Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
(Thread IKs: Main Paineframe)
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Main Paineframe
Oct 27, 2010

Shaocaholica posted:

Were 1967 borders ever on the table at any point in the history of the I/P conflict?

I'm not quite sure what you mean. The 1967 borders were the actual borders from 1948 to 1967.

Since then, I don't believe Israel has ever offered the 1967 borders to the Palestinians. Israel started settling the occupied territories pretty much immediately after 1967, and has never agreed to give up the West Bank settlements. Moreover, East Jerusalem lies outside the 1967 borders, and Israel has no intention of ever giving that up.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Shaocaholica
Oct 29, 2002

Fig. 5E
I guess I’m just not familiar with what’s been offered historically.

i say swears online
Mar 4, 2005

Shaocaholica posted:

I guess I’m just not familiar with what’s been offered historically.

the '67 borders weren't 'offered', they were just the borders

Main Paineframe
Oct 27, 2010

Shaocaholica posted:

I guess I’m just not familiar with what’s been offered historically.

Probably the best example to talk about here was the 2000 Camp David Summit negotiations. It's probably the most serious attempt at negotiating a final solution with the Palestinians, and while it wasn't the best offer they've ever gotten, it's fairly representative of where Israel has consistently stood. As for why I'm covering this one rather than the "best" offer, it's because it's only slightly different from the best offer, much better-documented, and a lot more credible (I'll cover why near the end of this post). A final offer was never actually put to paper, as there was an intentional policy of avoiding doing so until a full deal had been worked out (probably for fear that a draft offer might be leaked back home and embarrass the leaders), but after the negotiations collapsed, American negotiators wrote at length about the generosity of Israeli offers in order to pin the blame for the breakdown on Palestinian stubbornness. But if we go over their descriptions of the offer in some detail, it'll become clear just how big the impasse is here.

First of all, as a bit of context, "1967 borders" means all of the West Bank and all of Gaza being outside of Israeli control, as both areas were only occupied in 1967; before then, they were under the control of other countries. It also means East Jerusalem being outside of Israeli control, for the same reason.

In 2000, Israeli negotiators offered the Palestinians 100% of the Gaza Strip and around 85% of the West Bank, from the Palestinian perspective. That last bit is important, because there are some regions that Palestinians consider to be part of the West Bank, but Israel considers to not be part of the West Bank. So Israeli negotiators were offering what they saw as "91% of the West Bank", but Palestinians saw it as "85% of the West Bank". I hope this drives home just how difficult it is for the two sides to come to agreement. Also note that this number includes some land swaps, where Israel intended to hold on to chunks of the West Bank (mostly the major settlements) but offered other land they valued less in exchange.

But while Israeli and American negotiators focused heavily on the amount of land that would be changing hands in their proposed deal, they were much less eager to talk about the considerable conditions attached to the offer. First of all, one of the pieces of the West Bank Israel would have retained control of was its eastern border, cutting it off from Jordan and completely surrounding it with Israeli-controlled territory. Second of all, under the Israeli deal, the Palestinian territory would have been divided into a number of different pieces. Of course, the West Bank and Gaza would have been separated, with no direct territorial connection between them except potentially an Israeli-controlled highway. On top of that, the West Bank would be split into between two and four pieces (depending on who you ask and how they define "the West Bank") by strips of Israeli-controlled territory.

Considering the other conditions attached, though, it would be hard to call the resulting Palestinian state "independent" or "sovereign". Israel demanded that the Palestinian state would not have its own military, that it would not control its own airspace or EM spectrum, that it would not be able to make foreign alliances without Israeli approval, that it would not have control over its border with Jordan, that it would allow several permanent Israeli military bases on its territory, that Israel would have the right to send troops into Palestinian territory whenever it felt it was necessary, and so on. There were a few other items along these lines, like Israeli management of water resources, but that's more than enough to show that the Palestinian state in practice would have been little more than an Israeli puppet, at the complete military and economic mercy of Israel (much like Gaza is right now).

There were other sticking points, of course. East Jerusalem is quite important to the Palestinians, but the most Israel was willing to offer was "custodianship" over the Temple Mount and "administration" over some Arab portions of Jerusalem, which would remain under overall Israeli sovereignty. Moreover, East Jersualem would be cut off from the West Bank, as it's surrounded by Israeli settlements which would have been annexed to Israel under Israel's proposal. This is no accident, by the way - a major factor in Israeli settlement policy and planning has been using the settlements to lay claim to territory Israel wants to keep, and using the presence of the settlers as justification to hold onto that territory in any peace deal.

Another major issue is Palestinian right of return, and it's one that Israel is particularly unwilling to make concessions on for demographic reasons - put simply, a significant increase in the Arab population could threaten Jewish political domination of Israeli governance by giving Arabs enough votes to exercise meaningful political influence. As such, Israel offered to accept a token amount of Palestinian refugees and request that the international community sets up a fund for the resettlement of the remaining 6 million Palestinian refugees somewhere outside Israel.

Finally, US conduct during the negotiations was also a problem, as the Clinton administration operated under what they called a "no surprises" policy: before they suggested anything in the negotiations, they would privately run it by the Israeli negotiators, and would present it to the Palestinians only after it gained Israeli approval. This, and other issues with US behavior, led the Palestinians to conclude that the US was biased in favor of Israel and was not fairly mediating the negotiations. Given that, as well as the considerable catches in Israeli proposals, it's no surprise that the negotiations didn't get anywhere. And after the negotiations failed, the Clinton administration - seeking to cushion the political blow to Ehud Barak's already-shaky government in Israel - publicly placed all the blame on Palestinians. In any case, although Clinton hoped to reopen negotiations soon, Barak's government fell before the end of the year, caught between extremist Israelis seeking to sabotage the process and angry Arabs who felt that Israel was sabotaging the peace process.

And that last bit is why I'm not talking about the best proposal the Palestinians ever got: when Israeli prime ministers make generous offers to the Palestinians, it's usually because their government is teetering on the edge of collapse and they desperately need a historic accomplishment to save their career. And that really stands out in the best offer the Palestinians were given, Ehud Olmert's 2008 proposal to Mahmoud Abbas. The proposal was actually very similar to Camp David. The big differences were that Olmert offered a bit more land (93% of the West Bank by Israel's reckoning, plus some lightly populated Israeli land to make up for the rest), and Palestine would get full sovereignty over the Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem. Everything else was basically identical to Ehud Barak's offer, except that Olmert would have accepted even fewer Palestinian refugees. The big problem with these negotiations is that Olmert was a lame duck who had absolutely no power to deliver on these generous promises; police investigations into corruption and bribery had already implicated him in a number of crimes, and he resigned from office literally the day after he made this offer to Abbas. He was indicted a few months later, and eventually spent 16 months in jail. It's no wonder that Abbas (who was well aware of Olmert's political circumstances) wasn't in any rush to take his proposal. Olmert's replacement as party leader was unable to form a government, and Israel went straight to elections that brought in a right-wing government that (unsurprisingly) was unwilling to back Olmert's offer.

Frankly, I have no idea what the hell Olmert thought he was playing at there. Yitzhak Rabin was fairly popular and got straight-up assassinated for offering way less than anything Olmert put on the table. Did he actually think a scandal-ridden corruption elemental on the brink of resignation was going to be able to deliver on any of those promises? Or did he think that those politically-unpopular settlement concessions would win his party support in the election? Either way, he must have been desperately flailing for anything to save his career...which isn't exactly the kind of thing that's going to inspire trust in a negotiating partner.

Alchenar
Apr 9, 2008


So I think the only point I would raise with this narrative (which I agree with) is that it's missing the analysis of what would happen if Abbas had snapped up Olmert's offer. Lots of factors on both sides would have conspired against it, but they would be pushing against the idea of 'we can settle this thing now'.

Slashrat
Jun 6, 2011

YOSPOS
When the agreement includes points like "Israel is allowed to send in its army whenever it feels like.", "Israel has control over all the water" and "Israel has control over all the borders", it really doesn't sound like it would settle anything at all; just formalise the status quo.

I said come in!
Jun 22, 2004

For the right of return for Palestinians, could the land even handle an additional 6 million in it? Israel is a small place, and they are already having trouble meeting their water and energy needs. Hence why Israel has to steal more and more fresh water sources.

WhiskeyWhiskers
Oct 14, 2013

It's fun when you remember that like half those demands were widely seen as intentionally provocative and a deliberately unconscionable ultimatum by Austria-Hungary to force Serbia to war.

WhiskeyWhiskers fucked around with this message at 07:54 on Nov 20, 2023

Hong XiuQuan
Feb 19, 2008

"Without justice for the Palestinians there will be no peace in the Middle East."

Main Paineframe posted:

(etc)

Frankly, I have no idea what the hell Olmert thought he was playing at there. Yitzhak Rabin was fairly popular and got straight-up assassinated for offering way less than anything Olmert put on the table. Did he actually think a scandal-ridden corruption elemental on the brink of resignation was going to be able to deliver on any of those promises? Or did he think that those politically-unpopular settlement concessions would win his party support in the election? Either way, he must have been desperately flailing for anything to save his career...which isn't exactly the kind of thing that's going to inspire trust in a negotiating partner.

This is a great summary. I think in addition to what you've said - the land being considered for "land swaps" has specifically attracted major settlement blocks because it's among the most advantageous (either strategically or in terms of fertility) land in the West Bank. Much of the swaps I've seen mooted revolve around land in the Naqab. I don't think people realise how important these aspects are to the viability of the West Bank. The way land would be carved out would mean that Palestinian towns face the same problems they do today (ie not being able to expand) and that the Palestinian state would lose out economically.

The issue with the river Jordan is also vital. It would mean (as you've said) no border with Jordan (which is non-sensical if you want a viable state) but it also hits water rights. Palestine would forever be beholden to Israel for its water supply. A state that is entirely contained within another state and has no water rights of its own is not an independent or sovereign state.

So the part I'm emphasising here is that even just looking at these numbers "offered" over time pretty much misses the point without the lens of *what land is*. The quantitative understanding is less important than the qualitative.

I should also finally say that Rabin was pretty much the architect of all of this. Oslo was a masterstroke from him. In one go, he got Palestinian leadership to negotiate away vital bargaining rights for an agreement to agree in five years' time whilst simultaneously supercharging illegal settlements (between 1993 and 1995, illegal West Bank settlement population grew by something like 20%). For even this - a drive to partial autonomy to avoid giving Palestinians voting rights, rather than any meaningful state - he was assassinated.

Groovelord Neato
Dec 6, 2014


It was inevitable but Israel's official line is everyone is Hamas.

https://x.com/EylonALevy/status/1726303438730903953?s=20
https://x.com/SanaSaeed/status/1726414829588455780?s=20

Saladman
Jan 12, 2010

Well, with lines like this, at least they’re burning so many bridges that I doubt they’ll have enough political capital to invade south Gaza. If they don’t find a massive Hamas command center under Al Shifa then I don’t see how they could possibly convince the US government to back them on an invasion of Khan Yunis.

They probably do still have enough to completely raze Gaza City though, especially now that the Gazan casualty numbers aren’t going up as much anymore.

The US also had that "if you aren’t with us you’re against us" attitude after 2001, and maybe also after 2003 (?).

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

Saladman posted:

Well, with lines like this, at least they’re burning so many bridges that I doubt they’ll have enough political capital to invade south Gaza. If they don’t find a massive Hamas command center under Al Shifa then I don’t see how they could possibly convince the US government to back them on an invasion of Khan Yunis.

They probably do still have enough to completely raze Gaza City though, especially now that the Gazan casualty numbers aren’t going up as much anymore.

The US also had that "if you aren’t with us you’re against us" attitude after 2001, and maybe also after 2003 (?).

Related to the Hamas command center thing, IDF did take CNN to that tunnel shaft a couple days ago. Far from anything close to a confirmation, but it'll be interesting to see what's behind that metal door.

Also, does anyone know if this tunnel shaft/tunnel was built by Israel? Or was that underground thing they built elsewhere at Al Shifa?

Kammat
Feb 9, 2008
Odd Person

Kalit posted:

Related to the Hamas command center thing, IDF did take CNN to that tunnel shaft a couple days ago. Far from anything close to a confirmation, but it'll be interesting to see what's behind that metal door.

If this turns into another Al Capone's Vault type of situation I will probably die laughing.

How much goodwill does Israel have to piss away at this point? There's gotta be a point where the US is at least privately telling them "Settle the gently caress down?"

Paladinus
Jan 11, 2014

heyHEYYYY!!!

For context, Levy is a government spokesman, but Frum is a Canadian political commentator, Lee Kern is a British comedian, and Goldberg is a random American Republican think tank guy.

FlamingLiberal
Jan 18, 2009

Would you like to play a game?



David Frum used to be Dubya’s speech writer

He most infamously wrote the ‘Axis of Evil’ speech

Then when Trump took over the GOP he became a NeverTrump guy on the right and cozied up to liberals on Twitter

Groovelord Neato
Dec 6, 2014


Paladinus posted:

For context, Levy is a government spokesman, but Frum is a Canadian political commentator, Lee Kern is a British comedian, and Goldberg is a random American Republican think tank guy.

That was more to show how ridiculous the government picking it up was.

CalvinandHobbes
Aug 4, 2004

Saladman posted:

Well, with lines like this, at least they’re burning so many bridges that I doubt they’ll have enough political capital to invade south Gaza. If they don’t find a massive Hamas command center under Al Shifa then I don’t see how they could possibly convince the US government to back them on an invasion of Khan Yunis.

They probably do still have enough to completely raze Gaza City though, especially now that the Gazan casualty numbers aren’t going up as much anymore.

The US also had that "if you aren’t with us you’re against us" attitude after 2001, and maybe also after 2003 (?).

I'm not sure the israeli government cares at this point? Their actions don't make sense if you think their goal is rescuing hostages. Also doesn't make sense if goal is to "eliminate Hamas" as nothing drives recruitment like thousands of dead children. Increasingly it seems like the goal is the empty gaza of palestinians and annex it.

Civilized Fishbot
Apr 3, 2011

CalvinandHobbes posted:

I'm not sure the israeli government cares at this point? Their actions don't make sense if you think their goal is rescuing hostages. Also doesn't make sense if goal is to "eliminate Hamas" as nothing drives recruitment like thousands of dead children. Increasingly it seems like the goal is the empty gaza of palestinians and annex it.

I think the goals are:

-Eliminate Hamas - not eliminate the potential for groups like Hamas, this is not possible without a one/two-state solution of the kind that Likud can't countenance. But literally eliminate the particular organization of Hamas, because the Israeli public demands it.

-Recovering as many hostages as possible without looking weak or giving Hamas another "win" (this means recovering far fewer hostages than is possible through negotiation).

-Install a new legal regime in Gaza with a non-Hamas identity and open subservience to the Israeli state. Having a controlled opposition in Gaza didn't work because eventually the internal political situation in Gaza made it necessary for Hamas to take drastic anti-Israel action to reinforce its own legitimacy. So now they want an outright vassal government, probably supported and supervised directly by an IDF presence in Gaza.

I think "officially annex some/all of Gaza" is obviously an extremely popular idea among the right wing of Israeli civil society, but it's also the one red line the US has drawn, so I don't think it'll happen or is functioning as a goal. I think they'll settle for a more direct occupation of Gaza (which makes annexation more feasible in future years/decades) and whatever they can get to assure the Israeli public that they didn't oversee the greatest security failure in their history.

Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 15:25 on Nov 20, 2023

I said come in!
Jun 22, 2004

I can see Israel starting off with installing a puppet government in Gaza, and then slowly overtime work that government towards agreeing to a deal that lets Israel take over Gaza outright. Israel isnt shy about breaking international laws, and I dont get the impression the U.S. is serious about its redlines. But to give the US the benefit of the doubt, there are other slower methods that Israel can take instead that will give them what they want and the US will just accept because we are so willing to rollover for this one ally.

Paladinus
Jan 11, 2014

heyHEYYYY!!!

Groovelord Neato posted:

That was more to show how ridiculous the government picking it up was.

Israel's government has been unhappy, to put it mildly, with western media coverage basically from October 7, which culminated in them condemning Reuters and other outlets as terrorist enablers for using photos by freelancers. Their beef with Amnesty and HRW goes back decades now, not to mention UN. They are just getting more vocal about it now that there are looming diplomatic and political repercussions due to the scale of the conflict, and, evidently, they are very inept because they simply don't have any other position to signal to placate their allies.

FlamingLiberal
Jan 18, 2009

Would you like to play a game?



Allegedly the Gulf States (SA, UAE, etc) want the PA to take over running Gaza. They have apparently told Israel privately that they will not accept Israel annexing Gaza or running it directly

Groovelord Neato
Dec 6, 2014


FlamingLiberal posted:

Allegedly the Gulf States (SA, UAE, etc) want the PA to take over running Gaza. They have apparently told Israel privately that they will not accept Israel annexing Gaza or running it directly

Hamas ended up becoming popular enough to defeat Fatah electorally because Fatah's leadership had been bought off by Israel they're going to get Hamas 2 if they put some form of puppet caretaker government in charge of Gaza.

FlamingLiberal
Jan 18, 2009

Would you like to play a game?



Groovelord Neato posted:

Hamas ended up becoming popular enough to defeat Fatah electorally because Fatah's leadership had been bought off by Israel they're going to get Hamas 2 if they put some form of puppet caretaker government in charge of Gaza.
I 100% agree, but the Arab states in the Gulf have to position themselves with something like ‘put the PA, which is essentially a puppet of Israel, in charge of Gaza’. If they just let Israel do whatever they want then their own domestic populations are going to get rowdy.

punishedkissinger
Sep 20, 2017

Saladman posted:


They probably do still have enough to completely raze Gaza City though, especially now that the Gazan casualty numbers aren’t going up as much anymore.


isn't this because the Health Ministry's office was in Shifa?

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

FlamingLiberal posted:

Allegedly the Gulf States (SA, UAE, etc) want the PA to take over running Gaza. They have apparently told Israel privately that they will not accept Israel annexing Gaza or running it directly

I have a feeling even most/all of Israel's allies are pushing them to have the PA take over running Gaza. Biden has stated it publicly. Of course, who knows if there will be any retaliation from anyone if Israel just drives everyone out/annexes Gaza.

Kalit fucked around with this message at 16:00 on Nov 20, 2023

Saladman
Jan 12, 2010

CalvinandHobbes posted:

I'm not sure the israeli government cares at this point? Their actions don't make sense if you think their goal is rescuing hostages. Also doesn't make sense if goal is to "eliminate Hamas" as nothing drives recruitment like thousands of dead children. Increasingly it seems like the goal is the empty gaza of palestinians and annex it.

They probably want to avoid becoming a pariah state like Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. If BDS was actually a thing in the West, and not just a fever dream of Twitter people, then Israel would start having serious problems. I don't think they can do autarky as well as the Russians, and they would potentially have zero friends other than an ice-cold Biden and an ice-cold Germany. Israel is also way more connected globally than Yemen, or Ethiopia, or Syria, or Sudan, or whatever other countries that have committed large-scale massacres in the past few years, other than Russia.

But maybe they can thread the needle too. Abiy Ahmed was able to kill 600k Tigrayans (±10% of the population) on the thinnest of justifications with barely a slap on the wrist, whereas the Houthis, Assad, and whoever "wins" in Sudan will be on most political poo poo lists for the next 20+ years.

The Top G
Jul 18, 2023

by Fluffdaddy

Kalit posted:

Huh? Where have you seen that Hamas would stop if this occurred? Their General Principles & Policies document explicitly states that Israel does not have the right to exist:

Why did you leave out the very next section in which they acknowledge that a return to the borders of 1967 would be a “formula of national consensus”? :confused:

quote:

20. Hamas believes that no part of the land of Palestine shall be compromised or conceded, irrespective of the causes, the circumstances and the pressures and no matter how long the occupation lasts. Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea. However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus.

It’s good to read something in its entirety before quoting sections of it - context is key :eng101:

Groovelord Neato
Dec 6, 2014


I don't even know where the caretaker government would operate out of. They demolished the legislature and they captured and will likely destroy the judiciary. Gaza City is going to be mostly rubble and I doubt Khan Younis will fare much better in the coming weeks.

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

The Top G posted:

Why did you leave out the very next section in which they acknowledge that a return to the borders of 1967 would be a “formula of national consensus”? :confused:

It’s good to read something in its entirety before quoting sections of it - context is key :eng101:

You're right, I left out some context and my wording was slightly misleading. I had relied on the 1988 Covenant and then switched when I realized I should be relying on the updated 2017 document and failed to update the verbiage.

Kalit fucked around with this message at 16:51 on Nov 20, 2023

mitztronic
Jun 17, 2005

mixcloud.com/mitztronic

I said come in! posted:

I can see Israel starting off with installing a puppet government in Gaza, and then slowly overtime work that government towards agreeing to a deal that lets Israel take over Gaza outright.

I’m starting to see a trend with your posts that the benefit of doubt just doesn’t hold up anymore. You don’t provide sources to your wild claims and those claims are often comically evil scenarios based on stereotypes that boil down to “those evil, scheming Jews”, I.e. this post. Just look through your own post history. Many posters have called you out on this but you don’t seem to have any self awareness, and not once have you responded to any criticism / requests for sources to your wild claims. Serious question - Do you hate Jews? Are you hiding anti-semitism behind “Israel” as a convenient punching bag? Are you even self aware that you’re doing this?

Where is your proof that Israel is going to install a puppet government with the intention of absorbing Gaza? How does that work out? Explain it to me. Break it down. What’s the calculus here? What’s the geopolitical reasoning?

If your read was true, Israel would have done this a long time ago. Instead, it’s bullshit anti semitism spewing out uncontrolled.

While we’re on the topic, do you have any desire to back up any of your past radical claims you’ve made that many posters have requested? I’d be happy with you addressing any of them. Just one would be nice. Ideally, consider backing up your crazy theories in the future with actual sources that aren’t your internal hatred.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

Rigged Death Trap
Feb 13, 2012

BEEP BEEP BEEP BEEP

punishedkissinger posted:

isn't this because the Health Ministry's office was in Shifa?

Its this exactly.

The health minstry has thus far only counted confirmed cases of injury and death that reach hospital morgues, and confirmed by name or with relatives.


https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67347201 posted:

Healthcare workers like Dr Ghassan Abu-Sittah, a Médecins Sans Frontières plastic surgeon based in London who has been treating people at hospitals in Gaza City, are key to recording those figures.

He says the hospital morgue records deaths after confirming the identity of the dead person with their relatives.

The number of deaths registered so far, he believes, is far fewer than those that have actually occurred. "Most of the deaths happen at home," he says. "The ones we could not identify, we did not record."

However, once a body is found, it "has to be taken to the hospital to be recorded", says a spokesperson for the Palestinian Red Crescent.

TGLT
Aug 14, 2009

mitztronic posted:

If your read was true, Israel would have done this a long time ago. Instead, it’s bullshit anti semitism spewing out uncontrolled.

A major reason Hamas exists in the state it does is because they did in fact eject Israel from Gaza. There's even a push to retake Gush Katif, which pairs well with the Israeli government saying they intend to "decrease" the size of Gaza. When the minister of intelligence is openly arguing for mass forced relocation (She calls it "voluntary" but provides no actual alternatives) then it's safe to say that the Israeli government wants to take full control of Gaza however it can.

The Palestinian Authority is viewed, at least by some, as essentially that sort of puppet government and the West Bank has been getting steadily absorbed by settlers for years. There's nothing anti-Semitic about suggesting that the Israeli government will do in Gaza what it has done in the West Bank if it can - particularly when they keep saying they want that land.

e: And as an aside we really need to abandon this idea that powerful states can just clap their hands and make poo poo happen by virtue of having more bombs or whatever. You'd think the whole War on Terror would've disabused everyone of this notion.

Main Paineframe
Oct 27, 2010

Alchenar posted:

So I think the only point I would raise with this narrative (which I agree with) is that it's missing the analysis of what would happen if Abbas had snapped up Olmert's offer. Lots of factors on both sides would have conspired against it, but they would be pushing against the idea of 'we can settle this thing now'.

I don't really think that would have been enough. Maybe in the 90s it would have (then again, maybe not - Oslo certainly didn't go that well in practice), but by 2008 I think it was just too late. Labor was coming apart at the seams, and Abbas' political position was so weak that he'd run a coup and canceled elections indefinitely just to retain control over the West Bank. It would have been far too easy for belligerent parties on both sides to upset the situation. In fact, when Olmert made his offer, the IDF was already making preparations to invade Gaza to destroy Hamas, carrying out thousands of airstrikes in the process and killing several hundred civilians and not destroying Hamas. And Ariel Sharon demonstrated back in 2000 how a member of the opposition could easily destabilize the situation and torpedo peace negotiations.

Groovelord Neato posted:

It was inevitable but Israel's official line is everyone is Hamas.

https://x.com/EylonALevy/status/1726303438730903953?s=20

It's rare for them to come out and openly say it like this, but that's long been the subtext of all their accusations about Hamas operating in hospitals and UN facilities and stuff. At first glance, those accusations seem to demonize Hamas for using civilian facilities, but these narratives also often subtly imply that the civilians are allowing or cooperating with this use and therefore complicit in Hamas' crimes.

mitztronic posted:

I’m starting to see a trend with your posts that the benefit of doubt just doesn’t hold up anymore. You don’t provide sources to your wild claims and those claims are often comically evil scenarios based on stereotypes that boil down to “those evil, scheming Jews”, I.e. this post. Just look through your own post history. Many posters have called you out on this but you don’t seem to have any self awareness, and not once have you responded to any criticism / requests for sources to your wild claims. Serious question - Do you hate Jews? Are you hiding anti-semitism behind “Israel” as a convenient punching bag? Are you even self aware that you’re doing this?

Where is your proof that Israel is going to install a puppet government with the intention of absorbing Gaza? How does that work out? Explain it to me. Break it down. What’s the calculus here? What’s the geopolitical reasoning?

If your read was true, Israel would have done this a long time ago. Instead, it’s bullshit anti semitism spewing out uncontrolled.

While we’re on the topic, do you have any desire to back up any of your past radical claims you’ve made that many posters have requested? I’d be happy with you addressing any of them. Just one would be nice. Ideally, consider backing up your crazy theories in the future with actual sources that aren’t your internal hatred.

Netanyahu publicly stated nearly two weeks ago that Israel would keep "overall security responsibility" in Gaza after the war, and Israeli government ministers have been openly disdainful of the idea of handing control of Gaza to the PA. Ben-Gvir, for instance, said a few days ago that the PA should be treated the same way Hamas is. Given that they also won't accept Hamas control over Gaza, and certainly won't accept groups like Islamic Jihad, that pretty much just leaves either direct Israeli administration or an entirely new faction handpicked by Israel (i.e., a puppet government).

Personally, I don't think that Israel particularly wants to annex Gaza. For them, the West Bank has always been the real prize. However, the current right-wing coalition has a number of members who are inclined to make increasingly extreme and absurd demands just to show that they can, and has therefore backed itself into a position where the government might not be willing to accept anything less than annexing Gaza, even though it doesn't particularly want to annex Gaza.

I said come in!
Jun 22, 2004

It is absolutely no secret that Israel's current government does not want a two state solution. Their expansion into the west bank, and literally all of their peace talks, which Main Paineframe expertly explained here https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?noseen=0&threadid=3754814&pagenumber=529&perpage=40#post536050828 leaves little doubt to Israels intentions.

TGLT posted:

A major reason Hamas exists in the state it does is because they did in fact eject Israel from Gaza. There's even a push to retake Gush Katif, which pairs well with the Israeli government saying they intend to "decrease" the size of Gaza. When the minister of intelligence is openly arguing for mass forced relocation (She calls it "voluntary" but provides no actual alternatives) then it's safe to say that the Israeli government wants to take full control of Gaza however it can.

The Palestinian Authority is viewed, at least by some, as essentially that sort of puppet government and the West Bank has been getting steadily absorbed by settlers for years. There's nothing anti-Semitic about suggesting that the Israeli government will do in Gaza what it has done in the West Bank if it can - particularly when they keep saying they want that land.

e: And as an aside we really need to abandon this idea that powerful states can just clap their hands and make poo poo happen by virtue of having more bombs or whatever. You'd think the whole War on Terror would've disabused everyone of this notion.

Also this!

And god, I don't loving know, like countless examples of Israeli government officials literally calling for genocide?
https://twitter.com/arjunsethi81/status/1723009760000115173

Neurolimal
Nov 3, 2012
I don't think it's antisemitic to say Israel would like a puppet state government, considering that's effectively what the West Bank is. Abbas does the bare minimum to agitate when Gaza gets bombed, but otherwise his PA goons crack down on protests that get too rowdy, and they don't do anything about settlers waltzing into West Bank and assaulting people/shooting people/setting buildings on fire, let alone the annexations that violate Oslo. They are 100% a subjugated rump state, and there's a reason he can't call for elections. We're talking about what is ostensibly the leader of the state of Palestine turning the other cheek as a neighboring state, essentially, invades his country on a daily basis.

...And the funny thing is that, even with a comprador like that, Israel is still paranoid about the possibility of PA finding its balls if it controlled Gaza again.

Sephyr
Aug 28, 2012

Neurolimal posted:



...And the funny thing is that, even with a comprador like that, Israel is still paranoid about the possibility of PA finding its balls if it controlled Gaza again.

Yup. The PA in the late 90s/early 2000s was almost hilariously corrupt, ineffective and coopted, with Arafat himself being a punchline with a name, and the Israeli government still could not stop itself from stomping them into dust.

There's no real evidence that Arafat was assassinated by Israel security services, but I'm inclined to believe just because it's the most paranoid and self-defeating move possible. "This guy leaves the occupied territories and shakes hands with European heads of state. He -has- to go!"

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

TGLT posted:

The Palestinian Authority is viewed, at least by some, as essentially that sort of puppet government and the West Bank has been getting steadily absorbed by settlers for years. There's nothing anti-Semitic about suggesting that the Israeli government will do in Gaza what it has done in the West Bank if it can - particularly when they keep saying they want that land.

Neurolimal posted:

I don't think it's antisemitic to say Israel would like a puppet state government, considering that's effectively what the West Bank is. Abbas does the bare minimum to agitate when Gaza gets bombed, but otherwise his PA goons crack down on protests that get too rowdy, and they don't do anything about settlers waltzing into West Bank and assaulting people/shooting people/setting buildings on fire, let alone the annexations that violate Oslo. They are 100% a subjugated rump state, and there's a reason he can't call for elections. We're talking about what is ostensibly the leader of the state of Palestine turning the other cheek as a neighboring state, essentially, invades his country on a daily basis.

...And the funny thing is that, even with a comprador like that, Israel is still paranoid about the possibility of PA finding its balls if it controlled Gaza again.

Since this has come up a couple of times, can someone please explain to me how PA is a puppet state government? Preferably with their definition of puppet state government? TGLT, I read that article (thanks for posting it), but it still doesn't seem clear to me.

Maybe I'm being too pedantic, but it seems like Israel doesn't actually control PA. Of course, the PA does not resist Israel to the degree that Hamas does. But I wouldn't classify a country intimidating another country (by invading/murdering/etc) as controlling said country. If the PA was a puppet government, wouldn't Israel just tell PA something like "give up your land and tell the rest of the world that this is a mutually agreed upon plan"?

FlamingLiberal
Jan 18, 2009

Would you like to play a game?



The PA is almost entirely reliant on Israel for everything. They are almost totally powerless.

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

FlamingLiberal posted:

The PA is almost entirely reliant on Israel for everything. They are almost totally powerless.

Isn't the same true for Gaza? And is being almost entirely reliant on another country mean that said country has a puppet government? TBH, I've never heard that definition before.

E: I guess looking at the wiki page, it sounds like it might fit. But I'm still having a hard time seeing how it would apply to PA and not Hamas. Israel heavily controls the resources that goes into Gaza. And we can see right now that Hamas has no control over Gaza when Israel wants to fast track its genocide.

Kalit fucked around with this message at 19:20 on Nov 20, 2023

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Darth Walrus
Feb 13, 2012

Kalit posted:

Since this has come up a couple of times, can someone please explain to me how PA is a puppet state government? Preferably with their definition of puppet state government? TGLT, I read that article (thanks for posting it), but it still doesn't seem clear to me.

Maybe I'm being too pedantic, but it seems like Israel doesn't actually control PA. Of course, the PA does not resist Israel to the degree that Hamas does. But I wouldn't classify a country intimidating another country (by invading/murdering/etc) as controlling said country. If the PA was a puppet government, wouldn't Israel just tell PA something like "give up your land and tell the rest of the world that this is a mutually agreed upon plan"?

One purely mechanical element of Israel's control of the PA is that it collects taxes on their behalf and has the final say on how those taxes are distributed.. Palestinians very literally have taxation without representation.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply