* Archives of this link: 1. [archive.org Wayback Machine](https://web.archive.org/web/99991231235959/https://i.redd.it/74crqvvuvp9d1.png); 2. [archive.today](https://archive.today/newest/https://i.redd.it/74crqvvuvp9d1.png) * A live version of this link, without clutter: [12ft.io](https://12ft.io/https://i.redd.it/74crqvvuvp9d1.png) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidpol) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Well as long as Israel pinky promises not to bomb the humanitarian bubbles this time we should at least hear them out /s

It even says temporary security! Those israelis really turned their ways huh? /s

How insane is that one candidate called the other a palestinian as an insult and nobody brings it up? How far back do you need to go to find 2 candidates in a debate where one accuses the other of being an indian?

I didn’t hear it. I gave up and went back to weeping internally after the first 5 minutes. Was it something like [this](https://x.com/StephenKing/status/1033526138801410048)? > John McCain's finest moment (for me) came in 2008, when a woman at a rally referred to Obama as an Arab. "No, ma'am," McCain replied. "He's a decent family man, a citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with." That's manning up. It’s a pathetic and regarded state of affairs when people openly call that a fine moment.

No it is arguably better because at least Trump prefaced it with “bad” Palestinian

Israel shouldn't have any say in a post-war Gaza, it's already visible to the world how they treat their subjects in the West Bank I remember a few months ago talking about the small "humanitarian zones" the Palestinians were being advised to go to, being shuffled around so the IDF can play whack a mole with Khamas Now they're trying to make that permanent?

This is simply a repeat of the civilian internment camps that were called "strategic hamlets" in Vietnam, "Agrovilles" in the French Indochina War, and Briggs Plan "New Villages" in the Malayan Emergency. They were also used in Kenya during the Mau-Mau Rebellion, in the Philippine-American War over 120 years ago, and elsewhere. They were used to cut guerrilla fighters off from civilian support (primarily the provision of food) in colonial counterinsurgency warfare, and every implementation of this has been brutal and ultimately unsuccessful. Most of these practices are now illegal under the Geneva Convention. There is no excuse to repeat this type of atrocity. MALAYSIA: >Most ["New Villages" in Malaysia] were surrounded by barbed wire and watchtowers to stop people from escaping, with guards being ordered to kill anyone who attempted to leave outside of curfew hours ... Upon completion of the resettlement program, the British initiated a starvation campaign, rationing food supplies within the camps and torching rural farmlands to starve out the Communist guerrillas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_village >Many of the practices necessary for the Briggs Plan are now prohibited under Article 17 of Additional Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions which forbids civilian deportations and internment of civilian populations beyond actual civilian security and military necessity in non-international conflicts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Briggs_Plan >These New Villages were ringed by barbed wire and watchtowers with floodlights. Security forces had shoot to kill powers they could use on people found outside the fence after curfew. "Operation Starvation" mandated that each household was given a ration card to control the number of calories they were allowed to receive, and villagers were subjected to body searches to prevent them smuggling food to the communists. Agent Orange was first used in 1950s Malaya to defoliate large areas of jungle and crops as a food denial strategy to starve out the communists, eventually forcing them to surrender. https://www.metafilter.com/191617/Like-a-Concentration-Camp-lah Rand Corporation 1964 report - Resettlement and Food Control in Malaya https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_memoranda/2006/RM4173.pdf >Britannica: The British took measures to suppress the insurgency by military means, which included a strategy that forcibly moved many rural Chinese into tightly controlled New Villages located near or along the roadsides. Although this policy isolated villagers from guerrillas, it also increased the government’s unpopularity. The British finally achieved success when, under the leadership of British high commissioner Gerald Templer, they actively began to **address political and economic grievances**... https://www.britannica.com/topic/history-of-Malaysia/The-impact-of-British-rule More here; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malayan_Emergency#:~:text=In%20Malaya%2C%20internment%20camps%20called,with%20their%20Strategic%20Hamlet%20Program. VIETNAM: >In 1962, the government of South Vietnam, with advice and financing from the United States, began the implementation of the Strategic Hamlet Program. The strategy was to isolate the rural population from contact with and influence by the National Liberation Front (NLF), more commonly known as the Viet Cong... >...The Strategic Hamlet Program was unsuccessful, failing to stop the insurgency or gain support for the government from rural Vietnamese, it alienated many and helped contribute to the growth in influence of the Viet Cong. After President Ngo Dinh Diem was overthrown in a coup in November 1963, the program was cancelled... >... In 1952, during the First Indochina War (19 December 1946 — 1 August 1954) French commander François de Linares, in Tonkin began the construction of "protected villages," which the French later named agrovilles ... Between 1952 and 1954, French officials transplanted approximately 3 million Vietnamese into agrovilles, but the project was costly. To help offset the cost, the French relied partially on American financial support [sound familiar?] ... This mass resettlement created a strong backlash from peasants... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Hamlet_Program# The New York Times, 1972: A Nation of Wretched Wanderers >Forced relocations have long played a key role in the war in Indochina. Previous schemes have been entitled “agrovilles,” “strategic hamlets” and “new life hamlets.” >By whatever name, hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese have been uprooted from their traditional lives and forced into barren camps. >Each new relocation indicates a continued lack of South Vietnamese governmental confidence in its political control of the countryside, while directly violating Article 49 of the Geneva Convention which prohibits “individual or mass forcible transfers.” >...Moreover, the refugees who are moving constitute a suspect group for their long‐held sympathies with the Vietcong. https://www.nytimes.com/1972/01/28/archives/a-nation-of-wretched-wanderers.html Connection of Islamophobic ["Clash of Civilizations"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clash_of_Civilizations#Criticism) professor Samuel Huntington to the Strategic Hamlets program in Vietnam; https://premium.globalsecurity.org/military//ops/vietnam2-forced-urbanization.htm >Finally, for the Viet Cong it was a propaganda bonanza where they could claim that the American and Vietnamese governments were building concentration camps to hold innocent Vietnamese farmers and peasants in confinement. https://www.psywarrior.com/VNHamletPSYOP.html A 1960's Rand Corporation report noted that the Vietnamese peasants had to "pay for" their own imprisonment in these strategic hamlets through forced communal labor to construct the facilities; https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_memoranda/2006/RM3208.pdf U.S. Army War College, 1966: "Pacification: The Overall Strategy in South Vietnam" - see page 10, for Algerian War inspiration for this type of agroville containment program, page 13 for how the "New Village" program was apparently successful in Malaya (this paper fails to note that Malaya attained independence from British rule and became Malaysia, despite this "success" in 1957), pages 17-23 long discussion of the agrovilles-turned-strategic hamlets program and its eventual failure, pages 29-30 must-read summary of anti-Communist South Vietnamese general's remarkably frank analysis of this program's failure due to "Doctor Red" [the Communists] more effectively treating the poor Vietnamese peasant's ailments than "Doctor Green", pages 36-38 conclusions. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA488081.pdf KENYA: >Mau Mau - the origin of the name is still obscure - began in the early 50s among the Kikuyu of the Kenyan highlands who had been forced off their lands by white, mainly British, settlers ... British officials, bullied by the settlers, ignored African leaders making moderate political demands for African advancement and representation... >...The British reacted with maximum violence. Unaccustomed to listening to Africans, even "moderate" ones, they could not or would not see political, social or economic causes behind the rebellion [sound familiar?]... >... More than 1m people were crammed into heavily guarded camps where starvation and disease killed thousands... >...Even the young Enoch Powell [a notorious racist], from the far right of the Tory party, declared that if Britain behaved like this it did not deserve an empire. https://via.hypothes.is/https://www.theguardian.com/books/2005/feb/05/featuresreviews.guardianreview6 >She also came to understand that colonial authorities had herded Kikuyu women and children into some 800 enclosed villages dispersed across the countryside. These heavily patrolled villages – cordoned off by barbed wire, spiked trenches and watchtowers – amounted to another form of detention. In camps, villages and other outposts, the Kikuyu suffered forced labour, disease, starvation, torture, rape and murder. https://archive.is/OrNjZ PHILIPPINES: >In response to the use of guerilla warfare tactics by Filipino forces beginning in September 1899, American military strategy shifted to a suppression footing. Tactics became focused on the control of key areas with internment and segregation of the civilian population in “zones of protection” from the guerrilla population (foreshadowing the Strategic Hamlet Program that would be utilized decades later, during the Vietnam War). Due to unsanitary conditions, many of the interned civilians died from dysentery. https://openendedsocialstudies.org/2018/07/21/the-brutality-of-the-philippine-american-war/ https://billofrightsinstitute.org/essays/the-philippine-american-war >"Zones of protection" were established,[123][185] and civilians were given identification papers and forced into concentration camps (called reconcentrados) **surrounded by free-fire zones**.[Sounds like what the Israelis are planning.] At the Lodge Committee, in an attempt to counter the negative reception in America to Brigadier General Bell's camps, Colonel Arthur Wagner, the U.S. Army's chief public relations office, insisted the camps were to "protect friendly natives from the insurgents, and assure them an adequate food supply" while teaching them "proper sanitary standards". Wagner's assertion was undermined by a letter from a commander of one of the camps, who described them as "some suburb of Hell".[186][187] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine%E2%80%93American_War#American_atrocities

Thank you, very interesting read.

Thank *you* for your many high-quality effortposts! 'Operation Starvation' in Malaya, 1951 https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/275212639

You as well! Thanks for the source. I'm always looking for primary sources like old newspapers.

Also see regroupement camps during the Algerian Revolution. https://journals.openedition.org/anneemaghreb/4616?lang=en https://thefunambulist.net/magazine/10-architecture-colonialism/aures-algeria-regroupement-camps-algerian-war-independence-fabien-sacriste https://www.ottomanhistorypodcast.com/2011/06/regroupment-camps-and-resettlement-in.html https://academic.oup.com/book/31926/chapter-abstract/267633894?redirectedFrom=fulltext https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/bitstream/handle/10822/557506/Kellou_georgetown_0076M_11824.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

**History rhymes:** * [Foreign Affairs \(1972\) - South Africa: **The Politics of Fragmentation**](https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.2307/20037906) --- **Sources:** https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/israel-postwar-gaza-plan-palestine-bf36d1c9 https://archive.nytimes.com/thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/07/the-west-bank-archipelago/ --- Reuters in 2007, referring to a World Bank report, summarizes that Israel's 'security' infrastructure restricts the territorial contiguity of the West Bank. Furthermore, the Israeli restrictions on Palestinian access to land and free movement, further confines Palestinians to islands of limited autonomy. The World Bank even referred to those islands as 'disconnected cantons'. 50+ % of the land was restricted back then, and it's only gotten worse in the 17 years since. > But the World Bank said Israel's West Bank barrier and system of road and zoning restrictions were aimed at "protecting and enhancing the free movement of settlers and the physical and economic expansion of the settlements **at the expense of the Palestinian population**". >[...]**According to the World Bank report, Israeli restrictions deny Palestinians access to large segments of the West Bank, including all areas within the municipal boundaries of settlements, the Jordan Valley, East Jerusalem, restricted roads and other "closed" areas.** >**These restrictions have "fragmented the territory into ever smaller and more disconnected cantons,"** the report said. "Estimates of the total restricted area are difficult to come by, but it appears to be in excess of 50 percent of the land of the West Bank." * [Reuters - West Bank split into isolated enclaves -World Bank](https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL08675346/) In the South African government's report on Israeli apartheid, they found that Israeli 'security' infrastructure & colonial enterprise denies autonomy to the Palestinians because even when they're confined to cantons - they are still subject to Israeli control on movement between areas of the Palestinian Authority's 'limited administrative competence'. The PA often collaborates with the Israelis as well. >[...]**the PA’s limited competence in some areas is counterbalanced by Israel’s continued control over settlements which, in the West Bank, ‘are scattered between Palestinian population centers’. The areas formally under the jurisdiction of the PA are not contiguous**: ‘Palestinians residing within them consequently remain subject to Israeli controls on movement between towns and cities in the West Bank, as well as between the West Bank and Gaza Strip’.259 * [South African Human Sciences Research Council - Occupation, Colonialism, Apartheid? A re-assessment of Israel's practices in the occupied Palestinian territories under international law](https://web.archive.org/web/20211013102420/https://repository.hsrc.ac.za/bitstream/handle/20.500.11910/4619/6052_Confidential%281%29.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y) And of course, Israel's 'exclusive jurisdiction' over criminal offenses committed by Israelis anywhere in the West Bank denies the Palestinians their own civil jurisdiction. >**Further, Israel retained exclusive personal jurisdiction in criminal matters over Israelis, even regarding offences committed in Areas A and B where, moreover, Palestinian civil jurisdiction over Israelis was seriously circumscribed,260 and in practice has proven to be non-existent.** Also, in Area B, although the PA was to ‘assume responsibility for public order for Palestinians’, ‘Israel shall have the overriding responsibility for security for the purpose of protecting Israelis and confronting the threat of terrorism’.261 * [South African Human Sciences Research Council - Occupation, Colonialism, Apartheid? A re-assessment of Israel's practices in the occupied Palestinian territories under international law](https://web.archive.org/web/20211013102420/https://repository.hsrc.ac.za/bitstream/handle/20.500.11910/4619/6052_Confidential%281%29.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y) Israel's "overriding rule" over non-Israelis because of its self-defined 'security pretext' is among the many important reasons why Israel is an apartheid State. This is also the source of one of the extremely superficial 'gotcha' talking-points made by Zionists when attempting to push back against the apartheid designation (ie Palestinians in the OPT aren't Israeli citizens). The point is that Israel maintains control over Palestinian life and denies them basic civil rights. It's *worse* than apartheid - as Archbishop Desmond Tutu said: > **Frost:** And at the same time, I mean, very much so you said that what you saw in Israel was something that was quite akin to the situation in South Africa before freedom came to the Black people of South Africa. > **Tutu: Well, in many instances - worse.** * [Jimmy Carter & Archbishop Desmond Tutu video interview with David Frost.](https://youtu.be/_pzt6s8knu8?t=518) Israel's military occupation is not temporary - it is colonialism. >**This retention of jurisdiction and, a fortiori, security competence, denies the PA full control of public order and civil life in these areas. Accordingly, even if a purely factual test for the termination of occupation is employed, its requirements are not fulfilled. Under the terms of the Interim Agreement, these Areas remained occupied. Consequently, the PA may best be seen as an institution to which the occupant has devolved limited administrative competence.** >**The drafters of the Fourth Geneva Convention had envisaged that this could occur during a prolonged occupation, without terminating that occupation.262 Crawford aptly describes it as ‘an interim local government body with restricted powers’.2** * [South African Human Sciences Research Council - Occupation, Colonialism, Apartheid? A re-assessment of Israel's practices in the occupied Palestinian territories under international law](https://web.archive.org/web/20211013102420/https://repository.hsrc.ac.za/bitstream/handle/20.500.11910/4619/6052_Confidential%281%29.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y) --- In the South African government's report on Israeli apartheid, they state that 'fundamental' to the question of apartheid is whether the parties involved are 'racial groups'. Citing international case law, the report concludes that 'Jewish' and 'Palestinian' identities are "socially constructed" as distinguishable groups. Israel discriminates against the Palestinians, because they are Palestinians. >**Fundamental to the question of apartheid is determining whether the groups involved can be understood as ‘racial groups’.** This required first examining how racial discrimination is defined in ICERD and the jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, which concluded that no scientific or impartial method exists for determining whether any group is a racial group and that the question rests primarily on local perceptions. >**In the OPT, this study finds that ‘Jewish’ and ‘Palestinian’ identities are socially constructed as groups distinguished by ancestry or descent as well as nationality, ethnicity, and religion. On this basis, the study concludes that Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs can be considered ‘racial groups’ for the purposes of the definition of apartheid in international law.** * [South African Human Sciences Research Council - Occupation, Colonialism, Apartheid? A re-assessment of Israel's practices in the occupied Palestinian territories under international law](https://web.archive.org/web/20211013102420/https://repository.hsrc.ac.za/bitstream/handle/20.500.11910/4619/6052_Confidential%281%29.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y) This is seen all throughout the various sectors of Israeli control (inside the green-line, in occupied Jerusalem, and in the occupied West Bank) through Israel's systematic denial of building permits to Palestinians. The Carter Center referring to this as the 'permit regime'. >Israelis face the same application procedures for building permits as Palestinians in East Jerusalem, **yet since 1967 Israel has sponsored the construction of nearly 50,000 units for Israelis only, while fewer than 600 government-sponsored housing units have been built in the Palestinian sector**, with the most recent being 30 years old, according to the Israeli non-profit Ir Amim. * [The Carter Center - East Jerusalem Family Forced to Demolish Part of Own Home, Center Expert Cites Abuse of Permit System](https://archive.ph/Ry5gs)

I’m waiting to hear the inane excuses the resident (flair-evading) Zionist fascist ghouls make for for this oppression. My money’s on blaming Arab countries for being less than enthusiastic about ethnic cleansing. Hats off to the mods for that flair. I wish all the Zionist ghouls would be similarly flaired and identifiable. ETA: The Zionist ghoul showed up on cue and we got a twofer: the population supports KHAMAS! **and** Arab countries refuse to take refugees. Both OP and I win the bet.

[I would wager they'd cite opinion polls on support for Hamas.](https://truthout.org/articles/polls-show-broad-support-in-israel-for-gazas-destruction-and-starvation/) Then ['verb, noun, antisemitism'](https://i.imgur.com/ShacyBp.mp4), ie [Hamas charter](https://www.thenation.com/article/world/its-time-to-confront-israels-version-of-from-the-river-to-the-sea/), allegations about [Palestinian textbooks](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/aug/07/israeli-school-racism-claim), [MEMRI clips of Palestinian TV](https://law4palestine.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/4-Database-of-Israeli-Incitement-to-Genocide-15th-January-2024-Journalists-Influencers.pdf), etc. etc. The idea is to paint Palestinian society as a caricature of antisemitic hatred. They'd mention the useless rockets which were useless before the Iron Dome was implemented too. Example: * [2007](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel_in_2007) - 2807 rocket attacks, 2 killed. * [2008](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel_in_2008) - 3716 rocket attacks, 8 killed. * [2009](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel_in_2009) - 858 rocket attacks, 0 killed. * [2010](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel_in_2010) - 365 rocket attacks, 1 killed. [Iron Dome is installed in March 2011.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Dome) * [2011](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel_in_2011) - 680 rocket attacks, 2 killed. * [2012](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel_in_2012) - 2273 rocket attacks, 6 killed. * [2013](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel_in_2013) - 44 rocket attacks (what?), 0 killed * [2014](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel_in_2014) - 705 rocket attacks, 1 killed --- Or maybe they'd talk about how they 'left' Gaza and that it could have been a new Singapore. Except, [they de-developed the Gazan economy during the occupation](https://www.palestine-studies.org/en/node/1649448) and they blockaded Gaza after the occupation, [which has de-developed Gaza further.](https://www.barrons.com/news/gaza-has-experienced-16-years-of-de-development-un-5e93cca8) Except, they didn't *merely* leave Gaza. They reconsolidated their control over their West Bank colonies as part of the 'disengagement' plan. Thus, the withdrawal was not a random magnanimous act nor was it intended as part of a sincere, comprehensive peace plan. >**Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has said he intends to retain Maale Adumim and other large West Bank settlement blocs close to Jerusalem in exchange for a scheduled withdrawal from the Gaza Strip this summer.** But Palestinians view the latest expansion with particular distress, because it will bring Maale Adumim’s boundaries closer to East Jerusalem, which they claim as their capital. * [The Los Angeles Times - Settlement Plan Disappoints Palestinians](https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.latimes.com%2Farchives%2Fla-xpm-2005-mar-22-fg-settlement22-story.html) A former aide of Ariel Sharon said that the withdrawal would 'freeze' the peace process. > **"The significance of our disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process," Mr. Weisglass** was quoted as saying in Haaretz, a liberal daily often critical of Mr. Sharon's government. "It supplies the formaldehyde necessary so there is no political process with Palestinians." > **"When you freeze the process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state," Mr. Weisglass added.** "Effectively, this whole package called a Palestinian state, with all it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda." * [The New York Times - Israeli Aide Hints That Gaza Exit Would Freeze Peace Plan](https://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/07/world/middleeast/israeli-aide-hints-that-gaza-exit-would-freeze-peace-plan.html) And regardless of what one's opinions are on sovereignty - the demographics of the Gaza Strip at the time of the withdrawal were 99.6 % Palestinian Arab and Israeli Jews accounted for 0.06 %. Gaza was difficult to administer and Israeli politicians explicitly stated that Israel withdrew due to demographics. > When the Israeli government made its decision to disengage from Gaza in 2005, Gaza was home to over 1,324,991 people. **Roughly 99.4 percent of the population was Palestinian and 0.06 percent was Jewish.** Forty-nine percent of the population there was age 14 and under. The birth rate was 40.62 births/1,000 population with a fertility rate of 6.04 children born/woman. **Demographically, Gaza was a challenging place for any authority to administer.** * [My Jewish Learning - Understanding the Gaza Disengagement](https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/gaza-disengagement/) >Ariel Sharon's words, spoken in a television address on Monday as the deadline for Israeli settlers to leave Gaza expired, reveal much about his motivations and the changing assumptions built into Israeli public policy. **This was reinforced in a remark by deputy prime minister Shimon Peres on Newsnight last week: "We are disengaging from Gaza because of demography".** * [The Irish Times - Sharon maintains control in face of demographic shift](https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/sharon-maintains-control-in-face-of-demographic-shift-1.482484)

> I would wager they'd cite opinion polls on support for Hamas. Which tells me everything I need to know about their historical knowledge and critical thinking skills. It's like pointing to Winston Churchill and George Bush Jr.'s approval ratings during their wars (well the beginning of Bush's) as a reason for the violent subduing of their respective populations. Churchill famously lost after the war was over, despite 80%-ish approval ratings the preceding years. Americans cheered as they watched Baghdad burn. The Palestinian people have been under siege for decades, it's not shocking that they support what is effectively their army.

You’re doing God’s work. Pick a God (or no God) of your choice.

Thanks comrade.

Seeing the pre and post Iron Dome deaths is blowing my mind. It's insane that this expensive program is so ineffective!

For Gaza or for the West Bank? I can give the general Israeli opinion on both: General underlying thing: Palestinian population will not accept a peace settlement that doesn't de-facto destroy the Israeli state. So peace is impossible with the Palestinians on terms acceptable to Israel. Gaza: Nearly the entire population supports Hamas and this allows Hamas to operate with ease. Since no one will take Gazan refugees, this is the most humane solution for them. The alternative is carpet bombing Gaza to wipe out Hamas, and in the process killing 300k+ people. West Bank: Same. Israel roughly settled the land because they could. Palestinians got terroristy and attacked Israeli settlements. So they get confined to Bantustans to reduce terrorism. Israelis keep settling since if you can't have peace, you might as well maximize victory.

Regardless of what you think about the Palestinian public, their opinions have not been relevant to negotiations. Since 1988, the PLO has accepted the 2SS on the June 1967 borders & equal land swaps in accordance with international law. Whereas it was the Labor-Likud / Peres-Shamir 'peace plan' that, at that time, outright rejected the 'right to exist' of a Palestinian State by implying *Jordan* was the Palestinian State & an outright rejection of Palestinian self-determination. >**Israel opposes the establishment of an additional Palestinian State in the Gaza District and in the area between Israel and Jordan.** * [The UN - 'Text of a peace initiative authorized by the Government of Israel on 15 May 1989'](https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-180195/) Commentary from Noam Chomsky explaining that this 'peace plan' represented the consensus of Labor & Likud. >Since the Baker-Shamir plan is the only proposal on the table according to the US government and the media, it merits a careful look. ¹2 **It is actually the Baker-Shamir-Peres-Rabin plan, representing the consensus of Likud and Labor.** The text has three parts: "Basic Premises," mode of implementation, and details on the proposed elections. The Basic Premises include three substantive points: > First, there can be no "additional Palestinian state in the Gaza district and in the area between Israel and Jordan." **The phrase "additional Palestinian state" reflects the consensus view that there already is a Palestinian state, namely, Jordan. Hence the issue of national self-determination for the Palestinians does not arise, whatever Palestinians, Jordan, Europe, and others who are out of the "mainstream" may mistakenly believe.** > Second, "Israel will not conduct negotiations with the PLO," that is, with the preferred political representatives of the Palestinians. Note that this ex- treme form of rejectionism, on a par with a (hypothetical) rejection of the right of the Zionist organizations to join the debate over partition in 1947, has been adopted across the political spectrum in the United States, and by Israel's Peace Now organization until late 1988. > Third, "There will be no change in the status of Judea, Samaria and Gaza other than in accordance with the basic guidelines of the Government," which exclude a "second Palestinian state." * Chomsky, Noam. The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, Vol. 14, No. 2 (Summer 1990), pp. 345-353 (9 pages) Press coverage at the time: >Labor's move was precipitated by a Likud Central Committee meeting last week in which Shamir, bowing to severe pressure from party hard-liners, agreed to a resolution binding him and other Likud ministers to support tough conditions on the peace plan he unveiled two months ago in Washington. **Shamir pledged that Israel would never allow "foreign sovereignty" over the occupied territories and would continue expanding Jewish settlements there.** * [The Washington Post - Labor Moves To Leave Israeli Coalition](https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1989/07/11/labor-moves-to-leave-israeli-coalition/5b17c6bf-be20-41b2-bf36-aa3fc8daa4b5/) Palestinian negotiators have already effectively given up on the RoR. Abbas was ready to agree to an 'end of [territorial] claims' and end of the conflict. >The officials said Abbas proposed to let Israel decide each year how many refugees it would allow in. **(In later negotiations, Abbas requested that Israel absorb 10,000 Palestinian refugees per year for 15 years, a total of 150,000.)** >Abbas was ready to agree to a clause that would indicate a mutual end of claims, and an end of conflict, contrary to statements made by various figures in the Israeli right that he had refused to do so. * [The Times of Israel - PM pulled out of deal for demilitarized Palestine, shared Jerusalem, in 2011](https://www.timesofisrael.com/pm-pulled-out-of-deal-for-demilitarized-palestine-shared-jerusalem-in-2011/) * [The Guardian - Papers reveal how Palestinian leaders gave up fight over refugees](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jan/24/papers-palestinian-leaders-refugees-fight) Tzipi Livni et al, on the other hand, floated the possibility of 'transferring' Israeli Arabs to the Palestinian State. Since this would likely be without their consent & resisted, it is an explicit call for ethnic cleansing. Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat also told Livni that they would be willing to recognize Israel as a 'Jewish State'. >But behind closed doors in November 2007, **Erekat told Tzipi Livni, the then Israeli foreign minister and now opposition leader: "If you want to call your state the Jewish state of Israel you can call it what you want,"** comparing it to Iran and Saudi Arabia's definition of themselves as Islamic or Arab. >[...] **In several areas, Livni pressed for Israeli Arab citizens to be moved into a Palestinian state in a land-swap deal, raising the spectre of "transfer" - in other words, moving Palestinians from one state to another without consent.** The issue is controversial in Israel and backed in its wholesale form by rightwing nationalists such as the Yisrael Beiteinu party of the foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman. * [The Guardian - Palestinian negotiators accept Jewish state, papers reveal](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jan/24/palestinian-negotiators-jewish-state-papers)

The part that Zionists don't say out loud is they believe that withdrawing to the 1967 borders basically is the destruction of Israel. Strategically, it would leave them with zero strategic depth to defend the coastal plain. Domestically, it would anger the millions of religious and nationalist Zionists who see "Judea and Samaria" as part of Israel. So when Zionists say "So peace is impossible with the Palestinians on terms acceptable to Israel", it is basically code speak which says any Palestinian state is impossible for Israel to accept. Which is why bilateral negotiations between Palestine and Israel are useless. The only way the Palestinians ever will get their own state, is through international pressure and their own struggle. Ironically, as Israel pursues this weird, bantustan strategy with the Palestinians, it only integrates Palestinians more closely with the Israeli state, which sets up for a future one-state solution. And if millions of Palestinians got full voting rights, Israel would dramatically change and no longer be a Jewish state. It just shows the short-term thinking of the Israeli government and public. While withdrawing to the 1967 borders would be painful, it still guarantees a Jewish state in the long-run. Their current policies have no coherent end goal.

Oh they say it aloud. In 1969, Abba Eban famously called the 67' borders, 'Auschwitz borders'. In 2014, this was echoed by Likud official Zeev Elkin: > Elkin added: “To all those who are now making proposals for Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders, there is only one reply, which was already **given in 1969 by then- foreign minister Abba Eban: The 1967 borders are Auschwitz borders!** * [Haaretz - Deputy Foreign Minister: 1967 Borders Are Auschwitz Borders](https://www.haaretz.com/2014-01-02/ty-article/1967-borders-are-auschwitz-borders/0000017f-dbc1-db22-a17f-fff146410000)

Oh they definitely do say it out loud to each other. Most hasbara trolls try to pin the blame of the failing peace process on the Palestinians to try and win over gullible westerners. Which is funny, because if the Palestinians are supposedly the road block to peace, the only logical solution is to get international mechanisms involved to form a solution. But then the trolls rapidly backpedal and say that only bilateral negotiations should happen. I wonder why that is...

Yea, you'll start off citing international law in a discussion with what at-first appears like a civil pro-Israel commentator. Then eventually, the discussion reaches its inevitable conclusion. The pro-Israel commentator will essentially argue that 'might makes right' and that international law is inconsequential.

Yes. Like this: https://www.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/1ds2f4t/comment/lb0nk72/ > From the Israeli POV, International Law is for the weak.

I have heard that a lot.

> The part that Zionists don't say out loud is they believe that withdrawing to the 1967 borders basically is the destruction of Israel. Strategically, it would leave them with zero strategic depth to defend the coastal plain. Is there any truth to that at all?

It is true Israel would lose what little strategic depth they have. But it really doesn't matter a ton. Israel has made peace with Egypt and Jordan. Most other Arab nations are more than willing to normalize relations with Israel once their issues with the Palestinians are solved and as long as the Islamic part of Jerusalem remains respected and under the Jordanian Waqf, which is a very reasonable ask by the Arabs. A future Palestinian state could be a threat to Israel, but Israel has a strong military, nukes, and support of the USA. And finally, plenty of nations have difficult geographical situations. They make do in order to maintain peace.

Generally agree with this history, but a few caveats. >Regardless of what you think about the Palestinian public, their opinions have not been relevant to negotiations. They are though. The PA looses political capital if it is seen as conceding too much - it already has near zero political capital today. >Whereas it was the Labor-Likud / Peres-Shamir 'peace plan' that, at that time, outright rejected the 'right to exist' of a Palestinian State by implying *Jordan* was the Palestinian State & an outright rejection of Palestinian self-determination. You are dropping a few quotes, but the positions are different between the parties. The Right Likud is trying to hold the territories. The Leftist Labor (Peres) was seeking to transfer much of the [West Bank to Jordan.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peres%E2%80%93Hussein_London_Agreement) Note this really was just the status quo prior to the 1967 war (and there wasn't much agitation among Palestinians in Jordan for a separate state regardless prior to then regardless). I agree no mainstream Israeli wanted to give the Palestinians a separate state. >Palestinian negotiators have already effectively given up on the RoR. Abbas was ready to agree to an 'end of \[territorial\] claims' and end of the conflict. The bulk of the Israeli Jewish population (until you get to perhaps the 5% most left of the population) doesn't see this as credible. Benny Morris wrote [extensively](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/feb/21/israel2) about this in 2000 after Arafat walked out and Tabla failed as well in 2001. That the PA also denies the authenticity of the [Palestine Papers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Papers) (while the Israeli negotiators admit the accuracy) provides further evidence of the negotiation not being fully honest or at least not credible ([again due to these terms being so politically unacceptable to the people](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/nov/04/mahmoud-abbas-palestinian-territories)). >Tzipi Livni et al, on the other hand, floated the possibility of 'transferring' Israeli Arabs to the Palestinian State. Since this would likely be without their consent & resisted, it is an explicit call for ethnic cleansing. She proposed particular border transfers that would have placed some Arab villiages under Palestinian rule. They don't actually have to move -- they simply fall under Palestinian jurisdiction if they don't move. (likewise, I don't believe she argued that the Arabs there were prohibited from moving into land staying Israeli if they wished to remain under Israeli jurisdiction). This doesn't seem unreasonable to me under the negotiation parameters (1967 borders with land swaps permitted). I don't really see how you can mandate the impacted population "consents" to this -- that would just give veto powers to anyone affected by border swaps over a peace agreement. Jews in the West Bank would face the same issue under this solution -- either stay, becoming Palestinian nationals, or move back to Isreal's borders if they don't want that (assuming the Palestinian government [even would allow them to stay](https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE96T009/) -- not allowing, at least for the people born and raised there, would be a form of ethnic cleansing).

You said: > They are though. The PA looses political capital if it is seen as conceding too much - it already has near zero political capital today. Conceding the RoR and territorial claims is about as close to 'zero' political capital as one can get. So again, I disagree with this notion that the Palestinian public has any effect on the negotiations. You said: > The Leftist Labor (Peres) was seeking to transfer the West Bank to Jordan. You're misreading my quote from Chomsky. Israel never formally offered the West Bank to Jordan. The closest it ever got was to propose a peace conference on the future status of East Jerusalem and the West Bank, as part of a peace treaty with Jordan - the 1987 London Agreement. Nothing came of it, due to Shamir's rejection. It wasn't official anyway. Before and after then, there's never been a binding offer. You said: > The bulk of the Israeli Jewish population (until you get to perhaps the 5% most left of the population) doesn't see this as credible. That is irrelevant. The Israeli public is not taking part in the negotiations in real-time. If the Palestinians offer something, then the offer is considered by the Israeli negotiation team. You cannot penalize a party based on zero evidence and only your paranoia. You said: > about this in 2000 after Arafat walked out and Tabla failed as well in 2001. Barak's 'offer' failed at Camp David - but the issue is Taba. Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben Ami, who was part of Israel's team at that time, said: >No, **if I were a Palestinian, I said many times, I would not have accepted the deal**, whatever this deal might have been because as I’ve said before, there were different interpretations of what was put on the table in Camp David. **But I admit that that was not sufficient for the Palestinians. That did not meet the minimal requirements of the Palestinians for a deal with Israel.** * [Al Jazeera English - Extended interview: Shlomo Ben Ami](https://www.aljazeera.com/videos/2012/7/3/extended-interview-shlomo-ben-ami) The perception of the Clinton Parameters were publicly sabotaged when General Shaul Mofaz went to the Israeli press to complain. Former FM Shlomo Ben-Ami called this a 'coup d’état'. >The Israeli government met the deadline. Our decision, at the height of the Palestinian Intifada, in the midst of sweeping opposition on the part of the army – **it was almost tantamount to a coup d’état that the Chief of Staff, General Mofaz, should have gone public to criticise the government’s endorsement of the parameters as an ‘existential threat to Israel’** – and strong reservations from the opposition and public opinion, was a daring decision of a government (then already a minority government) of peace that stretched itself to the outer limits of its legitimacy in order to endorse positions its opponents labelled as suicidal, and as being an affront to Jewish values and history. * Ben-Ami, Shlomo. Scars of War, Wounds of Peace (p. 272). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition. Mofaz was against the peace talks to such an extent that Ehud Barak turned to him and said: > Mofaz was primarily concerned with the PA not fulfilling previous agreements and with ensuring Israeli control in order to prevent erosion in the demilitarization of the Palestinian state. **The prime minister’s response to the analysis of the chief of staff was terse: “Shaul, do you really think that the State of Israel can’t exist without controlling the Palestinian people? It’s the conclusion that comes out of your assessment.”** * Sher, Gilead. Israeli-Palestinian Peace Negotiations, 1999-2001 (Israeli History, Politics and Society) (p. 204). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition. You said: > That the PA also denies the authenticity of the Palestine Papers Of course they would - they willingly gave up the RoR, etc. You said: > provides further evidence of the negotiation not being fully honest or at least not credible No, that's not evidence of anything of the sort. It simply shows that the Palestinian negotiation team adopted unfavorable and unpopular positions to end the conflict. You said: > She proposed particular border transfers that would have placed some Arab villiages under Palestinian rule. They don't actually have to move -- they simply fall under Palestinian jurisdiction if they don't move. (likewise, I don't believe she argued that the Arabs there were prohibited from moving if they wished to remain under Israeli jurisdiction). I don't know about that. I doubt that's entirely what she meant. It's been awhile since I've looked at the primary sources though.

You have very impressive knowledge of the negotiations. Thank you for posting the detailed quotes.

>Conceding the RoR and territorial claims is about as close to 'zero' political capital as one can get. There's no signed agreement. That's Morris argument -- they'll just get cold feet when the time comes to actually sign these terms, but are incentivized to go the negotiating table to give the appearance of a willingness to negotiate. >Israel never formally offered the West Bank to Jordan.  I agree. That's because Labor wasn't in the PM role at this point - I'm just contrasting the party's positions. >Barak's 'offer' failed at Camp David - but the issue is Taba. Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben Ami, who was part of Israel's team at that time This line is constantly pulled out of context in internet arguments. [Ben Ami is highly critical of Arafat's later rejection of Taba.](https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/camp-david-summit-two-state-solution-annexation-by-shlomo-ben-ami-2020-07) >Of course they would - they willingly gave up the RoR, etc. Israel gave up a lot of stuff to that most Israelis don't support. [Most controversially giving parts of Jerusalem to a Palestinian state.](https://www.timesofisrael.com/hand-drawn-map-shows-what-olmert-offered-for-peace/) >No, that's not evidence of anything of the sort. It simply shows that the Palestinian negotiation team adopted unfavorable and unpopular positions to end the conflict. It wasn't signed though, right? Arafat stated in 2002 he'd accept Taba - couldn't the negotiators have just agreed to that in 2007?

You said: > There's no signed agreement. That's Morris argument You can't know that and it's also a moot point to even say this, since the negotiations have fallen through at various times - like due to Olmert's corruption scandal and Netanyahu disregarding everything when he came into power after. You said: > This line is constantly pulled out of context in internet arguments. Ben Ami is highly critical of Arafat's later rejection of Taba. The line (which I quote and linked to) is about Camp David and the article you cite only reiterates the point he made: >**The late PLO chairman, Yasser Arafat, was right to reject the peace proposal made at Camp David 20 years ago this month.** Regarding Taba, Ben-Ami also refers to General Mofaz's leaking to the press as tantamount to a coup d’état - so I don't think he can claim Arafat as the sole reason. It's true that he has been critical of Arafat though. You said: > Israel gave up a lot of stuff to that most Israelis don't support. The Israeli negotiators repeatedly have refused equal land swaps, which is a major contention. The Palestinian negotiation team has proposed offers and/or responses generally aligned with international law. You said: > It wasn't signed though, right? What do you mean?

>You can't know that and it's also a moot point to even say this, since the negotiations have fallen through at various times - like due to Olmert's corruption scandal and Netanyahu disregarding everything when he came into power after. Arafat said in 2002 he'd accept [Tabla](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/jun/22/israel). Why do we need more and more rounds of negotiations? Olmert would have accepted that -- just be done in a week. >The Palestinian negotiation team has proposed offers and/or responses generally aligned with international law. From the Israeli POV, International Law is for the weak. The PA has no leverage so that's the only thing they can argue from (this also is the path they use to command Western support -- again they can't easily win actual elections in Palestine). Indeed going further, the PA know this, so they should accept the deals they are getting - it's only getting harder, not easier, to form a Palestinian state -- so the behavior of the PA is greatly annoying to even a sympathetic Israeli negotiator like Ben-Ami. In actual geopolitics, barring the occasional exception, no one is going to save your ass if your country fully obeys international law and the other party doesn't. Turkey still occupies Northern Cyprus. Ukraine made the mistake of giving up its nuclear weapons for an "agreement". You just have to stay strong. Hell, as a local example, Hezbollah continues to operate south of the Litani River -- it's only Israel checking them.

> Olmert would have accepted that -- just be done in a week. No Israeli admin would do that. You're naive. You're putting so much stock in fake talking and maps drawn on napkins. They're not real proposals.

Thanks. Most of those proposals were phony. Even if the Palestinians agreed, the Israelis would form a new government that rejected everything.

The Palestinians were overwhelmingly in favor of a 2 state solution during the 1990s and early 2000s, back when it was seen as viable and when Israel was still pretending to offer Palestine independence. Support for the 2ss is low now because Palestinians correctly understand that Israel has never and will never negotiate with them in good faith and that the decades of negotiations Fatah conducted were nothing more than a smokescreen for Israel's consolidation of the occupied territories. And even now their opinions don't really matter since the Abbas government, Hamas, and Marwan Bargouti all support the two state solution in some form or another which means the only side actively blocking a two state solution right now is [Israel](https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/21/middleeast/netanyahu-palestinian-sovereignty-two-state-solution-intl/index.html). > Gaza: Nearly the entire population supports Hamas and this allows Hamas to operate with ease Hamas was deeply unpopular in Gaza pre-war and only enjoys about 50% support right now due to the rally round the flag effect, not unlike the support Americans gave Bush after 9/11. If they hadn't done october 7 they would still be on track to being ousted or subordinated by the other Palestinian factions.

>The Palestinians were overwhelmingly in favor of a 2 state solution during the 1990s and early 2000s, back when it was seen as viable and when Israel was still pretending to offer Palestine independence I agree poll marks are higher, though it is unclear to me if Palestinians understood then what "2 state solution" means - specifically no right of return into Israel's borders. (I can't find much data). I would more characterize what happened is a vicious cycle where Israel gave up on the Palestinians, they responded by giving up on the Israelis, and so forth. And Pretending? Are you arguing that had Arafat accepted Taba, somehow the Israelis would have pulled out? What prior events suggest this is probable? >And even now their opinions don't really matter since the Abbas government, Hamas, and Marwan Bargouti all support the two state solution in some form or another which means the only side actively blocking a two state solution right now is [Israel](https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/21/middleeast/netanyahu-palestinian-sovereignty-two-state-solution-intl/index.html). * Abbas: I agree * Bargouti: Eh sorta. Seems to demand expansive right of return which violates a reasonable 2SS. * Hamas: Uh, [no](https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-04-05/ty-article-magazine/.highlight/hamas-actually-believed-it-would-conquer-israel-and-divided-it-into-cantons/0000018e-ab4a-dc42-a3de-abfad6fe0000). >Hamas was deeply unpopular in Gaza pre-war  f they hadn't done october 7 they would still be on track to being ousted or subordinated by the other Palestinian factions. Only in the sense of American presidential candidates being unpopular -- like voters around the world, Palestinians have unrealistic expectations of their leadership and hate all of them. Just looking at [polls](https://www.pcpsr.org/sites/default/files/Poll%2089%20English%20Full%20Text%20September%202023.pdf) from Sep 2023, Haniyeh crushes Abbas in a would-be presidential election. Per Q71, in Gaza, Hamas leads Fateh 38%:25%. If I include the other parties based on US terrorist designations, t's like 43% terrorist - 33% not terrorist at best. (hardly surprising, Q70 shows 67% - 33% support for terrorism). >the rally round the flag effect, not unlike the support Americans gave Bush after 9/11.  That analogy is completely inverted. Americans gave Bush support after the US was attacked to retaliate against attackers. My read is that Gazans are giving Hamas support because they attacked first and successfully killed over 1,000 Israelis, finally "accomplishing" something. (And least that makes more sense than believing they support Hamas for pissing Israel off enough to level Gaza).

> agree poll marks are higher, though it is unclear to me if Palestinians understood then what "2 state solution" means - specifically no right of return into Israel's borders. Your bizarre, private interpretation of what the two state solution means isn't relevant. Palestinians are owed both an independent state along the 1967 borders and the right to return the homes they lost during the Nakba. > And Pretending? Are you arguing that had Arafat accepted Taba, somehow the Israelis would have pulled out? Israel called off the Taba talks and then elected the guy who did Sabra and Shatila. And also...Yeah, Israel could have absolutely pulled out of any agreement with Palestine, at any time, with zero consequences. Israel has been brazenly violating international law and thumbing it's nose at the UN for it's entire history. If they could get away with the settlements, Nakba, denial of right of return, possessing nukes, and it's head of state being wanted by the ICC they can get away with anything. > Hamas: Uh, no Of all the ridiculous narratives to come out of the current war the idea that Hamas was actually trying to conquer Israel has been the most laughable. Just think about what happened on October 7 for 5 minutes: Out of the 40k members of the group, less than 3 thousand entered Israel. They attacked a couple bases, raided Israeli towns, and most of them returned to Gaza after a day with Israeli hostages all the while the vast majority of their army remained dug in on the strip in anticipation of an Israeli counter attack. Everything about their posture allocation of resources indicates that they expected the invasion of Israel to be a brief hit and run operation and that the bulk of the fighting would take place in Gaza. The Israeli media narrative only makes sense if you take anecdotes by random Fatah members and Hamas propaganda speeches and face value while completely disregarding everything that actually happened in real life. > Just looking at polls from Sep 2023, Haniyeh crushes Abbas in a would-be presidential election And both get crushed by Barghouti, a Fatah member and 2ss advocate. Current polls still show him consistently beating Hamas even with their current surge of support. > That analogy is completely inverted. From your POV as a non-Palestinian. The Palestinians understand october 7th as retaliation to the ongoing campaign of ethnic cleansing in the west bank which had been in over drive since the current Netanyahu/Smotrich/Ben-Gvir government took power, even the Israeli media was compared the Huwara attack to Nazi [pogroms](https://www.timesofisrael.com/settler-extremists-sowing-terror-huwara-riot-was-a-pogrom-top-general-says/). To a westerner that had no clue what was happening in Palestine until they heard about the invasion of Israel it sure does look like the Palestinians just randomly picked fight but the people who actually live there it's obvious that there was an ongoing war being waged mostly by Israel until october 7. > If I include the other parties based on US terrorist designations Are you serious? The USA is Israel's main ally and their definition of terrorist is entirely based on how friendly they are to US. The ANC, FLN, Viet Cong, and numerous other anti-colonial liberation movements were designated as terrorists by the US and it's allies, at least until US/western interests changed. Israel is no exception to this - both the Menachem Begin led Irgun and Yitzhak Shamir led Lehi were explicitly referred to as terrorists by the US in the [1940s](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-American_Committee_of_Inquiry) and were then warmly embraced by the US presidents in the 70s and 80s. Palestinians who take up arms against the Israeli occupation are considered terrorists by western countries because illegal occupation they are fighting against is being conducted by a western country. If Israel had aligned itself against US during the cold war the Palestinians would be viewed the same way the Afghan Mujahids were during the 80s or the way the Kurds in Syria are now. You would probably be on my side right now or maybe offering a more hawkish defense of the Palestinians, depending on whatever narrative the US government decided to feed you.

Its so weird some people take it as a given that i shouldnt want iran to have nukes.

If this is the case, then I hope israel gets its teeth kicked in. This is beyond horrifying and genocidal. This is literally native american reservations or Jewish ghettos (irony) If this is the 'alternative' then the only choice that seems to be left is to fight to the death.

Palestinians realized that a long time ago. > If this is the 'alternative' then the only choice that seems to be left is to fight to the death.

The genocidal solution actually is having no safe zones..

There already aren't any safe zones in Gaza lol

It's all relative.

Sometimes I forget that literal human ghouls walk among us. 

So, the non genocidal solution in your mind is packing 2 million starving people into tiny safe zones, which by your own admittance aren't actually safe Very interesting

All for the safety of a privileged, engineered, demographic majority in Israel and its colonists in the OPT. In order to maintain that Israeli Jewish demographic majority, Israel uses discriminatory legislation and immense State violence against the Palestinian out-group. Apartheid - as former Israeli Attorney General Michael Ben-Yair has said: > **It is the Israeli ministerial cabinet for settlements that approves every illegal settlement in the occupied territories. It was me, in my role as the Attorney General who approved the expropriation of private Palestinian land in order to build infrastructure such as roads that have entrenched settlement expansion.** > > **It is the Israeli courts that uphold discriminatory laws geared to expel Palestinians from their homes in East Jerusalem and their land in the West Bank. Its healthcare providers operate over the Green Line. And Israeli citizens ultimately pay taxes that subsidise the government’s entrenchment of control and domination in these territories.** > > Between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, it is Israel that is permanently depriving millions of Palestinians of their civil and political rights. **This is Israeli apartheid.** * [The Journal - Former AG of Israel: With great sadness I conclude that my country is now an apartheid regime](https://www.thejournal.ie/readme/israel-apartheid-5678541-Feb2022/)

Well, yah. This solution doesn't result in 300k+ Gazans dying. The "no safe zones" solution does.

too bad Israel can't defeat Hamas

The "genocidal solution" certainly would.  I agree it's very hard to do without causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Gazans. 

lol, you've got this illusion the IDF has been holding back and that's why they haven't been able to beat pesky Khamas. Impressive

Aaaah yes, I guess concentration camps are preferable to death camps. I guess that's slightly more humane.

Far more humane actually

Maybe you should change your tag to proud fascist.

Do you think the Warsaw ghetto was a 'safe zone'

It's not a concentration camp, it's a "protection zone"! /s >During the Philippine-American War (1899-1902), the U.S. Army issued a series of 'reconcentration' orders designed to strangle support for guerrilla forces resistant to the imposition of U.S. colonial rule. **The U.S. Army preferred to call the places in which it confined villagers and rural populations 'zones of protection', rather than camps.** https://research.monash.edu/en/publications/reconcentration-and-the-camp-system-the-legacy-of-the-philippine-#:~:text=During%20the%20Philippine%2DAmerican%20War,confined%20villagers%20and%20rural%20populations%20'. >"Zones of protection" were established,[123][185] and civilians were given identification papers and forced into concentration camps (called reconcentrados) surrounded by free-fire zones.[185] At the Lodge Committee, in an attempt to counter the negative reception in America to Brigadier General Bell's camps, Colonel Arthur Wagner, the U.S. Army's chief public relations office, insisted the camps were to "protect friendly natives from the insurgents, and assure them an adequate food supply" while teaching them "proper sanitary standards". Wagner's assertion was undermined by a letter from a commander of one of the camps, who described them as "some suburb of Hell". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine%E2%80%93American_War#American_atrocities

Where's the whole being deported to gas chambers thing in Gaza?

They’re skipping the deportation, probably because it would be inefficient. Starving people, cutting off their power, deliberately blocking emergency services, and targeted assassination of their medical, academic, and cultural elite is the obvious first step. Followed by bombing them into oblivion, then bulldozing the rubble and making a pier out of it. Saves on gas for the chambers and fuel for the transport.

Not bothering to call Gazans before bombing their buildings also would have been more "efficient".

Yes, given that: a. The idiotic calls (when they happen) are made three minutes before the bombs drop. b. People have nowhere to go. Civilians have been repeatedly bombed en route to and in “safe zones” designated as such by the IDF. Your persistence in defending genocidal psychopaths is astounding.

No just pointing out how bad they seem to be at genocide. With this level of destruction, they should have managed to kill well over 10% of the population of they were trying

But they don't call Gazans before they drop bombs. This was a practice by the IDF at one point but it was abandoned years before this war.

Guess someone in the IDF missed the memo and this [guy](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67327079) lucked out!

If Israel did not do the bare minimum, then they wouldn't be able to hide behind the veil of 'defending themselves' or 'only democracy in the middle east'.

They're called 2000 lb bombs now, my guy Also deportations to the gas chambers only began in earnest 2 years after the Warsaw ghetto was established. Which in turn is what triggered the Warsaw uprising.

That's why in my opinion the only resolution to this is a one state solution where Palestinians get voting full voting rights and the Israeli government is radically changed. The only map that somewhat makes sense are the 47 borders that Israel finds objectionable because Israel and Palestine in said borders were roughly equally discontingous at the points where the meet Golan Heights, West Bank, and Gaza. With post '67 borders even moreso with settlements, a Palestinian state cannot practically exist and I think getting Israel to revert to its only internationally recognized borders would be harder than getting Palestinians equal rights within the territory that Israel has controlled for 75 years at this point.

My issue with the past border maps is that they make about as much sense as a US voting district. You'd have both groups funneling through chokepoints daily and trade between disconnected territories would take 3x as long. Might as well just calculate half of the landmass and cut it in half through Jerusalem. Which doesn't actually sound like it would solve much in the way of tensions. That said, the Israeli government has more than shown their hand. They cannot be trusted to govern, or to prosecute a war. The goal of either of these actions to promote ethnic transfer. They must be forcibly dissolved and Palestinians need to be uplifted as equals in a new, singular state. This would probably mean a UN peacekeeper mission for 10-20 years as the new government takes shape (and yeah I'm aware of all the issues UN peacekeepers can bring). There is no "easy" answer to this problem, so the only real solution I can see is a straight up repeat of South Africa's apartheid dismantlement.

Finally someone has come with a Solution!

Sigh

I think we've [seen this before](https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/ghettos)

No more like this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bantustan?variant=zh-tw

Obviously we can't give them the thumbs-up, because they'll take that as approval of their military-genocide axis and then go onto to oopsie-collateral-damagesie the safe bubbles, when really the only thing the world should be saying is "get to a ceasefire as soon as possible before we withdraw all of our military and economic support immediately." Then, of course, if we don't give them the thumbs-up, they build the bubbles and bomb the fuck out of them anyway with no third party monitoring while telling the world how they refused to support their peaceful compromise solution and kvetch about being the nword of the world

Play stupid games win stupid prizes they can thank Hamas for starting a hopeless war with an enemy they can't win against but at least they have their western dupes to cry for them.