians. It does not, and they need to give up on this claim if they want to live in it in peace.​

They had been living there for centuries, along with Jews so if anything the claim is equal among them.

* since the Arab states responded to the founding of Israel by invading it, and then (to their horror and the world's surprise) losing.

It shouldn't be too hard to understand why given the terrorism and violence on the part of Zionists in displacing the local Palestinians.

 

[bomberfox]

Not to mention the reality of not being a citizen of anywhere which raises the questions of why. So is your position the Palestinians have to forget about their past? It sure sounds like this "indoctrination" is really more a replacement with new indoctrination of acceptance of their fate.


What exactly did they rule? Were they able to fish their own coasts or negotiate trade etc.?


That technically qualifies, but not the same existential threat as when the militaries of neighboring nations invaded.


Indeed, and these groups have been soundly defeated, but the move to protect the Druze will be interesting in the context of now inserting themselves in the Syrian power vacuum.


The removal of Iran from the board is going to quiet things down, that I agree with.


I think it runs deeper than that because groups like HAMAS are based on ideas, and while the grievances that allow for groups like that to form, it's just a game of whack-a-mole.

They dont arrest the settlers, its why it still happens and the IDF protects them and plenty of Americans aid in the displacement. The settlers are still allowed to terrorize and take over. In fact the Israeli government knows who is doing it but doesnt do anything about it.

 

[ElChupacabra]

They dont arrest the settlers, its why it still happens and the IDF protects them and plenty of Americans aid in the displacement. The settlers are still allowed to terrorize and take over.

It's hard to have a 94% rate of no indictments despite escalating attacks.

 

[cpwill]

Well, that's if you're only going by HAMAS' original charter where they were more unrealistic in their goals of eliminating Israel. Their 2017 charter changed the tone, and I'm not sure whether that was just for PR or the realization they cannot wipe out all Jews. HAMAS never had the ability to wipe out all of the Jews.

They do not currently have that capability. They intend to accomplish it over time, and with international support, and they believe (not without reason) that their current strategy is successfully advancing them towards victory.

How well do you think that education system will work teaching them those limiting their freedom aren't an issue if the next generation grows up under the limited rule Palestinians have been under in both Gaza and the West Bank?

Well, how well did it work under non-existent and then limited self-rule that Japanese and Germans had in the years following WWII?

This isn't just about education

Correct! This is not monocausal. But education is a very big piece of the picture, and that is why UNWRA should not be allowed back into Gaza or the West Bank.

What's more complex now is people have more access to see what life is elsewhere, and eventually questions about why they do not have the same liberty as others starts arising.

How very NeoConservative of you. I used to think similarly.

We in the West do not even value liberty more than we value convenience, comfort, safety, and not being offended.... and we are surprised when others do not value liberty more than even more powerful things than this?

Right, but they were essentially trapped there but sure, they had their own elected government.

Yup. And that is called "Self Rule". Self-governing entities do not cease to exist simply because they are surrounded, or because their people cannot move across international borders at will. North Korea, for example, does not cease to exist because both China and South Korea tightly secure their borders with it. Nor does Tajikistan cease to exist because it is surrounded by other nation states.

It's the kind of technicality that doesn't really address the other issues.

It's the central core truth when it comes to that particular question. Just as with the "but no deep sea fishing" example, you are leaning on things that have no bearing on whether they were self-ruling or not to distract from that point. It's a red herring.

I mean, think how this argument plays out, man:

"Yeah sure, they had their own elected government that governed them, and that government exercised a monopoly of violence over a given geographic area (which is the basic definition of sovereignty and jurisdiction), and so they were under their own legal system with their own security forces, educated by their own education system, and did literally everything else that actually qualifies as self rule.... BUT..... they faced economic sanctions.... so.... all that other stuff doesn't count...."

Russia? Not a state. Tajikistan? No deep sea fishing, so it doesn't exist. Iraq under Saddam? Nope, Saddam didn't rule during the time that Saddam Ruled because, after all, he was restricted from importing military technology by the outside world, and others flew in his airspace even when he didn't like it. Ethiopia? No deep sea fishing, so, it also doesn't exist. Much like the state of Nebraska, which doesn't have it's own government with a governor and legislature and judiciary... because.... after all, no deep sea fishing.​

The definition of self rule is not "Unless you have complete free trade with the world you don't rule yourself" (if anything, historically the opposite). You can't get out of a speeding ticket in Oklahoma by confidently pointing out that they don't have any deep sea fishing, and therefore are unable to exercise governance over the physical territory in which they gave you the ticket.

I think you know what the point here is, which is about having access and control of your own resources.

And they did. They owned and ruled everything in Gaza, where Israel unilaterally withdrew to grant them self rule and they responded by turning to HAMAS and warfare.... which you are attempting to ignore and distract from by appealing to items that have no bearing on that basic reality.

 

[cpwill]

It's hard to have a 94% rate of no indictments

No it isn't. As demonstrated elsewhere, it is comparable to indictment rates here in the United States.

 

[ElChupacabra]

No it isn't. As demonstrated elsewhere, it is comparable to indictment rates here in the United States.

Yet despite that we have the highest per capita prison population in the world. I guess some people are getting indicted and convicted.

 

[cpwill]

You're trying to narrow down self rule to the most basic level, which is a bit silly.

..... I mean, if your car's air conditioner stopped blowing air on your legs when you told it to, would you declare that it was no longer an automobile?

They had self rule. They ruled themselves. They were given self government. They governed themselves. Red Herrings about Deep Sea Fishing do not change that basic reality, regardless of whether or not it is deeply inconvenient to a preferred narrative.

Or it could be a terrorist attack, much like 9/11 was which killed three times the amount of people

Well, that's one way of measuring. Since what we are talking about here is the Israeli worldview, it would probably be salient to make an apples to apples comparison in per capita terms, in which case I believe it is more like if we lost... what, over 40,000 people dead 9/11, with an additional 9,000 kidnapped?

I mean.... I can see us nuking someone, in that scenario.

I guess you can say the difference here is HAMAS is a "state actor"

Indeed. They governed Gaza.

Indeed.

After the defeat of their proxies and the fact they weren't even able to fend off Israeli aerial attacks shed some serious light on the reason why. That said, an invasion of Iran is an entirely different proposition given the complexities of that kind of conflict. It's not just about the ability to invade and win, but what remains after that.

Yup. That is also where Usrael is floundering in Gaza.

That would be one thing, but I still don't think that would change much if the conditions remain the same.

Well, that would be part of one major condition changing.

 

[ElChupacabra]

They do not currently have that capability. They intend to accomplish it over time, and with international support, and they believe (not without reason) that their current strategy is successfully advancing them towards victory.

That might be the pitch, but the reality is quite different since no one is backing HAMAS coming back into power. What people are calling for is the end of the starvation in Gaza, and some framework to resolve the status of the Palestinians.

Well, how well did it work under non-existent and then limited self-rule that Japanese and Germans had in the years following WWII?

There was economic support from the US to help rebuild both of those countries, which does not seem to be the case for Gaza unless you're aware of a Marshall Plan for them.

Correct! This is not monocausal. But education is a very big piece of the picture, and that is why UNWRA should not be allowed back into Gaza or the West Bank.

Even without UNWRA, the education they're getting based on the actions of the Israeli government is its own indoctrination.

How very NeoConservative of you. I used to think similarly.

We in the West do not even value liberty more than we value convenience, comfort, safety, and not being offended.... and we are surprised when others do not value liberty more than even more powerful things than this?

The west has the advantage of relative stability, which leads to the complacency and focus on other things like those you described.

Yup. And that is called "Self Rule". Self-governing entities do not cease to exist simply because they are surrounded, or because their people cannot move across international borders at will. North Korea, for example, does not cease to exist because both China and South Korea tightly secure their borders with it. Nor does Tajikistan cease to exist because it is surrounded by other nation states.

Self rule without independence is what I've been talking about, but sure "self rule".

It's the central core truth when it comes to that particular question. Just as with the "but no deep sea fishing" example, you are leaning on things that have no bearing on whether they were self-ruling or not to distract from that point. It's a red herring.

It isn't. The red herring here is the focus on the narrow definition of self rule just limited to self government, when it also includes controlling its own activities, but most importantly is its independence. That has not been the case nor does it appear to be something that will be coming any time soon.

 

[ElChupacabra]

I mean, think how this argument plays out, man:

"Yeah sure, they had their own elected government that governed them, and that government exercised a monopoly of violence over a given geographic area (which is the basic definition of sovereignty and jurisdiction), and so they were under their own legal system with their own security forces, educated by their own education system, and did literally everything else that actually qualifies as self rule.... BUT..... they faced economic sanctions.... so.... all that other stuff doesn't count...."​

​

Russia? Not a state. Tajikistan? No deep sea fishing, so it doesn't exist. Iraq under Saddam? Nope, Saddam didn't rule during the time that Saddam Ruled because, after all, he was restricted from importing military technology by the outside world, and others flew in his airspace even when he didn't like it. Ethiopia? No deep sea fishing, so, it also doesn't exist. Much like the state of Nebraska, which doesn't have it's own government with a governor and legislature and judiciary... because.... after all, no deep sea fishing.​

The definition of self rule is not "Unless you have complete free trade with the world you don't rule yourself" (if anything, historically the opposite). You can't get out of a speeding ticket in Oklahoma by confidently pointing out that they don't have any deep sea fishing, and therefore are unable to exercise governance over the physical territory in which they gave you the ticket.

This whole deep sea fishing is just taking the piss. Good lord. Talk about taking a point an going off the deep end.

And they did. They owned and ruled everything in Gaza, where Israel unilaterally withdrew to grant them self rule and they responded by turning to HAMAS and warfare.... which you are attempting to ignore and distract from by appealing to items that have no bearing on that basic reality.

No, I am not ignoring it. However, Israeli control over airspace and territorial waters came before HAMAS was elected into power.

 

[ElChupacabra]

..... I mean, if your car's air conditioner stopped blowing air on your legs when you told it to, would you declare that it was no longer an automobile?

They had self rule. They ruled themselves. They were given self government. They governed themselves. Red Herrings about Deep Sea Fishing do not change that basic reality, regardless of whether or not it is deeply inconvenient to a preferred narrative.

You run with that since that's all you seem to focus on.

Well, that's one way of measuring. Since what we are talking about here is the Israeli worldview, it would probably be salient to make an apples to apples comparison in per capita terms, in which case I believe it is more like if we lost... what, over 40,000 people dead 9/11, with an additional 9,000 kidnapped?

The per capita Palestinian deaths don't look good for Israel either I guess, but I'm sure that's different.

I mean.... I can see us nuking someone, in that scenario.

Sure, why not?

Indeed. They governed Gaza.

But are not technically a state. Maybe more like a student government?

Yup. That is also where Usrael is floundering in Gaza.

...and that's considering Gaza doesn't have a traditional military.

Well, that would be part of one major condition changing.

Which seems highly unlikely.

 

[cpwill]

This whole deep sea fishing is just taking the piss. Good lord. Talk about taking a point an going off the deep end.

*you* are the one who tried to appeal to that to say that okay-yes-they-had-self-rule-but-not-really

No, I am not ignoring it. However, Israeli control over airspace and territorial waters came before HAMAS was elected into power.

Yes you are. Specifically, you are attempting to divert to discussing restraints on their ability to import weapons that they would have then immediately shot into Israel, which has no impact whatsoever on whether or not they were self-governing, because acknowledging that when Palestinians were given self-rule they used it to launch even more brutal attacks on Israel would be harmful to the push to give them self-rule anyway.

 

[ElChupacabra]

*you* are the one who tried to appeal to that to say that okay-yes-they-had-self-rule-but-not-really

I am because there's self rule in which we include the concept of independence and then there's the narrow focus you chose.

Yes you are. Specifically, you are attempting to divert to discussing restraints on their ability to import weapons that they would have then immediately shot into Israel, which has no impact whatsoever on whether or not they were self-governing, because acknowledging that when Palestinians were given self-rule they used it to launch even more brutal attacks on Israel would be harmful to the push to give them self-rule anyway.

Good point. Clearly the only solution is to make Gaza and I guess the West Bank to into open air prisons, where the folks can at least get to choose their leaders and neither have sovereignty nor independence, but they can vote. Given the endless threat Palestinians pose this should be the model forward, unless Israel can somehow manage to convince the people under their control that they should be happy with the state of affairs. Good luck!

 

[cpwill]

I am because there's self rule in which we include the concept of independence and then there's the narrow focus you chose.

No, I am pointing out the basic definition of the thing. You are attempting to bring in red herrings that have nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not an entity is "self governing" because you do not want to deal with the implications of the unfortunate reality that Gazans were offered the greater autonomy you are pushing for, and they chose HAMAS and violence with it, which is why Israel is - reasonably - not going to allow a Palestinian state.

Good point. Clearly the only solution is to make Gaza and I guess the West Bank to into open air prisons, where the folks can at least get to choose their leaders and neither have sovereignty nor independence, but they can vote. Given the endless threat Palestinians pose this should be the model forward, unless Israel can somehow manage to convince the people under their control that they should be happy with the state of affairs. Good luck!

emotional false dichotomies don't make you look more reasoned, they make you look less.

I have repeatedly pointed out the broad steps that I think are necessary to get back to where a two-state solution is possible again.

You run with that since that's all you seem to focus on.

You are the one who brought that up as though it was the defining characteristic of whether or not someone could be said to be self-ruling.

The per capita Palestinian deaths don't look good for Israel either I guess, but I'm sure that's different.

Actually they do, though that's a different conversation.

Sure, why not?

We lost (again, per capita / total impact to us) far fewer people on 9/11, and we invaded two separate nation states, with less concern and care for civilian life than the IDF is showing.

But are not technically a state.

They were not an internationally recognized independent country - but they were absolutely a State.

...and that's considering Gaza doesn't have a traditional military.

Oh yeah - COIN sucks, and Israel is trying to do the more light-handed version (which we also tried, and which also failed, which is why we launched the Surge in Iraq). The degree of difficulty in destroying an insurgent operation in incredibly dense urban terrain when they enjoy overwhelming support from the local population is the biggest driver for why I've been saying this ends badly for the past year or more.

Which seems highly unlikely.

Well, UNWRA is currently banned. Hopefully Israel never lets them back in, and that particularly destructive little agency can finally die.

 

[ElChupacabra]

No, I am pointing out the basic definition of the thing. You are attempting to bring in red herrings that have nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not an entity is "self governing" because you do not want to deal with the implications of the unfortunate reality that Gazans were offered the greater autonomy you are pushing for, and they chose HAMAS and violence with it, which is why Israel is - reasonably - not going to allow a Palestinian state.

Cool. Then they can end up with more decades of the same, and a world that will have moved on from sympathizing with Israel and instead see it as an oppressor as is already the case.

emotional false dichotomies don't make you look more reasoned, they make you look less.

False dichotomies? What does Gaza become if it returns to a territory where people are basically prisoners in their own land and have no control of their resources?

I have repeatedly pointed out the broad steps that I think are necessary to get back to where a two-state solution is possible again.

You have, and have also laid that out as a return to the status quo and no solution to what's happening in the West Bank which did not have HAMAS as its leadership.

You are the one who brought that up as though it was the defining characteristic of whether or not someone could be said to be self-ruling.

I did, because most people think of self rule in the context of full autonomy and independence. But, sure they had self rule within their own borders and nothing else because Israel controlled their access and freedom of movement.

Actually they do, though that's a different conversation.

Go for it.

We lost (again, per capita / total impact to us) far fewer people on 9/11, and we invaded two separate nation states, with less concern and care for civilian life than the IDF is showing.

Yeah, but we managed not to starve the people in Iraq and Afghanistan.

They were not an internationally recognized independent country - but they were absolutely a State.

Not fully recognized state either.

Oh yeah - COIN sucks, and Israel is trying to do the more light-handed version (which we also tried, and which also failed, which is why we launched the Surge in Iraq). The degree of difficulty in destroying an insurgent operation in incredibly dense urban terrain when they enjoy overwhelming support from the local population is the biggest driver for why I've been saying this ends badly for the past year or more.

It's proving out that way.

Well, UNWRA is currently banned. Hopefully Israel never lets them back in, and that particularly destructive little agency can finally die.

Ok.

 

[cpwill]

Cool. Then they can end up with more decades of the same, and a world that will have moved on from sympathizing with Israel and instead see it as an oppressor as is already the case.

I don't know if I would say it's Cool, but I do think that is the most likely future, and I think it's plausible that will have horrific results.

False dichotomies?

Yes. You were engaging in a false dichotomy by trying to appeal to a strawman as though it were the only possible alternative to your preferred outcome.

What does Gaza become if it returns to a territory where people are basically prisoners in their own land and have no control of their resources?

Gazans had self rule and control over but only their own resources - but the billions upon billions that the rest of the world poured in..... and which they seem to have spent largely on HAMAS' tunnel network.

As to what Gaza becomes, much of that will depend on the nature of eventual IDF withdrawal, and the degree to which HAMAS is still a potent force within it.

You have, and have also laid that out as a return to the status quo and no solution to what's happening in the West Bank which did not have HAMAS as its leadership.

Both of those statements are inaccurate. The status quote is a particularly ugly war, launched by HAMAS, who has taken a break from trying to maximize Gazan suffering to celebrate the victory handed it by the UK and France by releasing a video of a crying, starving Israeli hostage being forced to dig his own grave.

I did, because most people think of self rule in the context of full autonomy and independence. But, sure they had self rule within their own borders

Indeed they did, and they taught us what the Palestinians will currently do when given greater autonomy and self rule. Which is why Israel can no more (at current) accept a Palestinian state than we could accept an al-Qa'ida airlines operating in the US in 2006.

Go for it.

Okedoke. The brief version is: civilian casualties appear to be pretty low for this kind of a war fought in these conditions in this kind of terrain.

Yeah, but we managed not to starve the people in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Israel is not responsible for the UN refusing to deliver aid unless it is allowed to do so in a way that supports HAMAS, however, hunger and privatize have been part of every major war, and Israel is unique in having provided more aid to an enemy populace than any other combatant in history.

Not fully recognized state either.

Indeed. It shared that with Taiwan, which is also self governing, as well as Puntland and Somaliland, which are also self governing.

It's proving out that way.

Yeah, but, I was wrong about LH.... it'd be nice to be wrong here, too. :-/

 

[ElChupacabra]

I don't know if I would say it's Cool, but I do think that is the most likely future, and I think it's plausible that will have horrific results.

Ok.

Yes. You were engaging in a false dichotomy by trying to appeal to a strawman as though it were the only possible alternative to your preferred outcome.

Given what we've learned from the history there and the lack of different solutions presented thus far, not so much.

Gazans had self rule and control over but only their own resources - but the billions upon billions that the rest of the world poured in..... and which they seem to have spent largely on HAMAS' tunnel network.

HAMAS is certainly culpable in how it misspent aid, but there was only so much the aid was going to do for the people there since they were essentially boxed into Gaza with no other autonomy except within their own borders. That kind of limitation isn't going to help anyone, hence the "open air prison" that's been aptly applied to conditions there.

As to what Gaza becomes, much of that will depend on the nature of eventual IDF withdrawal, and the degree to which HAMAS is still a potent force within it.

What I hope is there's a way past groups like HAMAS, and that in and of itself I find to be myopic as well. While HAMAS is the problem group right now, they're representative of something else that just doesn't go away with removing them from power. The question is who rises in their place and whether they are better or worse than what was there before.

Both of those statements are inaccurate. The status quote is a particularly ugly war, launched by HAMAS, who has taken a break from trying to maximize Gazan suffering to celebrate the victory handed it by the UK and France by releasing a video of a crying, starving Israeli hostage being forced to dig his own grave.

What we both agree on is HAMAS is not a way forward. They've proven themselves to be ineffective as a governing body, and based on the release of the current video and statements of not disarming until there is a Palestinian state, have dug their own graves and of those in Gaza. There is no victory handed to them by the UK and France, that's just silly given the largely symbolic nature of of these acknowledgments. It will likely carry political weight though, since it might encourage other nations to follow suit. though it's important to note most of the world has already acknowledges a Palestinian state. The status quo also includes Israel's actions in the West Bank tough, and while that is not an active war, it is yet another territory in contention because it is neither a truly self governing state, nor does it have a future as one given the ever increasing rise of Jewish settlers.

Indeed they did, and they taught us what the Palestinians will currently do when given greater autonomy and self rule. Which is why Israel can no more (at current) accept a Palestinian state than we could accept an al-Qa'ida airlines operating in the US in 2006.

...and they won't accept absorbing the Palestinians into Israel either, which leaves what solution exactly?

Okedoke. The brief version is: civilian casualties appear to be pretty low for this kind of a war fought in these conditions in this kind of terrain.

I'm sure that will be a great consolation to those who survive this.

Israel is not responsible for the UN refusing to deliver aid unless it is allowed to do so in a way that supports HAMAS, however, hunger and privatize have been part of every major war, and Israel is unique in having provided more aid to an enemy populace than any other combatant in history.

Great. We should just look the other way

Indeed. It shared that with Taiwan, which is also self governing, as well as Puntland and Somaliland, which are also self governing.

Sure.

Yeah, but, I was wrong about LH.... it'd be nice to be wrong here, too. :-/

I would too, but it doesn't look to be the case.

 

[cpwill]

Ok.

Given what we've learned from the history there and the lack of different solutions presented thus far, not so much.

Yes indeed. There have been several offerings made and opportunities rejected, all of which looked different from each other. Future options (once options become possible again) are not binary, and we should reject the notion that something can't exist simply because it would take time and effort to produce it.

HAMAS is certainly culpable in how it misspent aid, but there was only so much the aid was going to do for the people there since they were essentially boxed into Gaza with no other autonomy except within their own borders. That kind of limitation isn't going to help anyone, hence the "open air prison" that's been aptly applied to conditions there.

No, because an open air prison is an open air prison, not an autonomous society. Gaza was no more an "open air prison" because Israel limited their ability to import weapons than Russia is made into an open-air prison because the US has applied sanctions against it.

However, yes. HAMAS certainly took the billion and billions that the world provided in aid and seems to have spent it largely on two things:

1) preparing for this conflict, which they then launched and ensured continued
2) senior leader lifestyles and incomes

What I hope is there's a way past groups like HAMAS, and that in and of itself I find to be myopic as well. While HAMAS is the problem group right now, they're representative of something else that just doesn't go away with removing them from power. The question is who rises in their place and whether they are better or worse than what was there before.

I don't think it is myopic, but your broader point is certainly true. Getting rid of HAMAS' ability to exercise power is a necessary condition, but not anything close to sufficient. That is why I support ending things like UNWRA teaching Gazan children that Jews are pig-monkey's whose murder will bring one fame, respect, and guaranteed entrance into Paradise.

What we both agree on is HAMAS is not a way forward. They've proven themselves to be ineffective as a governing body, and based on the release of the current video and statements of not disarming until there is a Palestinian state, have dug their own graves and of those in Gaza.

This is true. There is no good future for the Palestinian people or Israel so long as HAMAS maintains power, there will only be continued war and death, with breaks while they re-arm.

There is no victory handed to them by the UK and France, that's just silly given the largely symbolic nature of of these acknowledgments.

And this is not. HAMAS is fighting a war that strategically prioritizes the information domain - that is how they are "winning" or "losing". The destruction of Gaza is not a loss for them, but a gain, because it allows them to gain more support abroad and drive separation in between Israel and other nation states. That has now succeeded in bringing about increasing European support for Palestinian statehood and increasing international separation from Israel.

They correctly interpreted this as a victory, because it was one They can (and are) currently trumpeting it to their own people and the rest of the Arab world as the "fruit of Oct 7th", and proof that they were right to launch this war.

It will likely carry political weight though, since it might encourage other nations to follow suit.

And encouraged HAMAS to walk away from the negotiations table and continue the war.... which was both utterly predictable and predicted.


If you agree (and I think you do) that there is no Palestinian State with HAMAS in power in the range of likely futures, then that means that diplomatic moves like the recent decisions by the UK and France that help keep HAMAS in power delay that outcome, and increases the loss and death that will exist between now and then.

It does not advance the cause of a Palestinian state - it delays the cause of a Palestinian state, makes that future less likely, and increases bloodshed in the meantime. It does let those leaders claim to be advancing the cause of a Palestinian state... which, apparently, they value more than actual Palestinian lives themselves.

 

[cpwill]

status quo also includes Israel's actions in the West Bank tough, and while that is not an active war, it is yet another territory in contention because it is neither a truly self governing state, nor does it have a future as one given the ever increasing rise of Jewish settlers.

The Palestinian Authority was offered a state in the West Bank (with Jerusalem as its capital) and refused, choosing violence instead, which led to where they are now. The Israeli willingness to make that offer again is probably dead for a generation, buried with the bodies of Oct 7th.

You are right that the Status Quo includes the West Bank. I think you are incorrect to want to divorce it as a separate issue from either its own past or from the broader Israeli/Palestinian issue.

...and they won't accept absorbing the Palestinians into Israel either, which leaves what solution exactly?

That will depend much on how the war in Gaza is concluded, and what happens there (and with the Palestinian authority) going forward.

I'm sure that will be a great consolation to those who survive this.

Probably not, however, that is irrelevant to the point that it is also true.

Great. We should just look the other way

No. We should pressure the UN to deliver aid, and to stop trying to provide materiel support to HAMAS.

Sure.

Taiwan, Somaliland, and Puntland are all indeed self-governing, despite a lack of international recognition.

I would too, but it doesn't look to be the case.

Yup. I have heard reports of the IDF wanting to switch to Inkblot strategies..... I would need more and better data on the actual mindset of the typical Gazan to know how likely that is to prove successful, but if it is as I fear, then that is an effort that will take generations. :-/

 

[ElChupacabra]

Yeah, it's all kinds of sad. More so when one thinks there is only one group at fault.

Yes indeed. There have been several offerings made and opportunities rejected, all of which looked different from each other. Future options (once options become possible again) are not binary, and we should reject the notion that something can't exist simply because it would take time and effort to produce it.

I think Barak's offer was one the Palestinians should have worked with, and Arafat made a mistake in not going down that road considering it was considerable control and concessions by Israel in terms of territory. The concession of East Jerusalem was a sticking point though.

No, because an open air prison is an open air prison, not an autonomous society. Gaza was no more an "open air prison" because Israel limited their ability to import weapons than Russia is made into an open-air prison because the US has applied sanctions against it.

Not the same thing at all.