If you voted against Kamala Harris—or just stayed home—because you were pissed off about Gaza, I have bad news for you:
Israel’s Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich welcomed President Donald Trump’s electoral victory Monday, saying that “the time has come” to extend full Israeli sovereignty over the occupied West Bank.
....During Trump’s first term, he said, “we were on the verge of applying sovereignty over the settlements” in the West Bank, “and now the time has come to make it a reality.”
....“Moving forward, I intend to lead a government decision stating that the Israeli government will work with President Trump’s new administration and the international community to apply sovereignty and seek American recognition,” Smotrich said.
Smotrich is one of those religious lunatics who make Netanyahu look moderate, and he's been agitating for annexation of the West Bank forever. So until we hear this from Netanyahu himself, take it with a grain of salt.
Still. It's certainly a sign that Israelis expect Trump to green-light anything they do, without even the annoying bleating they get from Biden about "starvation" and "human rights" and other nonsense. As always, be careful what you wish for.
The pro-genocide candidate won and the candidate to say genocide was bad lost.
Ohboy.
But her emails
Electoral stupidity isn’t confined to MAGA.
Among other things, the Starlink Snowflake's minions were out lying their asses off in Michigan about this. Too many politically engaged people are utterly incapable of understanding that normal people are simply ignorant of most political noise.
So you can belittle voters if that makes you feel better, but you're not doing anyone else any good.
Who's belittling voters?
If they were misled, they're innocent.
But there are plently of voices still blaming Harris and Biden for things out of their hands and forced by a Republican Congress.
If people are misled by a con man like Trump they are to blame, not Trump. I'm tired of giving people the benefit of the doubt. They've long since ceased deserving it.
It is heartbreaking.
Asking Palestinian-Americans who have friends or family living & dying in Gaza to vote for the administration sending the bombs... That's a lot to ask no matter how sound your logic.
Palestinian-Americans did not cost us the election. Isn't an 'I told you so' to people faced with such a fraught choice a little mean-spirited? I understand you are right on the merits, but what are you trying to achieve with this post?
But those who voted for Trump were voting for the genocide of the Palestinians.
Yes they were.
That's why it is heartbreaking. Because voting for Harris was also voting for the genocide of the Palestinians.
Yes, Trump is worse, but the Biden administration is supporting what Israel is doing in Gaza.
Yes, yes. It is heartbreaking to ask people to make the same political calculations that anyone with a basic understanding of how elections in this country work would have to.
FFS, yes, it's a hard fate to be called upon to vote as to whether the trolley runs over 5 people or 50, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a pretty fucking easy question to answer.
You honestly believe that Harris Gaza policy = Trump Gaza policy?
Only someone disingenuous says that, tomtom.
Decisions in politics are rarely between good and bad. Most of the time it's who's not the worst. Subtract the Palestinian situation and who is the better choice for Americans? It's easier said than done I know, but that's life.
Thank you for being evidence for the intentional misleading of people.
Only one candidate cheered on the bombs. Only one party invited Netayahu. Only one party forced the shipments to continue without being held up for you know, human rights issues.
It wasn't VP Harris or President Biden.
And yet you pretend it was.
+1
It's pretty clear that Muslim Americans were either voting for Trump or not voting at all. So they alone didn't lose the election for Harris but were part of a coalition that supported Dems previously and led to Harris losing. I want to be clear that there were others that led to a Harris defeat as well
"Asking Palestinian-Americans who have friends or family living & dying in Gaza to vote for the administration sending the bombs... That's a lot to ask"
Maybe, but the other choice was a candidate who has promised to send those same bombs as well as support Israel without condition. One side was vulnerable, at least in a small way, to civic action. Protests and pressure had a chance, however small, of affecting the Harris position on the conflict. The other side is completely immune to any protests or pressure so there is a 0% chance that their position might change.
I honestly don't understand why that was a hard decision.
The West Bank settlements are a moral abomination that are clear casus belli, and justify war upon Israel and its allies by Palestine and its allies up to the limits of the Geneva Conventions.
This was completely expected. Regardless if it could have made a difference, voting for Trump was practically a guarantee of this. He was the one to move our embassy to Jerusalem and recognize it as Israels capital.
and formally have the US recognize the Golan Heights as part of Israel.
Judging by the "nose of the camel" policy that Israel has pursued and the US has tolerated, Smotrich will be proven a prophet rather than a lunatic.
Prophet? Lunatic? Same thing. Especially in the u.s.
The West Bank has been heading for outright, explicit annexation since the failure of the Oslo negotiations, if not before. If Israel had stood up to its religious fanatics, I believe the outcome would be different.
As always, spittle-flecked ranting leftists who are more anti-genocide than anyone else will have the true, correct picture here, while also proving that I am objectively pro-genocide for not offering a tirade laced with the current argot of demonstrative moral purity. We are all grateful for their reasoned, patient and persuasive arguments on this issue, which have brought so many over to their side.
Complete sovereignty?
Will the Palestinians in the WB be placed in reservations? OOPs they are in them now.
https://www.ochaopt.org/content/west-bank-access-restrictions-may-2023
One could logically assume that this would mean Palestinians would then become full fledged Israeli citizens, with all the accompanying rights.
Which the nations of the world ought to insist upon. Not that it's going to happen right away, if at all. But take them at their word! Their territory, their citizens!
West Bank Palestinians will not be given Israeli citizenship. They will be ‘awarded’ citizenship in Bantustans. Many nations sanctioned, boycotted and divested from the former apartheid state of South Africa, will Israel be given a pass?
Current politics in Israel will not give Palestinians full voting rights. Demographis trends will, in time, shift to majority Muslims.
Funny how a multi-ethnic, multi-racial and multi-religious country goes all in supporting an ethno- religious state.
I don't think 125,000-ish voters in WI, MI, and PA voted for Trump instead of Harris because they thought the Biden administration didn't do enough to stop genocide in Gaza.
Perhaps not. But probably 8-9 million Democratic voters (once the 2024 count is finally done) from 2020 stayed home. Biden administration policies, from which Harris neglected or was otherwise unable to distance herself, could very well have dissuaded them from voting at all.
"But probably 8-9 million Democratic voters (once the 2024 count is finally done) from 2020 stayed home. " There are millions of more votes to count, heavily democrat, so that is certainly not true.
The Gaza war hurt Harris, straight up. She lost voters not distancing herself from Biden, she would have lost different voters had she done otherwise.
She lost voters not distancing herself from Biden, she would have lost different voters had she done otherwise.
She absolutely would have lost more vote on net had she been perceived as more pro-Palestinian. This isn't remotely controversial: the US electorate (wrongly and tragically in my view) is far more more Israel than pro Palestine. Indeed, this is the main reason both our parties are so slavishly pro-Israel: they (rightly) believe a change in policy would hurt them.
I'm not claiming this dynamic will last forever, and one can perhaps perceive change coming at some point. But for now, being pro-Palestine hurts most US politicians.
+1
Not only are there almost twice as many Jews as Muslims in the US (and of course neither group is monolithic in its support), but large numbers of fundamentalist Christians believe the state of Israel is the legitimate ruling body over all Palestine.
The only thing she could have done was a gender changing operation.
Overall turnout close to 2020.
Dems -5M, Trump +4.3M.
Projection per Nate Silver on Sunday:
Exactly. If the final numbers end up being close to the projected numbers - yes, Harris lost a few million votes, however, not all of those votes decided the election. Just like in 2016, the margins in MI, WI, and PA determined the outcome - and the grand total of those margins was small, in the scheme of our electorate's thermostatic tendencies.
There were almost certainly 40,000 votes in MI that did that. (or 40k-x who did that and 2x who stayed home.
Prove it bro.
Or voted for Jill Stein.
Well, then they voted to increase the genocide.
That is Trump's stated view, to finish it as quickly as Israel can.
It’s not just about a specific number of votes. The Gaza issue was a big driver of sapping enthusiasm among young liberals, all across the country. I heard quite a bit of rhetoric about it being a choice of voting for fascism vs voting for continued genocide. As illogical as it is, the rumblings like that led to apathy, low enthusiasm and little momentum for Harris’ campaign. I don’t know if there was any way she could have thread the needle of appeasing the ceasefire-now crowd and not losing the Jewish vote. The left tends to love sacrificing the best possible outcome on the altar of the perfect outcome. Pragmatic realism is not our strong suit.
"being a choice of voting for fascism vs voting for continued genocide"
Seriously. Continued genocide with a potential, however small, that their position might change over time vs voting for fascism and 0% chance that their position will change.
"Pragmatic realism is not our strong suit."
Nothing is more infuriating than the "they need to earn my vote" crowd. No, voting is a civic duty. Your job is not to vote only for a candidate that earns your vote. Your job is to vote in a way that will be best for the country as a whole (however you judge that as an individual). Opting not to vote at all shows a real narcissism in that you think you're particular feelings are more important than anyone else's. It shows that you are willing to sacrifice others if you don't get your way.
+100
People need to learn that voting, at least in a general election, is not for sending a message or validating your feelings. It is about deciding which of two people you would prefer runs the country for the next four years. That's it.
Anyone who voted for Trump because they were mad about Biden not backing the Palestinians were explicitly voting for an administration stocked with people who advocate for the genocide of the Palestinians.
The swing state people who voted third party or for Trump because they think we'll soon see an improvement in the plight of the Palestinians are delusional. No doubt.
But I think some of the more calculating and far-sighted among them may have sounder logic than many of us like to admit. In their view, the political duopoly in the US is massively tilted in favor of Israeli conquest, colonization and ethnic cleansing. Sure, you'll find a few individual prominent Democrats opposed to current US policy, but they're very far indeed from having a policymaking role. In practice then, the Democrats are barely any improvement whatsoever over the GOP on the issue of Palestine. How many billions has America under a Democratic White House given to the bloodthirsty Netanyahu regime over the last year? How much pushback beyond the most milquetoast statements has the current president engaged in with respect to Israel? It's quite honestly pretty pathetic, and I say that as a loyal Democrat (and I frankly wouldn't have advised the White House to do differently, because like them I believe overtly favoring the Palestinian cause is a net vote loser in the US, at least as long as that cause is associated with Hamas).
So, if you're a one issue* person who prioritizes the Palestinian struggle above all else, it arguably makes sense to require Democrats to pay a price for supporting Israel's crimes. The GOP, after all, is beyond reach. Converting one of our two parties to the Palestinian cause is only thing (according to their logic) that might make a difference.
*For me the head-scratcher isn't so much why they want to hurt Democrats. Rather, it's why are they willing to fuck over their own country for this cause? (Because make no mistake, Trump is going to fuck over the United States of America seven ways to Sunday, in addition to hurting Palestinians over the short and medium term).
Excellent comment.
"So, if you're a one issue* person"
Which is a problem in and of itself right there.
Exactly, as I pointed out at the end of the comment. That is really, the central problem with such voters.
The problem with this argument is that there is no evidence that a minority viewpoint will become the party platform after the minority viewpoint tanks the party in an election. It just pushes the party further in the other direction, where the larger number of voters exist. You can see this already - none of the election post-mortems suggest that Harris should have sided with the Pro-Palestine protesters more.
It is also well-known that activists have a much easier time using protest to sway the nearer party than the further party. You would think the Civil Rights movement and LGBTQ rights movement would have taught this lesson: get the Democrats in power, and then push them as much as you can. You can't get everything, but something is better than nothing. Eventually the somethings add up to a lot.
Sure. I’m not suggesting those advancing this strategy are particularly likely to meet with success.
Others have pointed out some flaws in the thinking that you're describing. Here's another one: It's not just that the Republicans are much worse than the Democrats are on this issue. It's that a Trump administration may very well be so much worse that there isn't really an Israel/Palestine issue to take a position on four years from now. The total ethnic cleansing of Gaza and the West Bank may have been completed by then.
Yes. That's possible.
I suspect you're saying out loud what a lot of people are thinking but don't want to publicly air. Too soon after the election.
But a few minutes’ contemplation would lead one to realize that they are not going to change the Democratic Party’s pro-Israel stance when pro-Palestinian voters are far outnumbered by supporters of Israel, including many millions of fundamentalist Christians who believe that God wants Jews to be sovereign over Eretz Israel. (Yes, the large majority of that group vote Republican, but even the minority who don’t are a significant number)
Key to Bibi: He lies in English, he tells the truth in Hebrew. If he backs up Smotrich, or maybe even doesn't disagree with him, in a Hebrew language interview, then the fix is in, or as close to in as the Knesset will allow.
I suspect that we Dems lost more votes because we have a wing of our party that does stuff like persist in calling Gaza genocide and says things that sound kinda pro-Hamas every so often than we lost from idiots who essentially helped Trump win the presidency because of Biden's Gaza policy.
Just curious, political positioning aside, do you think the Gaza war verges on genocide?
No, because I think genocide requires an intention to kill all or a large part of the victim people, and that has just not happened. The Hamas attack on October 7th where Hamas was killing (or taking hostage) all the Israelis they could get their hands on was more in that line. Had the Israelis actually succeeded in cutting off the food supply in Gaza like has come up from time to time but never seemingly actually happened, like to the point of mass starvation, that is getting into genocidal territory. So that would be an answer to your question of verging on genocide I guess.
But I think the Gaza situation is better described as a somewhat over- zealous military campaign in an urban setting against an enemy that embeds itself among its civilians and has few problems with lots of them dying for PR purposes. And while the over-zealotry is not good, I can see how the Israelis would feel less restrained after the October 7th atrocities. I mean it's like Hamas was trying to provoke the most angry reaction possible from Israelis.
Don't read this as some sort of an endorsement of Netanyahu or anything. He is a piece of shit and Israeli policy on the West Bank is Wrong. But on this matter, no, no genocide.
And getting back to my initial point, when most Americans hear the word genocide, they think of deliberate mass killings of non-combatants like in Rwanda or the Holocaust or something and they say "huh, what are they talking about?"
Thanks for asking in a civil manner.
I don't think your definition of genocide makes sense. It places too much emphasis on the geography of death, and too little on the scale of death. By your definition 9/11 would be a genocide, but the violence against minority groups in Myanmar can't be until, what, half or 2/3 of them are dead?
Hey @Cephalopod, let me restate the difference then --- it involves indiscriminately killing people for the sake of removing them from the planet because of who they are. The Isreali operations are not trying to kill all or most of the Palestinians; the civilian deaths are byproducts of their effort to slaughter Hamas. 911 was a terrorist operation designed to completely fuck with us (and it did) by using mass-murder but its not like they were trying to kill all or most Westerners. I don't know too much about the Rohinga, but from what I recall, that struck me more as ethnic cleansing --- they just wanted the Moslems out and were wiling to do killings and assaults and such, but it's not like they were trying to kill them all.
One can lawyer it all up based on some definition, but I think that's what the essence of that definition is and I think it captures what the layman understands when he he hears the word genocide.
The Isreali operations are not trying to kill all or most of the Palestinians; the civilian deaths are byproducts of their effort to slaughter Hamas.
This isn't true. In Gaza, the Israelis are currently conducting an operation that involves preventing humanitarian aid to reach much of northern Gaza as a tool for forcing all Palestinians to relocate south. In the most technical sense, they aren't trying to kill Palestinian civilians, but telling them that they must abandon their homes, with, as one general said openly last week no intention of ever letting them return, or Israel will let them starve is also genocide.
In the West Bank, the Israelis are killing Palestinians, burning their homes and vehicles, destroying olive groves, stealing livestock, and generally making their lives impossible in an effort to drive them out of their homes so land can be seized. The government is outsourcing much, though not nearly all, much of this effort to settler terrorists that it funds, protects, and lets rampage.
I don't know too much about the Rohinga, but from what I recall, that struck me more as ethnic cleansing --- they just wanted the Moslems out and were wiling to do killings and assaults and such, but it's not like they were trying to kill them all.
This edges into the legal definition of genocide.
One can lawyer it all up based on some definition, but I think that's what the essence of that definition is and I think it captures what the layman understands when he he hears the word genocide.
What matters is the legal definition, not the layman's. Indeed, there isn't a single layman's definition of "genocide." Some laymen will agree with you. Plenty of others will not, as is being demonstrated in the responses you elicited.
I do not think it meets the legal definition of genocide, I do think that what laypeople think matters, and this is an unusually anti-Israel comments section.
I don’t read anyone here as anti-Israel. A lot of us here are anti-Netanyahu. As am I. Strongly. I believe Israel had a right to seek out and do justice on those responsible for October 7. They did not have the right to wage war against the entire population of Gaza with total disregard for noncombatant deaths.
I've had many debates about what Israel is doing in Gaza and agree with your take. Pro Palestinian folks were calling Israel's treatment of Palestinians genocide prior to October 7th when it was really an apartheid type situation.
What happened after Oct 7th is Bibi and conservatives have taken off the gloves and conducting military operations with no consideration for civilian casualties. The Isrealis are being purposely cruel with limiting food and humanitarian aid. I hate Bibi and the settlement movement has done but Palestinians did have an opportunity with Olso and squandered it. I don't think they will ever have that opportunity again.
They 'had an opportunity with Oslo' but promptly 'squandered' it? Those few freighted words do say a lot, don't they? Or do they? Why, it's almost as if you're trying to gaslight more than a few damning details away.
But you're widely known as a person of integrity and frankness, so I'm sure you'll explain with accuracy and precision just what those squandered opportunities entailed, right?
Arafat walked away
You've already said that. Repeating yourself when asked for details is in no way shape or form answering the question. Could you explain what the sticking points were that caused Arafat to 'walk away', 'squander an opportunity' and so on and so forth? Details this time, please, and not another substitution of meaningless words for ones equally meaningless and are just placeholders for the original content-free assertion.
I had a similar reaction, not so much anymore. As time passes genocide feels more apt.
When I try to look forward five years I see Gaza still in rubble, or the Palestinians gone. Will Israel allow tools and construction materials into Gaza?
I disagree but I see your point of view some. And those are fair questions, who knows where Gaza goes from here are there are many bad scenarios. I DO think that there are many Israelis who would not mind some ethnic cleansing. but I am pretty sure the Egyptian Army would prevent that from happening and I suspect that even they realize that is going too far for Israel's friends. Of course, if the Israelis could gradually incentivize increased large scale emigration... but I have not heard that is going on yet.
The Israeli government is certainly disincentivizing Palestinians from remaining in or returning to Gaza, by destroying the housing stock, public utilities, schools, hospitals, university buildings, and more, rendering the region virtually uninhabitable.
You don't get any benefit calling killing 45x more people, starving and relocating the remainder, 'not genocide'.
It's ghoulish.
Had the Israelis actually succeeded in cutting off the food supply in Gaza like has come up from time to time but never seemingly actually happened, like to the point of mass starvation . . .
There's significant evidence that this is happening in northern Gaza right now (the Generals' Plan). It's hard to be sure, since the Israelis aren't allowing any journalists into Gaza other than a few that are carefully selected and fully embedded in IDF units.
Hey @Melancholy, the Israelis have had over a year to induce genocidal-level mass starvation and have not done so that I know of, so until I see that happen, I wouldn't say that is going on. I haven't seen any evidence that starving-to-death in any scale is going on in north Gaza at this time (I may not have all the evidence, granted). My personal read of that is that the various Israeli "play" with food supply is tactical, designed to pressure Hamas and others and perhaps induce Gazans to want to leave Gaza on their own, rather than as a tool of mass extermination.
I hope I am not wrong on this.
Israelis have had over a year to induce genocidal-level mass starvation and have not done so that I know of, so until I see that happen, I wouldn't say that is going on.
As I said, it's happening right now.
https://www.972mag.com/exterminate-expel-resettle-israel-northern-gaza/
I haven't seen any evidence that starving-to-death in any scale is going on in north Gaza at this time (I may not have all the evidence, granted).
Which means that the Israeli effort to prevent any reporting from Gaza is having its intended effect. Until such time as the Israelis allow journalists to enter and report from Gaza, they should not be given any benefit of the doubt.
My personal read of that is that the various Israeli "play" with food supply is tactical, designed to pressure Hamas and others and perhaps induce Gazans to want to leave Gaza on their own, rather than as a tool of mass extermination.
If the civilian population can't leave, then killing them solely because they are there is genocide. The vast majority of Gazans have no option to leave.
Induce Palestinians to want to leave Gaza?
Most Gazans cannot leave whether they want to or not.
Is there much of a distinction between genocide and mass manslaughter? A legal one maybe but not really a moral or ethical one. Israels disproportionate reaction is extreme. Also, if you don't take extraordinary or even ordinary steps to avoid civilian casualties are you not committing genocide by default?
or mass manslaughter.
Dude, what the fuck?
Believing that support for ending the genocide in Gaza is what lost the presidency for Democrats in 2024 is peak liberal backbiting.
JFC.
I agree with you. But that is not what I said. I said that the Dems probably lost more votes because people saw them as yelling genocide and seeming to be sympathetic to Hamas than they lost to folks denying their vote to them because of the Gaza policy. Maybe I am wrong, I have not seen polls or anything in it, but I think that is accurate.
This alone was not why we lost, nor was it anywhere near the most important factor. But I think it hurt us.
If Israel annexes the West Bank, do we then have a one-state solution (except for Gaza)?
I’m sure the intent is to not make West Bank Palestinians into Israeli citizens, but that might become inevitable over time.
Gaza and the West Bank and East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are already part of the Greater Israel Empire. "Annexing" them is just a label change. It would be akin to making Puerto Rico a state.
If you're referring to giving all the currently subject people full citizenship rights including the franchise, that would be a big change, yes. I'm still not sure that would be acceptable to most Palestinians, though. Koreans were citizens of the Japanese empire before WW2, but that didn't stop them from wanting independence.
Except if Puerto Rico became a state it would have representatives in the House and two Senators, and its citizens would also be voting for President. No way the Palestinians get any of that. That's of course Israel's obvious basic conundrum - they want to be the boss of all of it but wouldn't be in charge any more if they gave all those people actual rights.
BTW Puerto Ricans just voted overwhelmingly for statehood.
But that takes an act of Congress and with this one hahaha not happening.
Except if Puerto Rico became a state it would have representatives in the House and two Senators, and its citizens would also be voting for President.
Right. My second paragraph addresses this. But even more fundamentally, it's possible (likely?) very few Palestinians want to be part of an ethnostate that doesn't favor their ethnicity, even if they had the right to vote.
A one state solution with equal rights for all is increasingly favored by Palestinians as the two state solution becomes impossible.
All evidence indicates Israel hates this even more than two states, they must maintain a Jewish majority to remain a Jewish nation.
This is why Israel will not accept the right of return. The right of return is demanded by Palestinians who want political and residence rights in Israel.
All evidence indicates Israel hates this even more than two states, they must maintain a Jewish majority to remain a Jewish nation.
Always keep this in mind when certain properties go on about various existential enemies wanting to 'destroy' Israel and Israel's 'right to exist' and 'right to defend itself': No, it isn't true that their antagonists dearest ambition is to put every last citizen, every man, woman, and child to the sword (though that's what they want you to think those words mean); no they simply want Israel stop acting like the nasty, bullying, pugnacious ethnostate that it currently is. They want, in fact, Israel to simply be a 'homeland for the Jews', which is only what the Zionists original agreed to accept after all. Is that such a big ask? That these people are having such conniptions over the notion that they stop acting in bad faith and honor the original agreement instead tells you a lot about what's really going on in their heads.
Why does everyone think that Trump will keep his promises?
Vengeance aside, everything else is transactional.
+1
Saudis don't sound too happy about things:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp8x5570514o.amp
In politics, one remains in a coalition despite not agreeing with all the views within a coalition with the expectation that those views will harmonize, that’s the essence of politics (e.g., Afro-American civil rights- how many years did it take and we are not there yet). However, when you leave the coalition you lose all influence and it is hard to get it back and get people to listen. After all, one is no longer part of the coalition. Palestinians in this country made their bed, not surprising since they also suck at politics in the Middle East. It is very sad to see but one cannot help those who do not help themselves.
In politics, one remains in a coalition despite not agreeing with all the views within a coalition with the expectation that those views will harmonize
This isn't really true of the current majority in the Knesset. No one expects that the views will harmonize. A key element of the coalition doesn't care whether views ever harmonize. All that Shas and United Torah Judaism care about is making sure that their constituents remain exempt from the draft, and that they continue to receive enormous subsidies that allow male haredi to continue to remain unemployed. They'll vote for their coalition partners' preferred policies so long as they get this in exchange. That's true whoever their coalition partners. They think anyone else is acceptable as partners if they get their way on those two issues.
Sure, if asked, they'll tell you that they also approve of bombing and terrorizing Palestinians, but they would happily ditch Likud and sign up with Labor if Labor would agree that they'll get their way.
"...As always, be careful what you wish for."
Annexation would be preferable to the current situation. Israel has been in charge since 1967 but somehow is able to pretend they aren't responsible for conditions there.
How? That's a one-sided deal that removes all agency of the Palestinians.
It'd be like saying, well, Russia should just annex all of Ukraine so that peace can finally be had.
Right now they can say the Palestinians are their own government's problem.
It's a fig leaf that covers their soldiers standing by while massacres and house-burnings happen.
You might think that annexation would be preferable to the current situation, but the Palestinians do not. Don't just assume that you can define what other peoples' interests are.
"...but the Palestinians do not. ..."
It doesn't matter what the Palestinians think because they have no power. Israel has had all the power since 1967. So Israel is responsible for conditions in the West Bank and Gaza. Annexation would make this more obvious. And perhaps put pressure on Israel to govern better.
All they have to do is grease his palm and Trump will litteraly green light anything. Our foreign policy will be dictated by how it benefits Trump. The Republicans have gone full capitulation. He won't get any push back. Not that they would concerning Israel.
Ceasefire, Ceasefire, Ceasefire...Fiddle de Dee, is that all you men and women folk can talk about!?! Scarlett stamped her foot on the fine red earth of Tara.
*******
Why does no one speak of peace? To hell with a ceasefire, that just literally means a postponement of the war.
Does anyone ask the wailing old lady dressed head to toe in black, crying over her bombed out apartment,Her dead children, What did she do for peace before the war? What would she do now? What would she give up to swear to try to move Gaza towards being a Singapore on the Mediterranean rather than waste all building supplies for the means of continuation of the war?
Of course no one would ask her this most sensible question because they know that any honest answer would get her murdered by Hamas just as Hamas murdered all Fatah Palestinians in 2006 and 2007?
As they murdered all opposition then, they'll murder all opposition now. (parenthetically, none of us could live in Gaza, not because of Israel' bombs, but because Hamas would kill us in an instant also).
There is no honesty about this war...the best wars end in surrender...Lee at Appomattox, Hitler dead in his bunker, the Japanese on the fore-deck of the USS MISSOURI...
Instead, people are continually calling for the surrender of Israel.
Ir's not happening...what the election of DJ Trump means to Palestinians is that Gaza most likely now will be partitioned, (which I am fairly certain that Harris would not have permitted), divided...Northern Gaza taken for a buffer kill zone or new Israeli settlements as before 2005.
There will be an actual division along the Egyptian/Gaza border, something Israel has always wanted, (and in hindsight would have been better for the Palestinians has this partition existed earlier).
There there will be The Netzarim Corridor...see link..completely bisecting Gaza
https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/08/middleeast/israel-building-road-splitting-gaza-cmd-intl/index.html
The Palestinians still do not speak of peace, the swear to inflict new Oct 7's. they still fire missiles into Israeli.
I don't know, but this all seems pretty foolish to me. Traveller
What would she give up to swear to try to move Gaza towards being a Singapore on the Mediterranean rather than waste all building supplies for the means of continuation of the war?
Why don't you ask the Israelis why they refuse to make this ay sort of possibility.
just as Hamas murdered all Fatah Palestinians in 2006 and 2007?
It's important to remember that it was Fatah that launched a coup to prevent Hamas from assuming control of the Palestinian government, as winning an election entitled them to do. The coup was successful in the West Bank, where Fatah murdered Hamas members, and failed in Gaza, where Hamas murdered Fatah members.
It's also important to understand that Hamas di not murder all Fatah members in Gaza. There were a large number of Fatah civil servants that not only weren't killed, but continued to operate parts of the government there.
As they murdered all opposition then, they'll murder all opposition now. (parenthetically, none of us could live in Gaza, not because of Israel' bombs, but because Hamas would kill us in an instant also).
Which is, of course, why Hamas has murdered all of the foreign aid workers that live and work in Gaza.
The Palestinians still do not speak of peace, the swear to inflict new Oct 7's. they still fire missiles into Israeli.
Which indicates only that you ignore the things that are spoken by Fatah.
I don't know, but this all seems pretty foolish to me.
Yes, things often seem foolish to dishonest hacks.
The Palestinians still do not speak of peace, the swear to inflict new Oct 7's. they still fire missiles into Israeli.
I don't know, but this all seems pretty foolish to me. Traveller
That is because they are not as stupid as you are, they know exactly what the Israelis want to do to them and have always wanted to do: exterminate, exterminate.
So if we're doing modest but indecent proposals, I have a special one:
Biden goes to the UN to make a special address where he directly tells Israel they have exactly one week to throw Bibi out and sign a 2-state deal that requires Israel to roll back occupations to 2008 (pre-Bibi) and Palestinians to reject Hamas, and if they do, the US will personally guarantee to eliminate the threat of the Iranian regime (as opposed to eliminating the Iranian regime).
Not seeing the problem here. Israel would surely be less motivated to scorch its own earth. There's the risk that Israel would not provide Knesset representation / voting rights / citizenship to Arab residents in newly annexed territories but such a refusal would make it much harder to maintain the "there is no apartheid" charade.
Seriously how would Palestinians be worse off than present under annexation? They have not had sovereignty for decades. Arab Israelis are faring amongst the best of all Arabs in the region, there's discrimination, yes, but they have a lot more political power than Palestinians under occupation.
Is it really better to support a genocide with arms and protection in international forums while saying "don't commit genocide" than to say openly "go ahead with your genocide"? What Drum seems to never have grasped is that the Democratic position on Israel is so bad that being openly evil is hardly worse.
So Israel may announce that it has annexed the West Bank? And that changes things how? Israel annexed East Jerusalem long ago. And oddly the only positive move Israel has ever made in peace talks is to acknowledge that East Jerusalem would go back to the Palestinians in any peace talks. If Israel wanted peace but the retention of East Jerusalem it would have made a sharp distinction towards policies towards East Jerusalem and the West Bank. Instead it has always acted to prevent any hint of peace in both. Making East Jerusalem part of Palestinian territory is hardly a great concession when Palestinian territory remains under Israeli control.
Late in his term Trump finally put forward his "peace" plan. It gave Israel almost all of the West Bank leaving the Palestinians in bantustans . Israel agreed. It was a clear sign that Trump doesn't care about peace. But what did it change? Two things: it killed the Saudi Israeli peace talks. And it ended the pretense for human rights groups that Israel is not an apartheid state. The last serious argument that Israel is not an apartheid state, by the South African jurist Goldstone depended entirely on the pretense that Israel intended to give the West Bank to the Palestinians at some point. Note neither of these things was good for Israel.
Now the election of Trump means that Israel may be inclined to more truth telling, but that truth is that Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is morally repugnant. And it is true that the US under Trump won't care. But Israel does more business with Europe than the US because of its location. And the US just voted to lose the respect of much of Europe by putting a sociopath back in the White House.
The point is that nothing is likely to help the Palestinians given the truly evil way they are treated by the Israelis until Israel realizes its treatment of the Palestinians will make it a pariah nation. And the election of Trump, and the way that Israel is likely to respond to that, makes that likely to happen sooner. After all under democratic administrations Israel's treatment of the Palestinians has been morally repulsive and even liberals like Drum have given it political cover.
"being openly evil is hardly worse"
It might "hardly" be worse, but it's definitely worse.
Why? I gave reasons why it might not be better. Is the best that can be done in response to just say it is? Are Palestinians less dead because we pretend that Israel is not engaged in preserving itself as an apartheid state?
In general it is good to know who the murderers are. It doesn't help to have the murderers out there condemning murder but still murdering.
We see that in this country where evangelical Christians insisted the reason they were trying to convert gay people (that is torturing them) is that they love them. Is it better that they say they love them than that they acknowledge they don't?
Their claim to love Israel is similarly based in "religion," albeit not for the sake of conversion to save the souls of Jews who convert, but to guarantee that Israel will remain the home of Jews to fulfill their belief in the Rapture, during which Chrtians will join the Almighty, while Jews will die
I suspect their love of Israel is a bit broader than the Rapture, although that may be part of it. They do prefer Jews to Muslims. They also prefer Jews to be over there rather than over here in the US. And they like the idea that having a religiously defined state is considered acceptable.
Of course none of these things are good for Israel or the Jews. So that is something these things have in common with the Rapture explanation.
Of course Israel is pretty confident they can exploit that love without actually dying in a Rapture. And they clearly don't care if the love of Israel is based on bigotry.
I saw this on some blog. Looks like the Zionists stared into that abyss way too long. This 18th century philosophy was always pretty "monstrous", but in the 21st c, it's an atrocity. And Zionism was apparently perfect for certain people in the aftermath of WW II.
Since then, they've grown increasingly "full abyss." Future generations will be amazed that the United States kept supporting the ethnic cleansing and genocide. Future generations will build Nakhba museums which chronicle the history of the Occupation. People will once again say "Never again."
Mike Huckabee will be the Ambassador to Israel. The Mike Huckabee who said: "There is no such thing as a West Bank - it's Judea and Samaria. There's no such thing as a settlement. They're communities. They're neighborhoods. They're cities. There's no such thing as an occupation." [NPR]
Time for Kevin to eat crow. Trump just indicted he will nominate a pro-ethnic cleansing, pro-settlement, anti-two-state ambassador.
Games over, Kevin, and you chose the wrong team.
Huh? So Trump will push for Israel to act with abandon in its immorality. Not a shock there. Why would that mean that Drum has to eat crow. It is one of the things that Drum predicted. You don't normally eat crow because you are right.
What is weird is that Drum has been wrong about just about everything involving Israel and you seem to want him to eat crow over something he wasn't wrong about.