3 ms·

I’m in the US so I would start with immediately ending all funding, military and political support for Israel. They’ve been able to be belligerent because we em

I’m in the US so I would start with immediately ending all funding, military and political support for Israel. They’ve been able to be belligerent because we empowered that. Then I would sanction US companies that operate in Israel until apartheid is fully ended and a singular democratic state exists and the right of return is honored with reparations. I think we’d either see Israel play ball or collapse ala Rhodesia. Focusing on putting economic pressure on Israel seems like the most peaceful solution but I wouldn’t deny Palestinians a military option if that was all they had.

myrmidon 2y ago
> I’m in the US so I would start with immediately ending all funding, military and political support for Israel. This is a very principled move, but I think it overestimates the short-term political effect that sanctions can achieve by a lot-- consider Cuba, North Korea or Russia: even heavy, comprehensive sanctions were completely unable to steer those in a different political direction (what sanctions do guarantee is that the affected countries growth is stunted-- fifty years down the line Israel would be pretty much guaranteed to be economically weaker than unaffected neighbors-- but that is a double-edged sword, and unhelpful for peace efforts). On the other hand, you have significant costs for establishing such a drastic policy: Israeli public opinion would consider you a backstabbing traitor after October 7th, and probably proceed to enact the exact opposite of your demands for the next decade or so out of spite. But an even bigger problem would be that you back the Israeli government into a corner, denying them the ability to weather Palestinian (rocket) attacks passively-- instead, the next clash would probably escalate completely. And that's extremely bad-- Israel absolutely has the military capabilities to enact genocide the conventional way, and by reducing their other options you incentivice exactly that (think current Gaza offensive but with tanks and infantry instead of airstrikes, half a million dead at the end instead of ten thousands plus a large mixed bag of warcrimes). > I wouldn’t deny Palestinians a military option if that was all they had. If you give Palestinians workable military options, a lot of them (most certainly the majority in Gaza, maybe a minority for Westbank residents) are going to try and exterminate every jew in Israel, which is just not an improvement. That is one of the biggest difficulties-- even if you managed to wrangle territory from the jews, a right to return for expatriates and their descendants, monetary reparations and legal representation-- that is still quite likely to simply not be good enough for a significant number of fanatics on the palestinian side (and there is no way to get concessions like that from the jews except at gunpoint anyway). Still, I can see at least the Westbank situation slowly improving over the years. I have talked with a few residents (pre-Covid): People are bitter, there is a lot of repressed anger and helplessness and opportunities are also often (ab-) used to radicalize (e.g. schools or educational autonomy in general), but I could see this slowly mending over a century or two-- Gaza on the other hand... :(
- mackyspace 2y ago
  I don’t agree. Palestinians will use force to reclaim their land and rightfully so. Again, Israel could choose peace to stop this from happening. They are the occupying force and the only humane option is to end occupation. I think demographics in the west will support this line of thinking more and more so I don’t see Israel having much of a choice in the long run.
  - weatherlite 2y ago
    The last U.S election disagrees with your demographics prediction. I'm not saying you're definitely wrong about the future, no one knows and we're all horrible at predicting things, but this maximalist view of yours (And many people in the extreme left) is pushing the Palestinians to a zero sum game where they keep losing.
    - mackyspace 2y ago
      I think the last election agrees with me! Harris lost because of her support for Israel and sure enough Trump got a ceasefire done immediately. I’m no Trump fan and think he’s anything but pro-Palestinian but he was the lesser evil here.
      - weatherlite 2y ago
        Getting a ceasefire was a pro Palestinian move by Trump? Most of the Israeli public is in favor of the ceasefire and hostage deal - and quite a large majority. Kamala Harris and the whole democratic party lost because of a lot of things. I wouldn't put the Palestinians in the top 5.
        mackyspace 2y ago
        Yes a ceasefire is pro-Palestinian and they have been celebrating it. There’s another hostage exchange happening where they get back 200 people in exchange for 4 today.

myrmidon 2y ago

> I’m in the US so I would start with immediately ending all funding, military and political support for Israel. This is a very principled move, but I think it overestimates the short-term political effect that sanctions can achieve by a lot-- consider Cuba, North Korea or Russia: even heavy, comprehensive sanctions were completely unable to steer those in a different political direction (what sanctions do guarantee is that the affected countries growth is stunted-- fifty years down the line Israel would be pretty much guaranteed to be economically weaker than unaffected neighbors-- but that is a double-edged sword, and unhelpful for peace efforts). On the other hand, you have significant costs for establishing such a drastic policy: Israeli public opinion would consider you a backstabbing traitor after October 7th, and probably proceed to enact the exact opposite of your demands for the next decade or so out of spite. But an even bigger problem would be that you back the Israeli government into a corner, denying them the ability to weather Palestinian (rocket) attacks passively-- instead, the next clash would probably escalate completely. And that's extremely bad-- Israel absolutely has the military capabilities to enact genocide the conventional way, and by reducing their other options you incentivice exactly that (think current Gaza offensive but with tanks and infantry instead of airstrikes, half a million dead at the end instead of ten thousands plus a large mixed bag of warcrimes). > I wouldn’t deny Palestinians a military option if that was all they had. If you give Palestinians workable military options, a lot of them (most certainly the majority in Gaza, maybe a minority for Westbank residents) are going to try and exterminate every jew in Israel, which is just not an improvement. That is one of the biggest difficulties-- even if you managed to wrangle territory from the jews, a right to return for expatriates and their descendants, monetary reparations and legal representation-- that is still quite likely to simply not be good enough for a significant number of fanatics on the palestinian side (and there is no way to get concessions like that from the jews except at gunpoint anyway). Still, I can see at least the Westbank situation slowly improving over the years. I have talked with a few residents (pre-Covid): People are bitter, there is a lot of repressed anger and helplessness and opportunities are also often (ab-) used to radicalize (e.g. schools or educational autonomy in general), but I could see this slowly mending over a century or two-- Gaza on the other hand... :(

mackyspace 2y ago
I don’t agree. Palestinians will use force to reclaim their land and rightfully so. Again, Israel could choose peace to stop this from happening. They are the occupying force and the only humane option is to end occupation. I think demographics in the west will support this line of thinking more and more so I don’t see Israel having much of a choice in the long run.
- weatherlite 2y ago
  The last U.S election disagrees with your demographics prediction. I'm not saying you're definitely wrong about the future, no one knows and we're all horrible at predicting things, but this maximalist view of yours (And many people in the extreme left) is pushing the Palestinians to a zero sum game where they keep losing.
  - mackyspace 2y ago
    I think the last election agrees with me! Harris lost because of her support for Israel and sure enough Trump got a ceasefire done immediately. I’m no Trump fan and think he’s anything but pro-Palestinian but he was the lesser evil here.
    - weatherlite 2y ago
      Getting a ceasefire was a pro Palestinian move by Trump? Most of the Israeli public is in favor of the ceasefire and hostage deal - and quite a large majority. Kamala Harris and the whole democratic party lost because of a lot of things. I wouldn't put the Palestinians in the top 5.
      - mackyspace 2y ago
        Yes a ceasefire is pro-Palestinian and they have been celebrating it. There’s another hostage exchange happening where they get back 200 people in exchange for 4 today.