Israel/Hamas War Superthread

[Dill]

(05-13-2024, 01:43 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'd say the general peace option.

Remember, we're taking godlike power here.  you blink and they're wherever you want them to be.  If you want to convince them first then go ahead, take as much time as you need.  But remember, all the while the current situation continues.

You can redraw the map, essentially create a nation if you choose,  Establish a border and move populations as you will.  You cannot change hearts and minds.  Essentially, you have the ability to magically create the  "two state solution" that so many claim to have wanted for decades.  Once this is done you're done.  You won't be able to stop people from immediately fighting each other again.

No, to the first.  No to the second. and yes to the third.  I think you're already onto the ultimate ending, and point, of this thought experiment with your last sentence, but again I am intrigued to read to answer.

I've been pecking away at this for several days. First I reviewed the causes ('47,'67), the history since then, and somewhat Oslo II and current balance of political forces in the Israeli gov. and the PA. Not sure yet where I should be concentrating my energy; probably with the latter two subjects. And I've been looking at maps of current administrative districts in what was the former Mandate. 

One thing that stood out to me through all this is the power imbalance. That always been a problem 

Moving people around is not going to do much if the moment I turn in my God card, Israel just does what it wants (e.g., returns to its West Bank settlements.). If I can't stop people from fighting by simply redrawing borders, maybe I should be looking elsewhere for a solution. 

That's got me to thinking about some power diplomacy. 

I'm committing to a two-state solution, for the moment, since that rests on concessions Palestinians have already given and an administrative structure already partially in place--the PA.  But if that is to work, other states and the UN really need a prominent role here. (If a better option appears while exploring this one, I'll consider that one. As recently 2014 I backed a one-state solution.)

The players I want: 1) Jordan, Egypt, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and possibly Iraq as an Arab block both prepared to back Palestinian interests and as a resource for invasive monitoring of PA activities in the West Bank and Gaza. These are needed for multiple reasons--Qatar communicates best with Hamas, Jordan has the most respect from Western partners and Israel, Egypt and Saudi Arabia are regional military and economic powers. Iraqi buy-in would help stabilize the region (and perhaps Iraq too). 

2) The US, Britain, France as a balancing force.  3) the UN and EU as "moderators."  

Any serious solution is likely to curtail Israeli power and control over the West Bank and Gaza. Israel has never accepted that. And the US has never accepted a solution that Israel doesn't want. But if the US et al. side with Israel on this then nothing changes.

I think the previous two-state proposals would have worked if Israel had not a very kinetic veto power over anything the PA did, controlling the borders, economies and physical movement of everyone in the occupied territories, while the PA has no such leverage over Israel. If Israel agrees to curtail settlements but just continues expanding them, there is not a thing the PA can do. If armed PA police impinge, or are perceived to impinge, upon Area C, they can be immediately and violently ejected.

So at the moment, the goal or "solution" will turn on getting Israel to agree to a two-state solution which means actual sovereignty for Palestinians, and violation of agreements would mean consequences with teeth. I think that means, among other things, the US, especially, must be ready to withhold aid and to take UN resolutions seriously. 

The question is, then--what would it take to get the US to make such a stand, and to get Israel to the table for serious negotiation.  Passing over the problem of convincing the US for a moment, I think that means working out an agreement that a majority of Israelis could accept without an appearance of coercion.  Probably not possible, but that is what I am thinking about. They always complain about "security," and that is an authentic concern for many, but there is also now a large block of voters who will use security to block the two-state solution and continue the gradual settlement of the West Bank, and on, eventually to Eretz Israel.

The other side of this is the PA, which cannot inspire confidence in ANY of the players in its current shape. The PLO and FATAH need to step up, and that means a change in leadership, probably via coercion that doesn't appear as such, but which can come with verbal support from the US, material support from a UN perhaps coordinating with the other Arab regional powers to rebuild Gaza. Hamas cannot be a part of the solution now; and is a problem for everyone; but if people recognize how Israeli violence strengthens it (as many Israelis now do), and that it cannot be simply exterminated, then that lends some direction towards a solution--undermine it with a Palestinian politics that doesn't make the PA an arm of Israeli security covering the advance of settlements, but a genuinely sovereign state capable of ensuring Palestinian self determination. 

What shape should be proposed for the two-state solution on the ground? Still thinking about that. Settlements and security have traditionally bedeviled all map-drawing here. I think Israel should give them up, or maybe half of them it something else in way of land is conceded the Palestinian state. Trading sections of the Negev has been proposed before. You can see this is all still rather amorphous, but I think am understanding the problem better reviewing it like this. Also wondering how to reduce it to a few elegant proposals eventually. Back to the drawing table. . . .