The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.

[MENA] The Middle East and North Africa

19495969798100»

Posts

  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    The massive level of settlements has pretty much killed any 2 state solution.

    It only exists as a pipe dream(Israeli is never going back to the 67 boarder) and a fig leaf(as long as the Palestinians are in their "own" country, Israel has far wider latitude to be awful)

    6ylyzxlir2dz.png
  • KaputaKaputa Registered User regular
    edited February 2022
    zagdrob wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    The United States should stop providing aid - all aid, but especially military aid - to an apartheid nation.

    And also boycotting, divesting, and sanctioning the apartheid nation.

    I thought we are opposed to sanctions because they only hurt the people of the nation and not the leaders who make harmful decisions. That's been my takeaway from discussions of sanctions on Iran, Russia, and the Taliban in Afghanistan in recent months.
    I think some of the arguments against economic sanctions hold true in the case of Israel as well. A really broad sanctions regime could end up making things worse for the Palestinians, ironically. But I also don't think each case is the same. The Afghanistan sanctions amount to a crime against humanity, as they are worsening famine conditions. The Iran sanctions are indefensible and stupid because the US violated a treaty to reimpose them.

    My view is that, rather than immediately ending aid, the US should use its military aid as leverage: "end settlement construction immediately and permanently or no more military aid." If the Israelis cave, the aid can be used to pressure them into further concessions, aimed ending the apartheid system. If they instead continue the ethnic cleansing, end aid and consider further economic and diplomatic pressure (e.g. UN Security Council resolutions).

    Of course, this would require a world where the US government was controlled by people who care about stuff like ethnic cleansing and apartheid, so it seems unlikely at this current juncture. I mean they were just told about it and both parties yelled "SHUT UP" in unison. Hence why I support BDS; the US government is unshakable in its support for Israel, so the only way to oppose what's happening is through the actions of independent individuals/organizations.

    Kaputa on
  • LanzLanz ...Za?Registered User regular
    edited February 2022
    daveNYC wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    zagdrob wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    The United States should stop providing aid - all aid, but especially military aid - to an apartheid nation.

    And also boycotting, divesting, and sanctioning the apartheid nation.

    I thought we are opposed to sanctions because they only hurt the people of the nation and not the leaders who make harmful decisions. That's been my takeaway from discussions of sanctions on Iran, Russia, and the Taliban in Afghanistan in recent months.

    Targeted sanctions against leadership are viable (that is you freeze the financial assets of the political class); broad economic sanctions that affect the populace as a whole are ineffective and bad for a multitude of reasons.

    See: the magnitsky act sanctions against specific Russian oligarchs and political players, or the recent EU sanctions against the PM of Mali and other government leaders

    The Magnitsky act sanctions haven’t seem to have dissuaded Russia from its current actions. And the BDS movement is decidedly not targeted at political leadership.

    The effectiveness of sanctions is dependent on the political system of the country and the exit criteria for the sanctions. If the population can put pressure on the leadership and the actions necessary for removing the sanctions are… acceptable, then they can work. Iran has a vaguely democratic system and reducing their nuclear program was an acceptable ask, so those sanctions worked. Cuba, for example, isn’t as democrat and the demand from the USA was basically ‘respect mah authoritah’ so they were just a way to inflict misery.

    BDS could possibly work, the Israeli political system is set up to respond to what the population wants, the issue is whether the ask is actually achievable. The political cost of implementing a two-state solution would be immense, while a one-state solution would effectively mean creating a whole new country.

    I’m not sure how. It would mean the end of Israel specifically as an ethnostate sure, but I’m not sure renouncing such an ideological position in favor of a commitment multiracial/multiethnic democracy is going to require the recreation of the state or it’s constituent civic institutions. one need not dissolve the state in order for it to renounce a specific favored ethnic identity for the state and its priorities; Israel can remain intact while recognizing the Palestinians (and any other ethnic group living within its borders) as full citizens and full rights to representation as such.

    EDIT: Blargh, juggled too many things at once while trying to type and end up repeating half of my point, rephrased, instead of writing out hte other half. Should make more sense now

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • This content has been removed.

  • asurasur Registered User regular
    Lanz wrote: »
    daveNYC wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    zagdrob wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    The United States should stop providing aid - all aid, but especially military aid - to an apartheid nation.

    And also boycotting, divesting, and sanctioning the apartheid nation.

    I thought we are opposed to sanctions because they only hurt the people of the nation and not the leaders who make harmful decisions. That's been my takeaway from discussions of sanctions on Iran, Russia, and the Taliban in Afghanistan in recent months.

    Targeted sanctions against leadership are viable (that is you freeze the financial assets of the political class); broad economic sanctions that affect the populace as a whole are ineffective and bad for a multitude of reasons.

    See: the magnitsky act sanctions against specific Russian oligarchs and political players, or the recent EU sanctions against the PM of Mali and other government leaders

    The Magnitsky act sanctions haven’t seem to have dissuaded Russia from its current actions. And the BDS movement is decidedly not targeted at political leadership.

    The effectiveness of sanctions is dependent on the political system of the country and the exit criteria for the sanctions. If the population can put pressure on the leadership and the actions necessary for removing the sanctions are… acceptable, then they can work. Iran has a vaguely democratic system and reducing their nuclear program was an acceptable ask, so those sanctions worked. Cuba, for example, isn’t as democrat and the demand from the USA was basically ‘respect mah authoritah’ so they were just a way to inflict misery.

    BDS could possibly work, the Israeli political system is set up to respond to what the population wants, the issue is whether the ask is actually achievable. The political cost of implementing a two-state solution would be immense, while a one-state solution would effectively mean creating a whole new country.

    I’m not sure how. It would mean the end of Israel specifically as an ethnostate sure, but I’m not sure renouncing such an ideological position in favor of a commitment multiracial/multiethnic democracy is going to require the recreation of the state or it’s constituent civic institutions. one need not dissolve the state in order for it to renounce a specific favored ethnic identity for the state and its priorities; Israel can remain intact while recognizing the Palestinians (and any other ethnic group living within its borders) as full citizens and full rights to representation as such.

    EDIT: Blargh, juggled too many things at once while trying to type and end up repeating half of my point, rephrased, instead of writing out hte other half. Should make more sense now

    You wouldn't literally create a new country but going from an ethnostate to a multiethnic one where the original ethnicity is now a minority would cause a dramatic reshuffling of power. Given their history, I think it's understandable that the Jewish population would be very concerned about this and when you add on that the majority is the people they oppressing I don't see this ever happening.

  • KaputaKaputa Registered User regular
    But then Israelis would be a minority in their own country, which they wont want.

    You've talked before about this ideal solution of yours, and I just don't see it happening in 100 years.
    White South Africans didn't want to be a minority in their own country either. Too bad for them!

  • LanzLanz ...Za?Registered User regular
    asur wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    daveNYC wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    zagdrob wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    The United States should stop providing aid - all aid, but especially military aid - to an apartheid nation.

    And also boycotting, divesting, and sanctioning the apartheid nation.

    I thought we are opposed to sanctions because they only hurt the people of the nation and not the leaders who make harmful decisions. That's been my takeaway from discussions of sanctions on Iran, Russia, and the Taliban in Afghanistan in recent months.

    Targeted sanctions against leadership are viable (that is you freeze the financial assets of the political class); broad economic sanctions that affect the populace as a whole are ineffective and bad for a multitude of reasons.

    See: the magnitsky act sanctions against specific Russian oligarchs and political players, or the recent EU sanctions against the PM of Mali and other government leaders

    The Magnitsky act sanctions haven’t seem to have dissuaded Russia from its current actions. And the BDS movement is decidedly not targeted at political leadership.

    The effectiveness of sanctions is dependent on the political system of the country and the exit criteria for the sanctions. If the population can put pressure on the leadership and the actions necessary for removing the sanctions are… acceptable, then they can work. Iran has a vaguely democratic system and reducing their nuclear program was an acceptable ask, so those sanctions worked. Cuba, for example, isn’t as democrat and the demand from the USA was basically ‘respect mah authoritah’ so they were just a way to inflict misery.

    BDS could possibly work, the Israeli political system is set up to respond to what the population wants, the issue is whether the ask is actually achievable. The political cost of implementing a two-state solution would be immense, while a one-state solution would effectively mean creating a whole new country.

    I’m not sure how. It would mean the end of Israel specifically as an ethnostate sure, but I’m not sure renouncing such an ideological position in favor of a commitment multiracial/multiethnic democracy is going to require the recreation of the state or it’s constituent civic institutions. one need not dissolve the state in order for it to renounce a specific favored ethnic identity for the state and its priorities; Israel can remain intact while recognizing the Palestinians (and any other ethnic group living within its borders) as full citizens and full rights to representation as such.

    EDIT: Blargh, juggled too many things at once while trying to type and end up repeating half of my point, rephrased, instead of writing out hte other half. Should make more sense now

    You wouldn't literally create a new country but going from an ethnostate to a multiethnic one where the original ethnicity is now a minority would cause a dramatic reshuffling of power. Given their history, I think it's understandable that the Jewish population would be very concerned about this and when you add on that the majority is the people they oppressing I don't see this ever happening.

    Then what do we do? We can’t in good conscience continue to abet an apartheid state.

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    Kaputa wrote: »
    But then Israelis would be a minority in their own country, which they wont want.

    You've talked before about this ideal solution of yours, and I just don't see it happening in 100 years.
    White South Africans didn't want to be a minority in their own country either. Too bad for them!

    That didn't involve redrawing SA's borders.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Kaputa wrote: »
    But then Israelis would be a minority in their own country, which they wont want.

    You've talked before about this ideal solution of yours, and I just don't see it happening in 100 years.
    White South Africans didn't want to be a minority in their own country either. Too bad for them!

    That didn't involve redrawing SA's borders.

    Given Israeli settlement expansion I'm not sure what solution you are imagining to this situation that doesn't involve redrawing borders.

  • edited February 2022
    This content has been removed.

  • asurasur Registered User regular
    Lanz wrote: »
    asur wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    daveNYC wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    zagdrob wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    The United States should stop providing aid - all aid, but especially military aid - to an apartheid nation.

    And also boycotting, divesting, and sanctioning the apartheid nation.

    I thought we are opposed to sanctions because they only hurt the people of the nation and not the leaders who make harmful decisions. That's been my takeaway from discussions of sanctions on Iran, Russia, and the Taliban in Afghanistan in recent months.

    Targeted sanctions against leadership are viable (that is you freeze the financial assets of the political class); broad economic sanctions that affect the populace as a whole are ineffective and bad for a multitude of reasons.

    See: the magnitsky act sanctions against specific Russian oligarchs and political players, or the recent EU sanctions against the PM of Mali and other government leaders

    The Magnitsky act sanctions haven’t seem to have dissuaded Russia from its current actions. And the BDS movement is decidedly not targeted at political leadership.

    The effectiveness of sanctions is dependent on the political system of the country and the exit criteria for the sanctions. If the population can put pressure on the leadership and the actions necessary for removing the sanctions are… acceptable, then they can work. Iran has a vaguely democratic system and reducing their nuclear program was an acceptable ask, so those sanctions worked. Cuba, for example, isn’t as democrat and the demand from the USA was basically ‘respect mah authoritah’ so they were just a way to inflict misery.

    BDS could possibly work, the Israeli political system is set up to respond to what the population wants, the issue is whether the ask is actually achievable. The political cost of implementing a two-state solution would be immense, while a one-state solution would effectively mean creating a whole new country.

    I’m not sure how. It would mean the end of Israel specifically as an ethnostate sure, but I’m not sure renouncing such an ideological position in favor of a commitment multiracial/multiethnic democracy is going to require the recreation of the state or it’s constituent civic institutions. one need not dissolve the state in order for it to renounce a specific favored ethnic identity for the state and its priorities; Israel can remain intact while recognizing the Palestinians (and any other ethnic group living within its borders) as full citizens and full rights to representation as such.

    EDIT: Blargh, juggled too many things at once while trying to type and end up repeating half of my point, rephrased, instead of writing out hte other half. Should make more sense now

    You wouldn't literally create a new country but going from an ethnostate to a multiethnic one where the original ethnicity is now a minority would cause a dramatic reshuffling of power. Given their history, I think it's understandable that the Jewish population would be very concerned about this and when you add on that the majority is the people they oppressing I don't see this ever happening.

    Then what do we do? We can’t in good conscience continue to abet an apartheid state.

    I don't think the US should be supporting Israel as it stands and should use that support as leverage for change if possible. The outcome I would expect though is that Israel doesnt budge and the US stops giving them support.

    Given the current circumstances, I don't believe a two state solution will happen either, but that seems more plausible and removes some of the issues, the ethnic majority doesn't change in Israel for a example.

  • LanzLanz ...Za?Registered User regular
    edited February 2022
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Kaputa wrote: »
    But then Israelis would be a minority in their own country, which they wont want.

    You've talked before about this ideal solution of yours, and I just don't see it happening in 100 years.
    White South Africans didn't want to be a minority in their own country either. Too bad for them!

    That didn't involve redrawing SA's borders.

    Neither would ending the Israeli apartheid

    Like aside from Gaza, the current areas where Palestinians have been contained to in the West Bank are surrounded by Israeli territory. They’re practically an archipelago of territory within a sea of the state of Israel
    asur wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    asur wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    daveNYC wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    zagdrob wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    The United States should stop providing aid - all aid, but especially military aid - to an apartheid nation.

    And also boycotting, divesting, and sanctioning the apartheid nation.

    I thought we are opposed to sanctions because they only hurt the people of the nation and not the leaders who make harmful decisions. That's been my takeaway from discussions of sanctions on Iran, Russia, and the Taliban in Afghanistan in recent months.

    Targeted sanctions against leadership are viable (that is you freeze the financial assets of the political class); broad economic sanctions that affect the populace as a whole are ineffective and bad for a multitude of reasons.

    See: the magnitsky act sanctions against specific Russian oligarchs and political players, or the recent EU sanctions against the PM of Mali and other government leaders

    The Magnitsky act sanctions haven’t seem to have dissuaded Russia from its current actions. And the BDS movement is decidedly not targeted at political leadership.

    The effectiveness of sanctions is dependent on the political system of the country and the exit criteria for the sanctions. If the population can put pressure on the leadership and the actions necessary for removing the sanctions are… acceptable, then they can work. Iran has a vaguely democratic system and reducing their nuclear program was an acceptable ask, so those sanctions worked. Cuba, for example, isn’t as democrat and the demand from the USA was basically ‘respect mah authoritah’ so they were just a way to inflict misery.

    BDS could possibly work, the Israeli political system is set up to respond to what the population wants, the issue is whether the ask is actually achievable. The political cost of implementing a two-state solution would be immense, while a one-state solution would effectively mean creating a whole new country.

    I’m not sure how. It would mean the end of Israel specifically as an ethnostate sure, but I’m not sure renouncing such an ideological position in favor of a commitment multiracial/multiethnic democracy is going to require the recreation of the state or it’s constituent civic institutions. one need not dissolve the state in order for it to renounce a specific favored ethnic identity for the state and its priorities; Israel can remain intact while recognizing the Palestinians (and any other ethnic group living within its borders) as full citizens and full rights to representation as such.

    EDIT: Blargh, juggled too many things at once while trying to type and end up repeating half of my point, rephrased, instead of writing out hte other half. Should make more sense now

    You wouldn't literally create a new country but going from an ethnostate to a multiethnic one where the original ethnicity is now a minority would cause a dramatic reshuffling of power. Given their history, I think it's understandable that the Jewish population would be very concerned about this and when you add on that the majority is the people they oppressing I don't see this ever happening.

    Then what do we do? We can’t in good conscience continue to abet an apartheid state.

    I don't think the US should be supporting Israel as it stands and should use that support as leverage for change if possible. The outcome I would expect though is that Israel doesnt budge and the US stops giving them support.

    Given the current circumstances, I don't believe a two state solution will happen either, but that seems more plausible and removes some of the issues, the ethnic majority doesn't change in Israel for a example.

    But where do the Palestinians go in a two state solution? Would Israel be willing to give up the settlements it’s taken? Would they allow enough territory to be ceded to establish a Palestinian state that wasn’t enclosed by Israeli borders?

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    Lanz wrote: »
    asur wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    daveNYC wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    zagdrob wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    The United States should stop providing aid - all aid, but especially military aid - to an apartheid nation.

    And also boycotting, divesting, and sanctioning the apartheid nation.

    I thought we are opposed to sanctions because they only hurt the people of the nation and not the leaders who make harmful decisions. That's been my takeaway from discussions of sanctions on Iran, Russia, and the Taliban in Afghanistan in recent months.

    Targeted sanctions against leadership are viable (that is you freeze the financial assets of the political class); broad economic sanctions that affect the populace as a whole are ineffective and bad for a multitude of reasons.

    See: the magnitsky act sanctions against specific Russian oligarchs and political players, or the recent EU sanctions against the PM of Mali and other government leaders

    The Magnitsky act sanctions haven’t seem to have dissuaded Russia from its current actions. And the BDS movement is decidedly not targeted at political leadership.

    The effectiveness of sanctions is dependent on the political system of the country and the exit criteria for the sanctions. If the population can put pressure on the leadership and the actions necessary for removing the sanctions are… acceptable, then they can work. Iran has a vaguely democratic system and reducing their nuclear program was an acceptable ask, so those sanctions worked. Cuba, for example, isn’t as democrat and the demand from the USA was basically ‘respect mah authoritah’ so they were just a way to inflict misery.

    BDS could possibly work, the Israeli political system is set up to respond to what the population wants, the issue is whether the ask is actually achievable. The political cost of implementing a two-state solution would be immense, while a one-state solution would effectively mean creating a whole new country.

    I’m not sure how. It would mean the end of Israel specifically as an ethnostate sure, but I’m not sure renouncing such an ideological position in favor of a commitment multiracial/multiethnic democracy is going to require the recreation of the state or it’s constituent civic institutions. one need not dissolve the state in order for it to renounce a specific favored ethnic identity for the state and its priorities; Israel can remain intact while recognizing the Palestinians (and any other ethnic group living within its borders) as full citizens and full rights to representation as such.

    EDIT: Blargh, juggled too many things at once while trying to type and end up repeating half of my point, rephrased, instead of writing out hte other half. Should make more sense now

    You wouldn't literally create a new country but going from an ethnostate to a multiethnic one where the original ethnicity is now a minority would cause a dramatic reshuffling of power. Given their history, I think it's understandable that the Jewish population would be very concerned about this and when you add on that the majority is the people they oppressing I don't see this ever happening.

    Then what do we do? We can’t in good conscience continue to abet an apartheid state.

    The only other option seems to me to be to evict enough Israeli settlers and do whatever else needs to be done to create two states.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • KaputaKaputa Registered User regular
    The two state solution is arguably less realistic and feasible than the one state solution. It would essentially require massive forced relocation of Israelis from all the territory Israel has gradually stolen since 1967, as well as solutions to other problems. I do not think it is self evident that 2 states are more easily accomplished than 1 state where all ethnicities are treated equally.

  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    Kaputa wrote: »
    The two state solution is arguably less realistic and feasible than the one state solution. It would essentially require massive forced relocation of Israelis from all the territory Israel has gradually stolen since 1967, as well as solutions to other problems. I do not think it is self evident that 2 states are more easily accomplished than 1 state where all ethnicities are treated equally.

    It's up to them. And they should be placed under as much pressure politically and economically as possible until they agree to one or the other.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Kaputa wrote: »
    The two state solution is arguably less realistic and feasible than the one state solution. It would essentially require massive forced relocation of Israelis from all the territory Israel has gradually stolen since 1967, as well as solutions to other problems. I do not think it is self evident that 2 states are more easily accomplished than 1 state where all ethnicities are treated equally.

    I don't think either solution is all that realistic or feasible honestly.

  • This content has been removed.

  • asurasur Registered User regular
    edited February 2022
    Kaputa wrote: »
    The two state solution is arguably less realistic and feasible than the one state solution. It would essentially require massive forced relocation of Israelis from all the territory Israel has gradually stolen since 1967, as well as solutions to other problems. I do not think it is self evident that 2 states are more easily accomplished than 1 state where all ethnicities are treated equally.

    Are the Palestine leadership even open to a solution that doesn't have some of the land returning to them or reparations for it regardless of one state or two state?

    The support among the Jewish population for a one state solution is nearly non-existent and no parties support it either. A one state solution is essentially a request for the Jewish population to give up Zionism. I just don't see this happening under any circumstances. The two state solution is obviously difficult, but finding a solution to the settlers and land does not require giving up a core piece of the population's identity and it does have support among the population.

    Lanz: Yes, Israel would need to give up some or all of the settlements to create a territory for Palestine. I don't see much hope that a two state solution happens, but it seems a lot more likely than one state.

    asur on
  • ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    @Kaputa do you want to make a new thread?

    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • KaputaKaputa Registered User regular
    edited February 2022
    Sure, I just got home from work so it'll be a few, but I'll update the OP after I'm settled in and post a new one

    Kaputa on
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    The obvious problem with the 1 state solution is that post-Holocaust most Jewish people felt that Jewish people needed a state of their own like all of the other ethnic minorities of Europe so they could protect themselves. That concern still holds.

    Which obviously doesn't give them the right to be shitty like they have been, but you will never get an agreement that ends Israel as a Jewish state.

    The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    If I honestly thought I was possible for there to be a power sharing goverment between the Palestinians and Israelis where one side did not try to use the levers of the goverment to screw the other over, I would support it.

    Edit: I would support giving the entirety of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem was a capital to the Palestinian people.

    Undoing the damage of decades of apartheid government is going to be seen as "screwing over" the side that benefitted from apartheid by that side. Frankly speaking, I don't think the oppressor deserves to have equal say in how reparations and reconciliation are handled.

  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    edited February 2022
    The obvious problem with the 1 state solution is that post-Holocaust most Jewish people felt that Jewish people needed a state of their own like all of the other ethnic minorities of Europe so they could protect themselves. That concern still holds.

    Which obviously doesn't give them the right to be shitty like they have been, but you will never get an agreement that ends Israel as a Jewish state.

    Ummmmmmm what map of Europe have you been looking at?


    ov9xdjl3g6kp.png

    tinwhiskers on
    6ylyzxlir2dz.png
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    The obvious problem with the 1 state solution is that post-Holocaust most Jewish people felt that Jewish people needed a state of their own like all of the other ethnic minorities of Europe so they could protect themselves. That concern still holds.

    Which obviously doesn't give them the right to be shitty like they have been, but you will never get an agreement that ends Israel as a Jewish state.

    Ummmmmmm what map of Europe have you been looking at?


    ov9xdjl3g6kp.png

    This is the internal argument, it doesn't have to make sense.

    The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
This discussion has been closed.