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

[ElChupacabra]

Because it wasn't the picture I was describing. The event I was describing was the UK, France, and Canada's decision to come forward in favor of Palestinian statehood without attaching any kinds of actual conditions regarding the destruction and exile of HAMAS and release of the hostages to it.

Instead, it was just "Hey Israel, if you can't get HAMAS to agree to a ceasefire within a certain timeframe, we are going to support Palestinian Statehood", which HAMAS immediately read as "Hey, if we just refuse to negotiate, the UK will recognize Palestinian Statehood", and so they decided the war was working, and walked away from negotiations.

This is incorrect, since they specifically leave HAMAS out of future governance in Gaza:

We strongly support the efforts led by the United States, Qatar and Egypt to secure an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. It is a ceasefire, the release of all remaining hostages and a long-term political solution that offer the best hope of ending the agony of the hostages and their families, alleviating the suffering of civilians in Gaza, ending Hamas’ control of Gaza and achieving a pathway to a two-state solution, consistent with the goals of the 18 June conference in New York co-chaired by Saudi Arabia and France.

 

[ElChupacabra]

God/Jehovah gave the land to Abram and his descendants.

That's cool. Vishnu just told me your home and possessions belong to me, so please vacate before I get there.

You will never understand Israel nor the ME until you accept that as fact. You can mock God. Curse God. Not believe in God. But things in the ME will never change enough to satisfy anyone. There will be no two state solution. The land belongs to the Jews.

Yeah, sky god nonsense isn't going to fly except for the people who believe in it, and fortunately we have enough secular nations that can talk people down from that kind of thing. So you must be all for the repatriation of Native Americans to their lands, because for them their gods gifted them the land as well, or is that different?

 

[cpwill]

This is incorrect, since they specifically leave HAMAS out of future governance in Gaza:

You are citing a separate rhetorical statement that was not attached to their decision to recognize Palestinian statehood.

If they had made (for example) recognition contingent on HAMAS surrendering, giving up the hostages, etc., then you would be correct, because they would have made their recognition contingent on HAMAS actually being out of future governance.

Instead, they did kind of the opposite - particularly the UK, whose position was "Either HAMAS agrees to a ceasefire, or else we will recognize a Palestinian state" - and the utterly predictable (and predicted) result was that HAMAS immediately left the negotiation table and declared that victory was closer than they had thought.


The milquetoast follow up doesn't mean anything because they didn't attach anything to it. It's Michael Scott declaring bankruptcy.

Instead, they incentivized HAMAS to keep fighting, helping to prolong this war and giving Netanyahu the breathing room to attempt to reimpose Israeli governance across Gaza.

 

[cpwill]

Or because the GHF is a sham organization that just funnels palestinians into corridors where they are shot at?

This was a particularly cartoonish propaganda campaign, and I wouldn't recommend buying into it.

Or to prevent the thieves that stole food and drug runners that Israel armed from getting it.

1. IIRC you identified one group enabled by Israel that you claimed was ISIS (and couldn't support it without citing HAMAS), and then made this claim about them (and, while I find it plausible, when I asked for your source and if the original source was HAMAS, you didn't say).

2. HAMAS is the major player and far and away the largest armed group shy of the IDF (who has their own food and isn't seizing and driving off with aid trucks) in the area, and has a history of doing precisely. exactly. this. to include during the current conflict, when they used income from seized aid shipments to replace lost foreign support.

Say what you want about the UN but the UN actually had functioning networks.

Not according to the UN's own numbers they didn't.

Doctors without borders, various even Israeli human rights networks as well all had infinitely better aid networks than this GHF.

Given that they didn't work, apparently not. GHF actually went out and delivered meals. They all..... sat on their hands and pouted about how they would refuse to give Palestinians aid if Israel wouldn't let them set it up so HAMAS could take it.

 

[cpwill]

Great, then this makes a good case for Israel to continue its war and "eradicate HAMAS" in whatever that means since HAMAS can hardly be considered a governing force anymore.

HAMAS still exercises control over territory, but for some reason no one ever expects them to be held responsible for anything.

As of last month, a majority of even Netanyahu's coalition voters wanted to strike a deal for the release of all hostages and an end of hostilities - a position that overlapped with previous HAMAS' positions.

Unfortunately, a few European powers and Canada then decided to convince HAMAS to walk away from the negotiating table, killing any chances of a deal in the near term.

So, yeah, Israel and HAMAS will remain in combat, and the war will continue. :-/

It takes one side to begin a war. Absent annihilation, it takes both to agree to end it.

Given that the goal of all Palestinians is the non existence of Israel, that should justify the defense of Israel meaning a purge of the people there because they will be a security threat for as long as they are there

Eventually, I do fear this becoming more plausible, especially the more the outside world convinces Israel that it cannot see a difference between self-defense and Genocide.

Subjugated people are never going to fare well, and they will either wither away or fight

No, the options are not "whither away" or "violence". If anything, weaker parties who choose "violence", have historically "withered away" much faster due to state violence in response.

Makes sense to drive them out then. One can never coexist with people like that.

You can, so long as you retain overpowering military advantage, and are ready to sacrifice a certain portion of your children to do so.

Right now we have one side who wants to commit genocide, but lacks the capability.
And another side who has the capability, but who doesn't want to.

The war will continue until one of those conditions change.... and that is my worry. If the Palestinian people do not ever give up on maximalize/genocidal goals, eventually, Israel may very well eventually decide they are no longer willing to sacrifice their children to keep the people who kill them alive.... and they may actually turn to Genocide (actual Genocide, not "OMG-no-one-told-me-war-was-bad" "genocide").


They've avoided that path thus far, and there is still plenty of room in their available futures to avoid it. If they can destroy HAMAS and put the Palestinian Authority (or someone similar) in charge of a functioning Gaza in its place, that will be a good step back from a cliff that is still far away, though still worryingly within sight.

 

[cpwill]

Everyone is where they've been, with some people pushed out to make for way for others to come in. The problem here is you have two territories which Israel occupied and never solved the problem of what to do with the people whose land they wanted but didn't want them, and for no other reason because it's a demographic threat to the existence of a Jewish state created in part by the dislocation of Arab Muslims in those lands prior.

Israel has repeatedly proven its willingness to give up land to achieve peace with a willing partner - with Egypt, with Jordan. It tried to do the same a partner of unknown willingness in Gaza.

The problem is not that the people exist, or that the land exists. The problem is that one of the people's remains dedicated to the others' annihilation.

 

[cpwill]

Lofty goal, but none of that happens if things go back to the territories being what they were.

They won't. Israel will not (at current) accept the status quo ante bellum, because that was how they got here in the first place. Instead, they will project more power into Gaza, and probably the West Bank.

The motivation for that kind of thinking doesn't happen in societies that are doing well, they happen in ones with poor conditions politically and economically.

Not really. I know lots of poor peoples' who don't train their children to believe that it is a holy duty of theirs to commit genocide against their neighbors.

Sure, but much of that is a result of Israel's actions, especially now that the starvation has gotten increasingly worse. I think that's the part of the strategy they may not have gotten right, because sentiment towards Israel has gotten considerably worse in Western nations.

1. I would say it is driven by western perception of Israel's actions, which is heavily shaped by HAMAS propaganda, which has proven incredibly effective thanks to its willing partners in western media.

2. Again, "but we didn't mean it that way" is completely irrelevant to the impacts of that decision. Political leaders are supposed to think through the obvious results of their actions, not lash out emotionally in response to a gripping picture. *

* yes, I recognize the irony of an American saying that - but that is also the point. Stupid and destructive decisions have consequences.

They may think so, but since the condition of that acknowledgement and a path forward does not include HAMAS governing, then not so much.

this is incorrect, because they did not condition that acknowledgement on HAMAS giving up power, weapons, hostages, or any of that. In no way (that I have seen - would love to be wrong) have they said anything along the lines of "Oh, and, of course, if HAMAS retains power, obviously, we won't do this".

The only condition they have attached is the UK's "Unless Israel is able to get HAMAS to agree to a ceasefire, we will recognize a Palestinian state". This incredibly stupid and destructive formulation immediately had the utterly predictable effect of convincing HAMAS not to agree to any ceasefire.

It may,

Not may - did. HAMAS immediately began injecting conditions into negotiations that were so outlandish that even Qatar and Egypt rejected them until HAMAS could validate that it had heard right....

....and then they walked away from negotiations, went on television, and declared that they had been proven to be right all along, and victory was closer than they had thought.

I wasn't surprised things have taken the direction they've taken either, because what the world is witnessing there is enough to bring about some kind of action,

.....doing something that makes a situation worse is not helping, regardless of the degree of impetus one feels to "Do Something".

and killing more Palestinians doesn't seem to be the preferred choice.

Well it's too bad, then, because that's what they ensured would happen.

While I'm sure HAMAS has no issue with the death of its own people, there's the reality of a war in a place like Gaza is going to be this even if HAMAS weren't who they are. It's a small area with a lot of people, and they're a force with no military infrastructure. The challenge for Israel is how does one purge a group like that militarily without killing scores of people.

I agree with pretty much everything except "no military infrastructure". Other than that, however, yeah. Urban combat is going to look like this, because this is what urban combat looks like in the modern era. I've seen Fallujah, Mosul, Raqqah...

Yeah. This was ugly regardless, no two ways about it

 

[Crunchtime]

That's cool. Vishnu just told me your home and possessions belong to me, so please vacate before I get there.



Yeah, sky god nonsense isn't going to fly except for the people who believe in it, and fortunately we have enough secular nations that can talk people down from that kind of thing. So you must be all for the repatriation of Native Americans to their lands, because for them their gods gifted them the land as well, or is that different?

You sound offended. Like I said you can mock God, etc. but you’re as confused as a termite in a yo yo.

 

[Luce]

God/Jehovah gave the land to Abram and his descendants.

So the Muslims as well?

Good to know.

 

[Crunchtime]

So the Muslims as well?

Good to know.

Jehovah promised to make Ismael a great nation and gave Ismael land but not the same land that He gave to Abrams descendants. It was somewhere in the vicinity of Assyria and Egypt. Arabs occupy that land today. Maybe they’re descended from Ismael.

 

[ElChupacabra]

You are citing a separate rhetorical statement that was not attached to their decision to recognize Palestinian statehood.

If they had made (for example) recognition contingent on HAMAS surrendering, giving up the hostages, etc., then you would be correct, because they would have made their recognition contingent on HAMAS actually being out of future governance.

Instead, they did kind of the opposite - particularly the UK, whose position was "Either HAMAS agrees to a ceasefire, or else we will recognize a Palestinian state" - and the utterly predictable (and predicted) result was that HAMAS immediately left the negotiation table and declared that victory was closer than they had thought.


The milquetoast follow up doesn't mean anything because they didn't attach anything to it. It's Michael Scott declaring bankruptcy.

Instead, they incentivized HAMAS to keep fighting, helping to prolong this war and giving Netanyahu the breathing room to attempt to reimpose Israeli governance across Gaza.

Yet this statement as an addendum to their original one, still serves as an explanation for their vision and rationale. I think it's safe to say HAMAS can use anything western nations do to prevent the onslaught of civilians is a win for them if it suits them. The problem they have is reality on the ground contradicts their narrative, and the idea of eradicating HAMAS in its true sense is also a near impossibility for Israel.

 

[cpwill]

Yet this statement as an addendum to their original one, still serves as an explanation for their vision and rationale.

and is irrelevant because they attached no conditions to it, and did not make that statehood declaration dependent on it.

Let's put the same scenario into another conflict:

Germany, Spain, and the UK become horrified by the violence in Ukraine (which has seen many, many, more casualties than the Gaza war has). They therefore declare that, unless Zelensky agrees to a ceasefire by October, they will recognize Russian ownership of Crimea and the Donbass.​

​

They then turn around and issue another statement, however, saying that Invading other countries is bad, and they think that Putin shouldn't be the leader of Russia.​

What are the actual, practical effects of these series of statements? Will Putin say: "Oh My Gosh, They Said They Didn't Like Me, I Better Step Down."? Or will he say "So, As Long As I Keep The War Going, I Get What I Want? Excellent."?

When you de facto reward bad behavior and then say that you de jure condemn it, the net result is still that the behavior is reinforced.

It is bizzare to me that ya'll cannot acknowledge this.

I think it's safe to say HAMAS can use anything western nations do to prevent the onslaught of civilians is a win for them if it suits them.

Indeed. The Western nations want to pull the bandaid off slowly because pain is bad, and the result is more pain instead.

The problem they have is reality on the ground contradicts their narrative,

Thanks to these powers, it does not. Instead, they have decided to make the war a success for HAMAS, and a validation of the idea that the path forward to victory is to keep doing this again, and again, and again.

Because that's what happens when you positively reinforce something. You get more of it.

and the idea of eradicating HAMAS in its true sense is also a near impossibility for Israel.

Eh. I would not say near impossibility. I think it is unlikely.

 

[ElChupacabra]

HAMAS still exercises control over territory, but for some reason no one ever expects them to be held responsible for anything.

As of last month, a majority of even Netanyahu's coalition voters wanted to strike a deal for the release of all hostages and an end of hostilities - a position that overlapped with previous HAMAS' positions.

Unfortunately, a few European powers and Canada then decided to convince HAMAS to walk away from the negotiating table, killing any chances of a deal in the near term.

So, yeah, Israel and HAMAS will remain in combat, and the war will continue. :-/

It takes one side to begin a war. Absent annihilation, it takes both to agree to end it.

They should be, and there are few coming out an supporting them politically except fellow nutters. Recently the Arab League called for HAMAS to disarm and return the hostages, which is a pretty big shift in the typical politics of the region. Without Iran as strong a backer as it was, there really isn't much of a future for HAMAS. I don't agree with your position that the war wouldn't have continued even without the nations in question stating they will recognize a Palestinian state.

Eventually, I do fear this becoming more plausible, especially the more the outside world convinces Israel that it cannot see a difference between self-defense and Genocide.

It's not the outside world that's behind this, but the nutters within Israel (extremists etc.) who push this agenda as well. Lest we forget Likud's slogan of "between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty". There is never a shortage of extremist nutters on any side of a conflict, the question is how much power they sway to affect policy.

No, the options are not "whither away" or "violence". If anything, weaker parties who choose "violence", have historically "withered away" much faster due to state violence in response.

The current paradigm says otherwise though.

You can, so long as you retain overpowering military advantage, and are ready to sacrifice a certain portion of your children to do so.

Exactly, but that then runs against the idea of true security which is more about not living under constant threat.

Right now we have one side who wants to commit genocide, but lacks the capability.
And another side who has the capability, but who doesn't want to.

I suspect it's a mixed bag on either side of who wants what and similar to my point earlier about nutters, either side will have them. There are certainly Israelis who have expressed the sentiment of exiling all of the Palestinians from Gaza and opening it up to settlers.

The war will continue until one of those conditions change.... and that is my worry. If the Palestinian people do not ever give up on maximalize/genocidal goals, eventually, Israel may very well eventually decide they are no longer willing to sacrifice their children to keep the people who kill them alive.... and they may actually turn to Genocide (actual Genocide, not "OMG-no-one-told-me-war-was-bad" "genocide").

Yeah, on this we definitely agree. The Palestinians who are in favor of continuing war against Israel have to realize its futility, and instead push for a future for their children that doesn't involve endless conflict because it's massively traumatic for future generations. Israeli will have to make peace with the idea that controlling Gaza and the West Bank as they have only creates more instability and endless conflict.

They've avoided that path thus far, and there is still plenty of room in their available futures to avoid it. If they can destroy HAMAS and put the Palestinian Authority (or someone similar) in charge of a functioning Gaza in its place, that will be a good step back from a cliff that is still far away, though still worryingly within sight.

I doubt Netanyahu who has sought to keep the divide between the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza will want the PA to be in charge of anything, it's what makes this very complicated since we're not clear on what a viable government would be for the current Israeli government.

 

[ElChupacabra]

Israel has repeatedly proven its willingness to give up land to achieve peace with a willing partner - with Egypt, with Jordan. It tried to do the same a partner of unknown willingness in Gaza.

The problem is not that the people exist, or that the land exists. The problem is that one of the people's remains dedicated to the others' annihilation.

I don't think this is an accurate representation of Palestinians as a whole, and if it is, then Israel has only the choices of endless subjugation or expulsion.

 

[ElChupacabra]

You sound offended. Like I said you can mock God, etc. but you’re as confused as a termite in a yo yo.

I'm not at all. Vishnu sent me a telepathic message informing me that your property belongs to me. Basing land rights on sky gods is dumb.

 

[Crunchtime]

I don't think this is an accurate representation of Palestinians as a whole, and if it is, then Israel has only the choices of endless subjugation or expulsion.

If you doubt the Palestinians hatred for the Jews you’re more confused than I thought.

 

[ElChupacabra]

If you doubt the Palestinians hatred for the Jews you’re more confused than I thought.

That has nothing to do with what I said. Of course, the animosity didn't just pop out of nowhere and if the justification to displace people is because their sky god said so, then there will be push back and animosity.

 

[Crunchtime]

That has nothing to do with what I said. Of course, the animosity didn't just pop out of nowhere and if the justification to displace people is because their sky god said so, then there will be push back and animosity.

It’s amazing to me that you can discount more than 6000 years of history. So you are an atheist. I get it, but the war in Gaza is between two opposing religions. It’s spiritual. Even if you don’t believe it can’t you see that many people do? Can’t you see that Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are opposed to one another? Can’t you see that there are literally billions of people that believe what you refuse to believe? And are dying everyday for it? How can you claim to be looking for the truth, a solution, and be so blockheaded?

 

[cpwill]

I don't think this is an accurate representation of Palestinians as a whole, and

That would be nice to find out. Unfortunately, this is a population raised to believe in precisely that.

As of earlier in the war for example, 72% of Gazans supported the Oct 7th Attacks, while a slim majority of Gazans and 85% of West Bankers said they were satisfied with HAMAS' role in the war. That support has fallen since (though as I understand the West Bank continues to poll as more supportive of HAMAS than Gazans do), but I'm not aware of any polling in the last few years that show a majority of Palestinians in favor of a two-state solution. If you have some good data laying around that shows that, I'd be interested in seeing it and trying to figure out how it compares/contrasts with what else is out there.

However, it is also true that "Palestinians as a whole" are less relevant than "Palestinians as a political actor" when it comes to this question. Even if we can get a plurality or majority of Palestinians on board with giving up those maximalist goals, it doesn't change the tragic equation (which you outline, below) until they have the ability to impose that preference on the others. Israel has mechanisms for imposing popular will on its government - it has regular open and fair elections. The Palestinians do not

So: we need a large group of Palestinians (Majority preferrable) who want peaceful coexistance and are willing to impose their preference on their neighbors, and then they need to be equipped and enabled to do so.

And we need to sustain that situation for probably a couple of decades.

Or, we get:

if it is, then Israel has only the choices of endless subjugation or expulsion.

Hm, I would add a conditional and an option, and say that if it remains so, then Israel's broad choices are:

* Endless Conflict
* Expulsion
* Mass Murder​

I would like it to not remain so, which is why I focus on things like not educating the next generation(s) of Palestinians to believe these things.

 

[ElChupacabra]

That would be nice to find out. Unfortunately, this is a population raised to believe in precisely that.

As of earlier in the war for example, 72% of Gazans supported the Oct 7th Attacks, while a slim majority of Gazans and 85% of West Bankers said they were satisfied with HAMAS' role in the war. That support has fallen since (though as I understand the West Bank continues to poll as more supportive of HAMAS than Gazans do), but I'm not aware of any polling in the last few years that show a majority of Palestinians in favor of a two-state solution. If you have some good data laying around that shows that, I'd be interested in seeing it and trying to figure out how it compares/contrasts with what else is out there.

However, it is also true that "Palestinians as a whole" are less relevant than "Palestinians as a political actor" when it comes to this question. Even if we can get a plurality or majority of Palestinians on board with giving up those maximalist goals, it doesn't change the tragic equation (which you outline, below) until they have the ability to impose that preference on the others. Israel has mechanisms for imposing popular will on its government - it has regular open and fair elections. The Palestinians do not

So: we need a large group of Palestinians (Majority preferrable) who want peaceful coexistance and are willing to impose their preference on their neighbors, and then they need to be equipped and enabled to do so.

And we need to sustain that situation for probably a couple of decades.

I do remember the 2006 exit polling which demonstrated Palestinians voting HAMAS in not because they were intent on Israel's destruction, but because they were an alternative to Fatah's corruption.

Source

That was then, and this is now for sure, but clearly voters were less interested in "death to Israel" and far more concerned with more practical matters.

Or, we get:

Which is where things will likely be for a quiet a while, because there's likely to be a lot of pissed off survivors.

Hm, I would add a conditional and an option, and say that if it remains so, then Israel's broad choices are:

* Endless Conflict​

* Expulsion​

* Mass Murder​

I would like it to not remain so, which is why I focus on things like not educating the next generation(s) of Palestinians to believe these things.

The education without conditions changing isn't going to be very helpful. You can teach someone to want to live in peace, but if the conditions don't foster it then it's an abstraction.

 

[cpwill]

I do remember the 2006 exit polling which demonstrated Palestinians voting HAMAS in not because they were intent on Israel's destruction, but because they were an alternative to Fatah's corruption.

Yup. The PA earned it's lack of public support from Palestinians. However:

That was then, and this is now for sure, but clearly voters were less interested in "death to Israel" and far more concerned with more practical matters.

those two things are not mutually exclusive. Palestinians - at least as of early last year - were overwhelmingly in support of the "Death to Israel" platform as well.

Which is where things will likely be for a quiet a while, because there's likely to be a lot of pissed off survivors.

Hopefully they will be mad at HAMAS for starting this war, fighting this war in a way that would maximize civilian losses, and then refusing to end it, instead of Israel for being forced to fight it.

But I lack data saying they will be able to make that decision.

The education without conditions changing isn't going to be very helpful. You can teach someone to want to live in peace, but if the conditions don't foster it then it's an abstraction.

This is an incorrect causal argument. Lots of peoples' have lived in situations where their living conditions were poorer than their neighbors and they lacked full political autonomy / representation without adopting a position of "Therefore, obviously, the only solution is to commit genocide". The latter is not an inherent or necessary outgrowth of the former.

 

[bomberfox]

This was a particularly cartoonish propaganda campaign, and I wouldn't recommend buying into it.



1. IIRC you identified one group enabled by Israel that you claimed was ISIS (and couldn't support it without citing HAMAS), and then made this claim about them (and, while I find it plausible, when I asked for your source and if the original source was HAMAS, you didn't say).

2. HAMAS is the major player and far and away the largest armed group shy of the IDF (who has their own food and isn't seizing and driving off with aid trucks) in the area, and has a history of doing precisely. exactly. this. to include during the current conflict, when they used income from seized aid shipments to replace lost foreign support.



Not according to the UN's own numbers they didn't.




Given that they didn't work, apparently not. GHF actually went out and delivered meals. They all..... sat on their hands and pouted about how they would refuse to give Palestinians aid if Israel wouldn't let them set it up so HAMAS could take it.

I didnt even site hamas. The latter is a flat out lie.

https://www.unicef.org/stories/3-major-obstacles-delivering-aid-gaza

Israel’s Gaza aid cutoff was not only immoral. It was a strategic disaster.

A policy whose cruelty was matched only by its incompetence.

www.vox.com

https://www.npr.org/2025/08/02/nx-s1-5490943/gaza-palestinians-deaths-food-aid

The disaster is of Israel’s making. We can allow the ICJ to handle the trial or continue this he said she said thing. Israel’s refusal to let Netanyahu and his cronies stand trial is making this situation worse.

You are assuming they must hand it over to GHF or they must want hamas to have it is entirely your assumption.

 

[cpwill]

Part 1

They should be, and there are few coming out an supporting them politically except fellow nutters. Recently the Arab League called for HAMAS to disarm and return the hostages, which is a pretty big shift in the typical politics of the region. Without Iran as strong a backer as it was, there really isn't much of a future for HAMAS.

Yup. The Arab League coming out and saying that was a Big Deal. If it had been paired with European offers to recognize a Palestinian state if HAMAS stepped down, gave up the hostages, and went into exile, that could have been beneficial.

Unfortunately, they decided not to do that.

I don't agree with your position that the war wouldn't have continued even without the nations in question stating they will recognize a Palestinian state.

That is what literally happened, man. Like, we literally just watched it happen.

It's not the outside world that's behind this, but the nutters within Israel (extremists etc.) who push this agenda as well. Lest we forget Likud's slogan of "between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty". There is never a shortage of extremist nutters on any side of a conflict, the question is how much power they sway to affect policy.

True, though I see a fairly significant difference between the statements of "Between the Sea and the Jordan there will be only Israeli Sovereignty because we do not support a two-state solution" and "From the River to the Sea Palestine will be Free because we are going to kill all the Jews".

The current paradigm says otherwise though.

it does not. There are plenty of civil rights movements that haven neither withered away, nor adopted genocidal violence as their means of pursuing policy changes.

Exactly, but that then runs against the idea of true security which is more about not living under constant threat.

....that's a fair distinction. I guess it would require an adjustment to say Israel would have to accept certain levels of insecurity in perpetuity.

I suspect it's a mixed bag on either side of who wants what and similar to my point earlier about nutters, either side will have them. There are certainly Israelis who have expressed the sentiment of exiling all of the Palestinians from Gaza and opening it up to settlers.

Absolutely. And the more that HAMAS et. al. convince the general Israeli population that Palestinians are unwilling to live in peace, the more political support those nutters will get.

Yeah, on this we definitely agree.

Tempted to cut out the rest of the post and only reply to this. "Yes, I accept your agreement with my agreement"

The Palestinians who are in favor of continuing war against Israel have to realize its futility, and instead push for a future for their children that doesn't involve endless conflict because it's massively traumatic for future generations.

Yup. And that's one of the major reasons why European nations convincing them it's actually successful is bad.

And, again "but they didn't mean it like that" is irrelevant to the point that that is how they see it, and it was obvious that that was how they were going to see it.

 

[cpwill]

Part 2

Israeli will have to make peace with the idea that controlling Gaza and the West Bank as they have only creates more instability and endless conflict.

Again, it's not political control that keeps that conflict going - it's Palestinians unwilllingness to give up on maximalist/genocidal conflict. Israel has given up land for peace before (Egypt, Jordan), it has removed Israeli settlers by force before (Gaza), it has attempted to seek peace through giving Palestinians self-rule (Gaza) and by giving them limited self-rule (West Bank), and by direct rule.... and none of those have worked.

Until Palestinians give up on that dream of wiping out Israel and seizing all the land through violence, it doesn't matter how control of the West Bank or Gaza is apportioned - the conflict will continue.

I doubt Netanyahu who has sought to keep the divide between the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza will want the PA to be in charge of anything, it's what makes this very complicated since we're not clear on what a viable government would be for the current Israeli government.

Yup. Again, Israel doesn't have much in the way of a strategic plan like it did in Lebanon and Iran, and is having to make it up as it goes along.

Netanyahu responded "We intend to," when asked whether Israel would take control of the full 26-mile coastal enclave.​

​

He emphasized that the goal is not to occupy Gaza permanently, but to remove Hamas and allow for new leadership—one "that is not Hamas and not anyone advocating the destruction of Israel."​

​

"We don't want to keep it. We want to have a security perimeter. We don't want to govern it. We want to hand it over to Arab forces that will govern it properly,"... "We want to hand it over to Arab forces that will govern it properly without threatening us and giving the Gazans a good life," Netanyahu said, adding, "That's not possible with Hamas."​

Cool, cool... so.... these Arab forces will be.... Gazan Tribal forces? That might work if you can get them to play along, and if they are willing to fight HAMAS for control of territory.

 

[cpwill]

I didnt even site hamas. The latter is a flat out lie.

https://www.unicef.org/stories/3-major-obstacles-delivering-aid-gaza

Israel’s Gaza aid cutoff was not only immoral. It was a strategic disaster.

A policy whose cruelty was matched only by its incompetence.

www.vox.com

https://www.npr.org/2025/08/02/nx-s1-5490943/gaza-palestinians-deaths-food-aid

From your source:



Citing sources whose reporting is citations from HAMAS.... is citing HAMAS.

However, if you have OTHER data sources that support your claims about that group being ISIS, or stealing food, that would be interesting to see.

The disaster is of Israel’s making.

it is not. HAMAS started this war, HAMAS fought the war in such a way as to guarantee maximum loss, HAMAS was the one who seized aid to supplement their income and maintain power over the local Gazan population, HAMAS is the one who is keeping this war going and refusing to end it.

We can allow the ICJ to handle the trial or continue this he said she said thing. Israel’s refusal to let Netanyahu and his cronies stand trial is making this situation worse.

The international community continues to demonstrate why Jews need Zionism.

You are assuming they must hand it over to GHF or they must want hamas to have it is entirely your assumption.

No, that is what their actions said. Israel told them they couldn't distribute aid in a manner that resulted in HAMAS seizing it, and so they refused to participate.

GHF then offered another solution, where they would take the aid and distribute it directly to the Palestinian people... and they refused.

The reason we can say they prioritized letting HAMAS take their "cut" over just getting aid into the hands of the Palestinian people is because, when they were asked to choose between them, they chose the former.