Israel-Gaza war

[pppolitics]

Look at this number.

Palestinians make up >95% of the casualties

Israelis make up <5% of the casualties

How many more Palestinians lie dead under the rubble is unknown.

Meanwhile, we have people in this thread screaming non-stop about Israeli casualties while ignoring Palestinian casualties.

[Vosem]

Here is my plans for a final peace settlement (I am a Palestinian American)

1. Israel withdraws from 97% of West Bank (Ehud Olmert's 2008 Annapolis plan)

2. Highway connects West Bank and Gaza Strip

3. Jerusalem remains the undivided and fully controlled by Israel

4. Palestine government buildings operate in East Jerusalem

5. Arab residents in East Jerusalem allowed both Israeli and Palestinian citizenship

6. Palestine becomes the custodian of Al Aqsa Mosque (currently Jordanian government)

7. "Right of Return" is dropped except for the original survivors of the 1947 Nakba

8. A limited number of Palestinian refugees globally will be allowed to settle in West Bank. The rest are given citizenship of their home nations.

9. Hamas is banned as a political party. Any party that promotes violence is banned, similar to Israeli laws

10. Palestine will control its water and power

11. Israeli will be allowed to control airspace over Palestine. In exchange, the airport in Gaza City is reopened and a new airport built in West Bank

12. Israel will be allowed a limited military presence on Jordan border

Thoughts?

I think most of this is fine in and of itself (as you yourself note, it's quite similar to the 2008 Annapolis plan), but the thing that's missing is the context of the societies agreeing to this deal. (The note about Israel continuing to control Palestinian airspace suggests you don't envision either society changing radically). I don't think there can actually be a peace until a variation of Palestinian nationalism emerges which is not anti-Zionist; which does not seek to conquer Israel or change its immigration policies.

Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2004, and this was followed by the establishment of a proto-state which held Israel's destruction as its top priority. A withdrawal from the West Bank has become much less likely, since the prospect of a war like the current one happening in a place with a much greater population is a rather terrifying one; and even if a Palestinian government did sign something like the Annapolis government, they could not guarantee that they would not be replaced by something similar to Hamas unless sympathies to Hamas truly become fringe or nonexistent.

That means a very different Palestinian society than the one that exists now. (Going back to the polls OSR cited, it means one where those attitudes become nonexistent.) It means one which is actually not anti-Zionist -- one where the current ongoing war is remembered as a conflict in which Israel was justified, for instance, and where there is popular revulsion at punishments for selling land to the wrong ethnicity.

I don't think we're close to that Palestine coming into existence, and I don't think we'll even start moving in that direction until the international Palestinian movement -- especially at the UN -- is disestablished. I don't think there's an alternative to just continuing the occupation until that happens.

(My context is that I am a Jewish first-generation Russian-American, and I grew up in an ethnic enclave where poor little old ladies would pay markups for produce which allegedly came from Israeli settlements. More than that, though, my ideological perspective is that settler societies like Israel and the United States are simply better for humanity in many ways, and in the future there should be many more societies like this.)

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Oh no! Four Israeli girls are tied up!

Meanwhile, Israel killed thousands of Palestinian girls.

You would be well advised to show more unhappiness with Hamas behavior. A lot of what you say about how the Israelis have treated the Palestinians is accurate, but awful behavior is hardly limited to one side.
That being said, if Americans had to live in the conditions the Palestinians did, you can bet we'd look at it completely differently. This is a cycle of violence. Lots of people are sick of it, but it endures because the pieces of the puzzle remain in place.

You've really been on a roll in this thread Tim. Thank you for being one of the few genuinely moderate voices.

You listen to every view, and try and find solutions that no one loves but everyone can tolerate.

Thanks for the kind words, I greatly enjoy your recommendeds and your support.

[Pres Mike]

Here is my plans for a final peace settlement (I am a Palestinian American)

1. Israel withdraws from 97% of West Bank (Ehud Olmert's 2008 Annapolis plan)

2. Highway connects West Bank and Gaza Strip

3. Jerusalem remains the undivided and fully controlled by Israel

4. Palestine government buildings operate in East Jerusalem

5. Arab residents in East Jerusalem allowed both Israeli and Palestinian citizenship

6. Palestine becomes the custodian of Al Aqsa Mosque (currently Jordanian government)

7. "Right of Return" is dropped except for the original survivors of the 1947 Nakba

8. A limited number of Palestinian refugees globally will be allowed to settle in West Bank. The rest are given citizenship of their home nations.

9. Hamas is banned as a political party. Any party that promotes violence is banned, similar to Israeli laws

10. Palestine will control its water and power

11. Israeli will be allowed to control airspace over Palestine. In exchange, the airport in Gaza City is reopened and a new airport built in West Bank

12. Israel will be allowed a limited military presence on Jordan border

Thoughts?

I think most of this is fine in and of itself (as you yourself note, it's quite similar to the 2008 Annapolis plan), but the thing that's missing is the context of the societies agreeing to this deal. (The note about Israel continuing to control Palestinian airspace suggests you don't envision either society changing radically). I don't think there can actually be a peace until a variation of Palestinian nationalism emerges which is not anti-Zionist; which does not seek to conquer Israel or change its immigration policies.

Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2004, and this was followed by the establishment of a proto-state which held Israel's destruction as its top priority. A withdrawal from the West Bank has become much less likely, since the prospect of a war like the current one happening in a place with a much greater population is a rather terrifying one; and even if a Palestinian government did sign something like the Annapolis government, they could not guarantee that they would not be replaced by something similar to Hamas unless sympathies to Hamas truly become fringe or nonexistent.

That means a very different Palestinian society than the one that exists now. (Going back to the polls OSR cited, it means one where those attitudes become nonexistent.) It means one which is actually not anti-Zionist -- one where the current ongoing war is remembered as a conflict in which Israel was justified, for instance, and where there is popular revulsion at punishments for selling land to the wrong ethnicity.

I don't think we're close to that Palestine coming into existence, and I don't think we'll even start moving in that direction until the international Palestinian movement -- especially at the UN -- is disestablished. I don't think there's an alternative to just continuing the occupation until that happens.

(My context is that I am a Jewish first-generation Russian-American, and I grew up in an ethnic enclave where poor little old ladies would pay markups for produce which allegedly came from Israeli settlements. More than that, though, my ideological perspective is that settler societies like Israel and the United States are simply better for humanity in many ways, and in the future there should be many more societies like this.)

You prevent a resurgent Hamas by banning political parties that promote violence. Israel and several European nations do so, its not undemocratic. Having elections with multiple parties dampers that kind of thing.

Another thing that allowed Hamas to take over Gaza was the lack of a highway connecting Gaza and the West Bank. PA forces loyal to Abbas had no way of traveling to Gaza to restore order. Israel can't fly them in, because PA forces can't be seen working side by side the IDF.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Here is my plans for a final peace settlement (I am a Palestinian American)

1. Israel withdraws from 97% of West Bank (Ehud Olmert's 2008 Annapolis plan)

2. Highway connects West Bank and Gaza Strip

3. Jerusalem remains the undivided and fully controlled by Israel

4. Palestine government buildings operate in East Jerusalem

5. Arab residents in East Jerusalem allowed both Israeli and Palestinian citizenship

6. Palestine becomes the custodian of Al Aqsa Mosque (currently Jordanian government)

7. "Right of Return" is dropped except for the original survivors of the 1947 Nakba

8. A limited number of Palestinian refugees globally will be allowed to settle in West Bank. The rest are given citizenship of their home nations.

9. Hamas is banned as a political party. Any party that promotes violence is banned, similar to Israeli laws

10. Palestine will control its water and power

11. Israeli will be allowed to control airspace over Palestine. In exchange, the airport in Gaza City is reopened and a new airport built in West Bank

12. Israel will be allowed a limited military presence on Jordan border

Thoughts?

I think most of this is fine in and of itself (as you yourself note, it's quite similar to the 2008 Annapolis plan), but the thing that's missing is the context of the societies agreeing to this deal. (The note about Israel continuing to control Palestinian airspace suggests you don't envision either society changing radically). I don't think there can actually be a peace until a variation of Palestinian nationalism emerges which is not anti-Zionist; which does not seek to conquer Israel or change its immigration policies.

I have to agree. Plainly, in a lasting peace, no one side is getting everything it wants. You know it's a good compromise if someone is unhappy with it. Zionism is the founding principle of Israel, Palestinians are shooting too high if they're seeking to force Jews to give it up wholesale. Ben Gvir or Smotrich style Zionism is off the table, but that doesn't mean that it's fair, or just, to force Israelis to just gove it up completely.
The Palestinian obsession with Mandatory Palestine is the function of them having nothing else to work towards. We saw signs of compromise until Barak left, after that it just went completely downhill and we ended up where we were now.

[pppolitics]

Oh no! Four Israeli girls are tied up!

Meanwhile, Israel killed thousands of Palestinian girls.

You would be well advised to show more unhappiness with Hamas behavior. A lot of what you say about how the Israelis have treated the Palestinians is accurate, but awful behavior is hardly limited to one side.
That being said, if Americans had to live in the conditions the Palestinians did, you can bet we'd look at it completely differently. This is a cycle of violence. Lots of people are sick of it, but it endures because the pieces of the puzzle remain in place.

I am going to make this fair.

I am spending 5% of the time showing unhappiness with Hamas's behavior and 95% of the time showing unhappiness with Israel's behavior, per casualties numbers.

[afleitch]

as an argument against Israel, rather than an argument against Hamas,
you are rewarding Hamas for being evil.
You are rewarding Hamas for committing these war crimes.
You are rewarding Hamas for intentionally putting their own civilians in harm's way.
You, useful idiot, are making yourself a pawn in Hamas's strategy to intentionally -- and illegally -- inflict death and misery on the Palestinians they govern.

That's effectively gaslighting.

Israel is killing 'thousands of children' in its attacks. That's not something that really anyone disputes. Bombs are actively launched, actively land and actively kill. Decisions made that restrict aid, supplies etc are active decisions.

It would be more honest to accept this fact and then moralise/justify it than effectively blame the victims. Or shame those who are aghast at what is happening by suggesting they don't have agency in their anger or empathy.

[Pres Mike]

Here is my plans for a final peace settlement (I am a Palestinian American)

1. Israel withdraws from 97% of West Bank (Ehud Olmert's 2008 Annapolis plan)

2. Highway connects West Bank and Gaza Strip

3. Jerusalem remains the undivided and fully controlled by Israel

4. Palestine government buildings operate in East Jerusalem

5. Arab residents in East Jerusalem allowed both Israeli and Palestinian citizenship

6. Palestine becomes the custodian of Al Aqsa Mosque (currently Jordanian government)

7. "Right of Return" is dropped except for the original survivors of the 1947 Nakba

8. A limited number of Palestinian refugees globally will be allowed to settle in West Bank. The rest are given citizenship of their home nations.

9. Hamas is banned as a political party. Any party that promotes violence is banned, similar to Israeli laws

10. Palestine will control its water and power

11. Israeli will be allowed to control airspace over Palestine. In exchange, the airport in Gaza City is reopened and a new airport built in West Bank

12. Israel will be allowed a limited military presence on Jordan border

Thoughts?

I think most of this is fine in and of itself (as you yourself note, it's quite similar to the 2008 Annapolis plan), but the thing that's missing is the context of the societies agreeing to this deal. (The note about Israel continuing to control Palestinian airspace suggests you don't envision either society changing radically). I don't think there can actually be a peace until a variation of Palestinian nationalism emerges which is not anti-Zionist; which does not seek to conquer Israel or change its immigration policies.

I have to agree. Plainly, in a lasting peace, no one side is getting everything it wants. You know it's a good compromise if someone is unhappy with it. Zionism is the founding principle of Israel, Palestinians are shooting too high if they're seeking to force Jews to give it up wholesale. Ben Gvir or Smotrich style Zionism is off the table, but that doesn't mean that it's fair, or just, to force Israelis to just gove it up completely.
The Palestinian obsession with Mandatory Palestine is the function of them having nothing else to work towards. We saw signs of compromise until Barak left, after that it just went completely downhill and we ended up where we were now.

I don't get the obsession with folks on this forum about forcing Palestinians to be anti-Zionist? Thats like asking Native Americans to stop being anti "white take our land".

Palestinians are never going to be ok with European Jews coming in the 1930s-1940s and settling in Mandatory Palestine. Native Americans are never going to be ok with being forced form their land onto reservations.

But hard feelings doesn't stop people from accepting things and working towards improving their situation

[Horus]

as an argument against Israel, rather than an argument against Hamas,
you are rewarding Hamas for being evil.
You are rewarding Hamas for committing these war crimes.
You are rewarding Hamas for intentionally putting their own civilians in harm's way.
You, useful idiot, are making yourself a pawn in Hamas's strategy to intentionally -- and illegally -- inflict death and misery on the Palestinians they govern.

That's effectively gaslighting.

I mean, it's GMac. That's his entire schtick. Gaslighting and indirect threats.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Here is my plans for a final peace settlement (I am a Palestinian American)

1. Israel withdraws from 97% of West Bank (Ehud Olmert's 2008 Annapolis plan)

2. Highway connects West Bank and Gaza Strip

3. Jerusalem remains the undivided and fully controlled by Israel

4. Palestine government buildings operate in East Jerusalem

5. Arab residents in East Jerusalem allowed both Israeli and Palestinian citizenship

6. Palestine becomes the custodian of Al Aqsa Mosque (currently Jordanian government)

7. "Right of Return" is dropped except for the original survivors of the 1947 Nakba

8. A limited number of Palestinian refugees globally will be allowed to settle in West Bank. The rest are given citizenship of their home nations.

9. Hamas is banned as a political party. Any party that promotes violence is banned, similar to Israeli laws

10. Palestine will control its water and power

11. Israeli will be allowed to control airspace over Palestine. In exchange, the airport in Gaza City is reopened and a new airport built in West Bank

12. Israel will be allowed a limited military presence on Jordan border

Thoughts?

I think most of this is fine in and of itself (as you yourself note, it's quite similar to the 2008 Annapolis plan), but the thing that's missing is the context of the societies agreeing to this deal. (The note about Israel continuing to control Palestinian airspace suggests you don't envision either society changing radically). I don't think there can actually be a peace until a variation of Palestinian nationalism emerges which is not anti-Zionist; which does not seek to conquer Israel or change its immigration policies.

I have to agree. Plainly, in a lasting peace, no one side is getting everything it wants. You know it's a good compromise if someone is unhappy with it. Zionism is the founding principle of Israel, Palestinians are shooting too high if they're seeking to force Jews to give it up wholesale. Ben Gvir or Smotrich style Zionism is off the table, but that doesn't mean that it's fair, or just, to force Israelis to just gove it up completely.
The Palestinian obsession with Mandatory Palestine is the function of them having nothing else to work towards. We saw signs of compromise until Barak left, after that it just went completely downhill and we ended up where we were now.

I don't get the obsession with folks on this forum about forcing Palestinians to be anti-Zionist? Thats like asking Native Americans to stop being anti "white take our land".

Palestinians are never going to be ok with European Jews coming in the 1930s-1940s and settling in Mandatory Palestine. Native Americans are never going to be ok with being forced form their land onto reservations.

But hard feelings doesn't stop people from accepting things and working towards improving their situation

Oh, I wasn't suggesting forcing Palestinians to be pro-Zionist. I was suggesting not forcing Jews to be anti-Zionist. I doubt that you'd very easily get Palestinians and Israelis on the same page values-wise, anymore than you could easily get Gerry Adams and Ian Paisley to view the British monarchy the exact same way.
Time can heal wounds. But wounds repeatedly battered don't get the chance to heal.
Banning parties advocating violence is a good idea for a future Palestinian entity btw, props for that. Innovative thinking will be needed to untie this quadi-Gordian knot.

[pppolitics]

Oh no! Those four Israeli girls.

Hamas bad!

Let me do it a few more times...

Oh no! Those four Israeli girls.

Hamas bad!

Oh no! Those four Israeli girls.

Hamas bad!

Oh no! Those four Israeli girls.

Hamas bad!

...I probably exceeded 5% now

[afleitch]

Oh no! Those four Israeli girls.

Hamas bad!

Let me do it a few more times...

Oh no! Those four Israeli girls.

Hamas bad!

Oh no! Those four Israeli girls.

Hamas bad!

Oh no! Those four Israeli girls.

Hamas bad!

...I probably exceeded 5% now

There are better ways to make your point. Make it, move on.

[GeneralMacArthur]

That's effectively gaslighting.

Israel is killing 'thousands of children' in its attacks. That's not something that really anyone disputes. Bombs are actively launched, actively land and actively kill. Decisions made that restrict aid, supplies etc are active decisions.

It would be more honest to accept this fact and then moralise/justify it than effectively blame the victims. Or shame those who are aghast at what is happening by suggesting they don't have agency in their anger or empathy.

Look at this number.

Palestinians make up >95% of the casualties

Israelis make up <5% of the casualties

How many more Palestinians lie dead under the rubble is unknown.

Meanwhile, we have people in this thread screaming non-stop about Israeli casualties while ignoring Palestinian casualties.

Nobody here likes Hamas, but what Israel is doing is 19 times worse than what Hamas did.

Rarely (if ever) have you talked about tens of thousands of Palestinians killed by Israel this year alone.

You know what's gaslighting?  Trying to pretend that defenders of Israel are ignoring the thousands of Palestinians who have been killed, or pretending they don't exist.  When literally in my post that you quoted I wrote about this.

Yes it's bad that tens of thousands of Palestinians have died.  But that is not Israel's fault -- it is Hamas's fault!  If Hamas had never attacked Israel, this war would never have happened at all.  And even once the war had started, Hamas could have fought it according to the Geneva Conventions, but instead they used human shields and operated from civilian areas -- which is a deliberate strategy to maximize civilian casualties!

which is why it's a war crime, but curiously (not that curiously actually) the only war crime that you have absolutely no problem with.

[GeneralMacArthur]

The fundamental difference of opinion here is this.

We both agree that thousands of Palestinians dying is bad.



My proposal to solve this problem is as follows:

A) Hamas surrenders and dissolves itself as an organization, which would end the war

or, barring that,

B) Hamas returns their kidnapped Jewish sex slaves (including underage girls, for those of you who had smoke for the Epstein thing) and return to the cease-fire that Biden helped broker, which would also end the war

or, barring that,

C) Hamas continues to fight this losing war, but does so in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, rather than continuing to use Palestinian children as human shields and launching rockets from orphanages, which would dramatically reduce civilian casualties as the war continues



It seems like your proposal to solve this problem is as follows:

A) Israel surrenders to Hamas, calls off the war, and allows them to keep their hostages forever, and those girls will just have to deal with a life as torture/sex slaves for Hamas militants where they wake up every day praying that today Hamas will accidentally torture them to death so they can be released from this suffering.
In 2-3 years Hamas will do the exact same thing again and that time the Jews will just have to say "think you sir, may I have another" since in your worldview, they're not allowed to attack Hamas so long as Hamas uses human shields.


Please let me know if I got any part of that wrong.
If you have some way Israel can defeat Hamas without hurting their human shields, please say so.
If you have some way Israel can get the hostages back without defeating Hamas, please say so.
If you have some way Israel can defend themselves against an undefeated Hamas so this cycle doesn't repeat, please say so.

I don't think you have any answers to any of the above, which means that what I've written is in fact an accurate assessment of your position, whether you want to admit it or not.

Or, more accurately, you've not even been willing to mentally acknowledge that this is what you're fighting for -- to accept that this is realistically what will happen if you are successful in getting what you claim to want.

I am now anticipating endless attempts to rationalize an evil position with whataboutism after whataboutism......

[Vosem]

Here is my plans for a final peace settlement (I am a Palestinian American)

1. Israel withdraws from 97% of West Bank (Ehud Olmert's 2008 Annapolis plan)

2. Highway connects West Bank and Gaza Strip

3. Jerusalem remains the undivided and fully controlled by Israel

4. Palestine government buildings operate in East Jerusalem

5. Arab residents in East Jerusalem allowed both Israeli and Palestinian citizenship

6. Palestine becomes the custodian of Al Aqsa Mosque (currently Jordanian government)

7. "Right of Return" is dropped except for the original survivors of the 1947 Nakba

8. A limited number of Palestinian refugees globally will be allowed to settle in West Bank. The rest are given citizenship of their home nations.

9. Hamas is banned as a political party. Any party that promotes violence is banned, similar to Israeli laws

10. Palestine will control its water and power

11. Israeli will be allowed to control airspace over Palestine. In exchange, the airport in Gaza City is reopened and a new airport built in West Bank

12. Israel will be allowed a limited military presence on Jordan border

Thoughts?

I think most of this is fine in and of itself (as you yourself note, it's quite similar to the 2008 Annapolis plan), but the thing that's missing is the context of the societies agreeing to this deal. (The note about Israel continuing to control Palestinian airspace suggests you don't envision either society changing radically). I don't think there can actually be a peace until a variation of Palestinian nationalism emerges which is not anti-Zionist; which does not seek to conquer Israel or change its immigration policies.

I have to agree. Plainly, in a lasting peace, no one side is getting everything it wants. You know it's a good compromise if someone is unhappy with it. Zionism is the founding principle of Israel, Palestinians are shooting too high if they're seeking to force Jews to give it up wholesale. Ben Gvir or Smotrich style Zionism is off the table, but that doesn't mean that it's fair, or just, to force Israelis to just gove it up completely.
The Palestinian obsession with Mandatory Palestine is the function of them having nothing else to work towards. We saw signs of compromise until Barak left, after that it just went completely downhill and we ended up where we were now.

I don't get the obsession with folks on this forum about forcing Palestinians to be anti-Zionist? Thats like asking Native Americans to stop being anti "white take our land".

Palestinians are never going to be ok with European Jews coming in the 1930s-1940s and settling in Mandatory Palestine. Native Americans are never going to be ok with being forced form their land onto reservations.

But hard feelings doesn't stop people from accepting things and working towards improving their situation

But I think this pretty substantially did happen, right? There is no mass Native American movement which seeks to reverse the immigration waves that set up contemporary American society. Native Americans serve in huge numbers in the military, even though it exists to defend the society that the immigration waves created.

This does not mean that their culture was erased or anything; reservations exist* and there are efforts to preserve Native American languages and strengthen communities and traditions. But these are compatible with 1776.

*Though I am kind of uncomfortable with the idea of special privileges for 'indigeneity', the existence of reservations is not a very controversial or huge part of American life, so I'm fine with them. I think if we should have something like this it shouldn't strictly be limited to Native Americans, so I think in a weird way efforts towards recognition of multiracial peoples, like the Lumbee, is probably a step in the right direction, since it would emphasize that protections for Native Americans exist because we inherently value their culture, not because they are indigenous and so deserve special protection.

Here is my plans for a final peace settlement (I am a Palestinian American)

1. Israel withdraws from 97% of West Bank (Ehud Olmert's 2008 Annapolis plan)

2. Highway connects West Bank and Gaza Strip

3. Jerusalem remains the undivided and fully controlled by Israel

4. Palestine government buildings operate in East Jerusalem

5. Arab residents in East Jerusalem allowed both Israeli and Palestinian citizenship

6. Palestine becomes the custodian of Al Aqsa Mosque (currently Jordanian government)

7. "Right of Return" is dropped except for the original survivors of the 1947 Nakba

8. A limited number of Palestinian refugees globally will be allowed to settle in West Bank. The rest are given citizenship of their home nations.

9. Hamas is banned as a political party. Any party that promotes violence is banned, similar to Israeli laws

10. Palestine will control its water and power

11. Israeli will be allowed to control airspace over Palestine. In exchange, the airport in Gaza City is reopened and a new airport built in West Bank

12. Israel will be allowed a limited military presence on Jordan border

Thoughts?

I think most of this is fine in and of itself (as you yourself note, it's quite similar to the 2008 Annapolis plan), but the thing that's missing is the context of the societies agreeing to this deal. (The note about Israel continuing to control Palestinian airspace suggests you don't envision either society changing radically). I don't think there can actually be a peace until a variation of Palestinian nationalism emerges which is not anti-Zionist; which does not seek to conquer Israel or change its immigration policies.

Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2004, and this was followed by the establishment of a proto-state which held Israel's destruction as its top priority. A withdrawal from the West Bank has become much less likely, since the prospect of a war like the current one happening in a place with a much greater population is a rather terrifying one; and even if a Palestinian government did sign something like the Annapolis government, they could not guarantee that they would not be replaced by something similar to Hamas unless sympathies to Hamas truly become fringe or nonexistent.

That means a very different Palestinian society than the one that exists now. (Going back to the polls OSR cited, it means one where those attitudes become nonexistent.) It means one which is actually not anti-Zionist -- one where the current ongoing war is remembered as a conflict in which Israel was justified, for instance, and where there is popular revulsion at punishments for selling land to the wrong ethnicity.

I don't think we're close to that Palestine coming into existence, and I don't think we'll even start moving in that direction until the international Palestinian movement -- especially at the UN -- is disestablished. I don't think there's an alternative to just continuing the occupation until that happens.

(My context is that I am a Jewish first-generation Russian-American, and I grew up in an ethnic enclave where poor little old ladies would pay markups for produce which allegedly came from Israeli settlements. More than that, though, my ideological perspective is that settler societies like Israel and the United States are simply better for humanity in many ways, and in the future there should be many more societies like this.)

You prevent a resurgent Hamas by banning political parties that promote violence. Israel and several European nations do so, its not undemocratic. Having elections with multiple parties dampers that kind of thing.

Another thing that allowed Hamas to take over Gaza was the lack of a highway connecting Gaza and the West Bank. PA forces loyal to Abbas had no way of traveling to Gaza to restore order. Israel can't fly them in, because PA forces can't be seen working side by side the IDF.

I don't think this works very well where those parties have substantial support among the public and even a modicum of free speech exists. Israel attempted to enforce this after it passed a law purporting to ban Kach and the PFLP in 1988, but in a society where you have free speech it's just very difficult to maintain these bans, and ultimately Otzma and Balad -- the descendants of those organizations -- still exist and have representation in the Knesset. Similarly, Spain has attempted to maintain a ban on the ezker abertzalea, but in a context where like a third of Basque society supports them and any free speech rights exist, this is not sustainable.

I agree that Israel enforcing its ban on parties that advocate violence would be a step in the right direction. Hopefully a Gantz-led government with an empowered Supreme Court will actually do this, though I don't think it's guaranteed by any means.

as an argument against Israel, rather than an argument against Hamas,
you are rewarding Hamas for being evil.
You are rewarding Hamas for committing these war crimes.
You are rewarding Hamas for intentionally putting their own civilians in harm's way.
You, useful idiot, are making yourself a pawn in Hamas's strategy to intentionally -- and illegally -- inflict death and misery on the Palestinians they govern.

That's effectively gaslighting.

Israel is killing 'thousands of children' in its attacks. That's not something that really anyone disputes. Bombs are actively launched, actively land and actively kill. Decisions made that restrict aid, supplies etc are active decisions.

It would be more honest to accept this fact and then moralise/justify it than effectively blame the victims. Or shame those who are aghast at what is happening by suggesting they don't have agency in their anger or empathy.

There isn't shame in doing something when one has no agency. I would shame those who are aghast at what is happening for failing to understand that rewarding militants for using human shields will make every future war everywhere have a much higher civilian casualty count, as there will be a race to the bottom among militants to make attacking them as costly in lives as possible to eke out an advantage in Western media coverage. This is the most striking reason (though not the only one) that it is in the entire world's interests that Israel crush the Gazan regime, and why I've remarked that instead of protesting that Israel is bombing Gaza, people should be protesting that there are 192 non-Israel countries which are not bombing Gaza.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Here is my plans for a final peace settlement (I am a Palestinian American)

1. Israel withdraws from 97% of West Bank (Ehud Olmert's 2008 Annapolis plan)

2. Highway connects West Bank and Gaza Strip

3. Jerusalem remains the undivided and fully controlled by Israel

4. Palestine government buildings operate in East Jerusalem

5. Arab residents in East Jerusalem allowed both Israeli and Palestinian citizenship

6. Palestine becomes the custodian of Al Aqsa Mosque (currently Jordanian government)

7. "Right of Return" is dropped except for the original survivors of the 1947 Nakba

8. A limited number of Palestinian refugees globally will be allowed to settle in West Bank. The rest are given citizenship of their home nations.

9. Hamas is banned as a political party. Any party that promotes violence is banned, similar to Israeli laws

10. Palestine will control its water and power

11. Israeli will be allowed to control airspace over Palestine. In exchange, the airport in Gaza City is reopened and a new airport built in West Bank

12. Israel will be allowed a limited military presence on Jordan border

Thoughts?

Sounds good to me, although I’d even be fine with giving Palestinians East Jerusalem altogether to make things cleaner

[GeneralMacArthur]

By the by, there is an option (B) if you want to support Palestine without letting Israel continue the war -- and it's one I proposed 17 pages ago in a post that nobody bothered to reply to:

https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=566181.msg9332449#msg9332449

Namely, having America, or even better a Western coalition, or even better the Arab League, take over the conflict from Israel -- destroy Hamas and rebuild Gaza on your own damn terms if you think you can do it better than Israel.

If you are advocating for Israel to pull out of Gaza without any coinciding proposal for the destruction of Hamas, then you are advocating for the continued existence of Hamas.  You may not like to admit it to yourself but that is what you are fighting for.

And since Hamas has already proudly boasted that they will repeat the 10/7 attacks as soon as possible, and there's no reason to believe they are lying, you are also advocating for a repeat of those attacks -- because the sole option to stop this from happening has been presented to you, but you forcefully reject it.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Here is my plans for a final peace settlement (I am a Palestinian American)

1. Israel withdraws from 97% of West Bank (Ehud Olmert's 2008 Annapolis plan)

2. Highway connects West Bank and Gaza Strip

3. Jerusalem remains the undivided and fully controlled by Israel

4. Palestine government buildings operate in East Jerusalem

5. Arab residents in East Jerusalem allowed both Israeli and Palestinian citizenship

6. Palestine becomes the custodian of Al Aqsa Mosque (currently Jordanian government)

7. "Right of Return" is dropped except for the original survivors of the 1947 Nakba

8. A limited number of Palestinian refugees globally will be allowed to settle in West Bank. The rest are given citizenship of their home nations.

9. Hamas is banned as a political party. Any party that promotes violence is banned, similar to Israeli laws

10. Palestine will control its water and power

11. Israeli will be allowed to control airspace over Palestine. In exchange, the airport in Gaza City is reopened and a new airport built in West Bank

12. Israel will be allowed a limited military presence on Jordan border

Thoughts?

Congrats on crafting a proposal both Horus and I are fine with.  That’s a genuinely impressive achievement!

[GeneralMacArthur]

Here is my plans for a final peace settlement (I am a Palestinian American)

1. Israel withdraws from 97% of West Bank (Ehud Olmert's 2008 Annapolis plan)

2. Highway connects West Bank and Gaza Strip

3. Jerusalem remains the undivided and fully controlled by Israel

4. Palestine government buildings operate in East Jerusalem

5. Arab residents in East Jerusalem allowed both Israeli and Palestinian citizenship

6. Palestine becomes the custodian of Al Aqsa Mosque (currently Jordanian government)

7. "Right of Return" is dropped except for the original survivors of the 1947 Nakba

8. A limited number of Palestinian refugees globally will be allowed to settle in West Bank. The rest are given citizenship of their home nations.

9. Hamas is banned as a political party. Any party that promotes violence is banned, similar to Israeli laws

10. Palestine will control its water and power

11. Israeli will be allowed to control airspace over Palestine. In exchange, the airport in Gaza City is reopened and a new airport built in West Bank

12. Israel will be allowed a limited military presence on Jordan border

Thoughts?

Congrats on crafting a proposal both Horus and I are fine with.  That’s a genuinely impressive achievement!

Yes I agree I would see this as a tremendous development towards world peace if this were to happen, and I think most Israelis would be fine with this; however, the Palestinians would never accept it.

One thing I see as a sticking point is simply that a central Palestinian government would not have the strength necessary to actually suppress violent organizations in practice.  Therefore such violent organizations would continue to proliferate and launch attacks on Israel.  Frankly I don't even see how a unified, independent Palestine would get Hamas out of Gaza.  Therefore they would have to endure whatever the ramifications were for failing clause 9 of the treaty, which would likely include Israeli military operations inside Palestine to fight those violent groups.  And things would spiral out of control from there.

Maybe it could succeed if a UN peacekeeping operation was permanently stationed in Palestine to help with enforcement of clause 9, at least for the first few decades?

[Pres Mike]

Here is my plans for a final peace settlement (I am a Palestinian American)

1. Israel withdraws from 97% of West Bank (Ehud Olmert's 2008 Annapolis plan)

2. Highway connects West Bank and Gaza Strip

3. Jerusalem remains the undivided and fully controlled by Israel

4. Palestine government buildings operate in East Jerusalem

5. Arab residents in East Jerusalem allowed both Israeli and Palestinian citizenship

6. Palestine becomes the custodian of Al Aqsa Mosque (currently Jordanian government)

7. "Right of Return" is dropped except for the original survivors of the 1947 Nakba

8. A limited number of Palestinian refugees globally will be allowed to settle in West Bank. The rest are given citizenship of their home nations.

9. Hamas is banned as a political party. Any party that promotes violence is banned, similar to Israeli laws

10. Palestine will control its water and power

11. Israeli will be allowed to control airspace over Palestine. In exchange, the airport in Gaza City is reopened and a new airport built in West Bank

12. Israel will be allowed a limited military presence on Jordan border

Thoughts?

I think most of this is fine in and of itself (as you yourself note, it's quite similar to the 2008 Annapolis plan), but the thing that's missing is the context of the societies agreeing to this deal. (The note about Israel continuing to control Palestinian airspace suggests you don't envision either society changing radically). I don't think there can actually be a peace until a variation of Palestinian nationalism emerges which is not anti-Zionist; which does not seek to conquer Israel or change its immigration policies.

I have to agree. Plainly, in a lasting peace, no one side is getting everything it wants. You know it's a good compromise if someone is unhappy with it. Zionism is the founding principle of Israel, Palestinians are shooting too high if they're seeking to force Jews to give it up wholesale. Ben Gvir or Smotrich style Zionism is off the table, but that doesn't mean that it's fair, or just, to force Israelis to just gove it up completely.
The Palestinian obsession with Mandatory Palestine is the function of them having nothing else to work towards. We saw signs of compromise until Barak left, after that it just went completely downhill and we ended up where we were now.

I don't get the obsession with folks on this forum about forcing Palestinians to be anti-Zionist? Thats like asking Native Americans to stop being anti "white take our land".

Palestinians are never going to be ok with European Jews coming in the 1930s-1940s and settling in Mandatory Palestine. Native Americans are never going to be ok with being forced form their land onto reservations.

But hard feelings doesn't stop people from accepting things and working towards improving their situation

But I think this pretty substantially did happen, right? There is no mass Native American movement which seeks to reverse the immigration waves that set up contemporary American society. Native Americans serve in huge numbers in the military, even though it exists to defend the society that the immigration waves created.

This does not mean that their culture was erased or anything; reservations exist* and there are efforts to preserve Native American languages and strengthen communities and traditions. But these are compatible with 1776.

*Though I am kind of uncomfortable with the idea of special privileges for 'indigeneity', the existence of reservations is not a very controversial or huge part of American life, so I'm fine with them. I think if we should have something like this it shouldn't strictly be limited to Native Americans, so I think in a weird way efforts towards recognition of multiracial peoples, like the Lumbee, is probably a step in the right direction, since it would emphasize that protections for Native Americans exist because we inherently value their culture, not because they are indigenous and so deserve special protection.

Here is my plans for a final peace settlement (I am a Palestinian American)

1. Israel withdraws from 97% of West Bank (Ehud Olmert's 2008 Annapolis plan)

2. Highway connects West Bank and Gaza Strip

3. Jerusalem remains the undivided and fully controlled by Israel

4. Palestine government buildings operate in East Jerusalem

5. Arab residents in East Jerusalem allowed both Israeli and Palestinian citizenship

6. Palestine becomes the custodian of Al Aqsa Mosque (currently Jordanian government)

7. "Right of Return" is dropped except for the original survivors of the 1947 Nakba

8. A limited number of Palestinian refugees globally will be allowed to settle in West Bank. The rest are given citizenship of their home nations.

9. Hamas is banned as a political party. Any party that promotes violence is banned, similar to Israeli laws

10. Palestine will control its water and power

11. Israeli will be allowed to control airspace over Palestine. In exchange, the airport in Gaza City is reopened and a new airport built in West Bank

12. Israel will be allowed a limited military presence on Jordan border

Thoughts?

I think most of this is fine in and of itself (as you yourself note, it's quite similar to the 2008 Annapolis plan), but the thing that's missing is the context of the societies agreeing to this deal. (The note about Israel continuing to control Palestinian airspace suggests you don't envision either society changing radically). I don't think there can actually be a peace until a variation of Palestinian nationalism emerges which is not anti-Zionist; which does not seek to conquer Israel or change its immigration policies.

Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2004, and this was followed by the establishment of a proto-state which held Israel's destruction as its top priority. A withdrawal from the West Bank has become much less likely, since the prospect of a war like the current one happening in a place with a much greater population is a rather terrifying one; and even if a Palestinian government did sign something like the Annapolis government, they could not guarantee that they would not be replaced by something similar to Hamas unless sympathies to Hamas truly become fringe or nonexistent.

That means a very different Palestinian society than the one that exists now. (Going back to the polls OSR cited, it means one where those attitudes become nonexistent.) It means one which is actually not anti-Zionist -- one where the current ongoing war is remembered as a conflict in which Israel was justified, for instance, and where there is popular revulsion at punishments for selling land to the wrong ethnicity.

I don't think we're close to that Palestine coming into existence, and I don't think we'll even start moving in that direction until the international Palestinian movement -- especially at the UN -- is disestablished. I don't think there's an alternative to just continuing the occupation until that happens.

(My context is that I am a Jewish first-generation Russian-American, and I grew up in an ethnic enclave where poor little old ladies would pay markups for produce which allegedly came from Israeli settlements. More than that, though, my ideological perspective is that settler societies like Israel and the United States are simply better for humanity in many ways, and in the future there should be many more societies like this.)

You prevent a resurgent Hamas by banning political parties that promote violence. Israel and several European nations do so, its not undemocratic. Having elections with multiple parties dampers that kind of thing.

Another thing that allowed Hamas to take over Gaza was the lack of a highway connecting Gaza and the West Bank. PA forces loyal to Abbas had no way of traveling to Gaza to restore order. Israel can't fly them in, because PA forces can't be seen working side by side the IDF.

I don't think this works very well where those parties have substantial support among the public and even a modicum of free speech exists. Israel attempted to enforce this after it passed a law purporting to ban Kach and the PFLP in 1988, but in a society where you have free speech it's just very difficult to maintain these bans, and ultimately Otzma and Balad -- the descendants of those organizations -- still exist and have representation in the Knesset. Similarly, Spain has attempted to maintain a ban on the ezker abertzalea, but in a context where like a third of Basque society supports them and any free speech rights exist, this is not sustainable.

I agree that Israel enforcing its ban on parties that advocate violence would be a step in the right direction. Hopefully a Gantz-led government with an empowered Supreme Court will actually do this, though I don't think it's guaranteed by any means.

as an argument against Israel, rather than an argument against Hamas,
you are rewarding Hamas for being evil.
You are rewarding Hamas for committing these war crimes.
You are rewarding Hamas for intentionally putting their own civilians in harm's way.
You, useful idiot, are making yourself a pawn in Hamas's strategy to intentionally -- and illegally -- inflict death and misery on the Palestinians they govern.

That's effectively gaslighting.

Israel is killing 'thousands of children' in its attacks. That's not something that really anyone disputes. Bombs are actively launched, actively land and actively kill. Decisions made that restrict aid, supplies etc are active decisions.

It would be more honest to accept this fact and then moralise/justify it than effectively blame the victims. Or shame those who are aghast at what is happening by suggesting they don't have agency in their anger or empathy.

There isn't shame in doing something when one has no agency. I would shame those who are aghast at what is happening for failing to understand that rewarding militants for using human shields will make every future war everywhere have a much higher civilian casualty count, as there will be a race to the bottom among militants to make attacking them as costly in lives as possible to eke out an advantage in Western media coverage. This is the most striking reason (though not the only one) that it is in the entire world's interests that Israel crush the Gazan regime, and why I've remarked that instead of protesting that Israel is bombing Gaza, people should be protesting that there are 192 non-Israel countries which are not bombing Gaza.

1. The difference here is that Native Americans are full citizens of the United States. They were granted the right to vote in 1870 (although several states made it hard until the Civil Rights Bill)

I would argue that Israel annexing the West Bank and Gaza Strip and giving full citizenship to all Palestinians would be the best thing to happen if one wants "Palestine". There is roughly equal number of Arabs and Jews between the Jordan River and Mediterranean Sea. Arabs have higher birthrates. So you would have a Arab majority state in a decade or two.

2. Yes, Hamas would need to be banned in a future Palestinian state. And yes, an another political party would take its place. Like in Israel, it would need to change its public views to not be banned while still being nasty. But it gives the nasty people someone to vote for, not fight for.

[Pres Mike]

Here is my plans for a final peace settlement (I am a Palestinian American)

1. Israel withdraws from 97% of West Bank (Ehud Olmert's 2008 Annapolis plan)

2. Highway connects West Bank and Gaza Strip

3. Jerusalem remains the undivided and fully controlled by Israel

4. Palestine government buildings operate in East Jerusalem

5. Arab residents in East Jerusalem allowed both Israeli and Palestinian citizenship

6. Palestine becomes the custodian of Al Aqsa Mosque (currently Jordanian government)

7. "Right of Return" is dropped except for the original survivors of the 1947 Nakba

8. A limited number of Palestinian refugees globally will be allowed to settle in West Bank. The rest are given citizenship of their home nations.

9. Hamas is banned as a political party. Any party that promotes violence is banned, similar to Israeli laws

10. Palestine will control its water and power

11. Israeli will be allowed to control airspace over Palestine. In exchange, the airport in Gaza City is reopened and a new airport built in West Bank

12. Israel will be allowed a limited military presence on Jordan border

Thoughts?

Congrats on crafting a proposal both Horus and I are fine with.  That’s a genuinely impressive achievement!

Yes I agree I would see this as a tremendous development towards world peace if this were to happen, and I think most Israelis would be fine with this; however, the Palestinians would never accept it.

One thing I see as a sticking point is simply that a central Palestinian government would not have the strength necessary to actually suppress violent organizations in practice.  Therefore such violent organizations would continue to proliferate and launch attacks on Israel.  Frankly I don't even see how a unified, independent Palestine would get Hamas out of Gaza.  Therefore they would have to endure whatever the ramifications were for failing clause 9 of the treaty, which would likely include Israeli military operations inside Palestine to fight those violent groups.  And things would spiral out of control from there.

Maybe it could succeed if a UN peacekeeping operation was permanently stationed in Palestine to help with enforcement of clause 9, at least for the first few decades?

Yes, there would need to be UN troops to enforce clause 9. But I truly think support for Hamas would disappear if Palestine became an independent state and living standards were raised.

[Pres Mike]

Here is my plans for a final peace settlement (I am a Palestinian American)

1. Israel withdraws from 97% of West Bank (Ehud Olmert's 2008 Annapolis plan)

2. Highway connects West Bank and Gaza Strip

3. Jerusalem remains the undivided and fully controlled by Israel

4. Palestine government buildings operate in East Jerusalem

5. Arab residents in East Jerusalem allowed both Israeli and Palestinian citizenship

6. Palestine becomes the custodian of Al Aqsa Mosque (currently Jordanian government)

7. "Right of Return" is dropped except for the original survivors of the 1947 Nakba

8. A limited number of Palestinian refugees globally will be allowed to settle in West Bank. The rest are given citizenship of their home nations.

9. Hamas is banned as a political party. Any party that promotes violence is banned, similar to Israeli laws

10. Palestine will control its water and power

11. Israeli will be allowed to control airspace over Palestine. In exchange, the airport in Gaza City is reopened and a new airport built in West Bank

12. Israel will be allowed a limited military presence on Jordan border

Thoughts?

Congrats on crafting a proposal both Horus and I are fine with.  That’s a genuinely impressive achievement!

No problem!

[Pres Mike]

Here is my plans for a final peace settlement (I am a Palestinian American)

1. Israel withdraws from 97% of West Bank (Ehud Olmert's 2008 Annapolis plan)

2. Highway connects West Bank and Gaza Strip

3. Jerusalem remains the undivided and fully controlled by Israel

4. Palestine government buildings operate in East Jerusalem

5. Arab residents in East Jerusalem allowed both Israeli and Palestinian citizenship

6. Palestine becomes the custodian of Al Aqsa Mosque (currently Jordanian government)

7. "Right of Return" is dropped except for the original survivors of the 1947 Nakba

8. A limited number of Palestinian refugees globally will be allowed to settle in West Bank. The rest are given citizenship of their home nations.

9. Hamas is banned as a political party. Any party that promotes violence is banned, similar to Israeli laws

10. Palestine will control its water and power

11. Israeli will be allowed to control airspace over Palestine. In exchange, the airport in Gaza City is reopened and a new airport built in West Bank

12. Israel will be allowed a limited military presence on Jordan border

Thoughts?

Sounds good to me, although I’d even be fine with giving Palestinians East Jerusalem altogether to make things cleaner

Giving East Jerusalem to Palestine is the best option, but a nonstarter for any Israeli government. Thats why so making potenial peace deals have died in the past.

If any Palestinian leader let go of East Jerusalem, he would be overthrown. Hence Abbas being very hestitant to accept the 2008 deal, despite him very much wanting to do so.

My thing is, if Palestine can operate its government in East Jerusalem, control the Al Aqsa mosque and give citizenship to Arab residents of East Jerusalem allowing family reunification, that the crux of the issue while allowing Israel to continue to have a united Jerusalem as its capitol

[pppolitics]

That's effectively gaslighting.

Israel is killing 'thousands of children' in its attacks. That's not something that really anyone disputes. Bombs are actively launched, actively land and actively kill. Decisions made that restrict aid, supplies etc are active decisions.

It would be more honest to accept this fact and then moralise/justify it than effectively blame the victims. Or shame those who are aghast at what is happening by suggesting they don't have agency in their anger or empathy.

Look at this number.

Palestinians make up >95% of the casualties

Israelis make up <5% of the casualties

How many more Palestinians lie dead under the rubble is unknown.

Meanwhile, we have people in this thread screaming non-stop about Israeli casualties while ignoring Palestinian casualties.

Nobody here likes Hamas, but what Israel is doing is 19 times worse than what Hamas did.

Rarely (if ever) have you talked about tens of thousands of Palestinians killed by Israel this year alone.

You know what's gaslighting?  Trying to pretend that defenders of Israel are ignoring the thousands of Palestinians who have been killed, or pretending they don't exist.  When literally in my post that you quoted I wrote about this.

Yes it's bad that tens of thousands of Palestinians have died.  But that is not Israel's fault -- it is Hamas's fault!  If Hamas had never attacked Israel, this war would never have happened at all.  And even once the war had started, Hamas could have fought it according to the Geneva Conventions, but instead they used human shields and operated from civilian areas -- which is a deliberate strategy to maximize civilian casualties!

which is why it's a war crime, but curiously (not that curiously actually) the only war crime that you have absolutely no problem with.

Israel is indiscriminately dropping bombs everywhere.

Even Joe Biden, a self-proclaimed Zionist, admitted that Israel is indiscriminately bombing the Palestinians.

Israel is also restricting aid (food, water, medicine) from reaching Gaza.

Israel didn't want any aid going into Gaza at all but was forced to allow a measly handful by the United States.

[GeneralMacArthur]

I am once again asking you guys to stop quoting absolutely massive threads when writing your replies.  It is making this topic 100% unreadable.  Just directly quote the parts you are responding to.