9 ms·

Israel's main best option is to give Palestinians, at least those unambiguously born under Israel's control, the right to vote in Israeli federal elections. A

Israel's main best option is to give Palestinians, at least those unambiguously born under Israel's control, the right to vote in Israeli federal elections. A government that can kick down the door of the house you were born in has a duty to give you voting rights. (And if your ethnic group is denied voting rights, you have a basic duty to your fellow man to raise hell until you get those rights, because arbitrary starvation is always on the table for your children until you get them.)

bawolff 1y ago
International law forbids the occupying power to give voting rights to occupied regions. Its also a bit unclear what you mean by "unambiguously under Israeli control" since Palestinians in occupied palestinian territories aren't unambigiously under Israeli control, they had little control over the inside of Gaza until recently, and have some power in the west bank that is shared with the PA. Neither is "unambiguous control". The only group unambigiously under their control are the Palestinians inside Israel proper who as far as i understand do have full voting rights. If you think military presence should equal voting rights, than i think that would imply that Iraq should be able to vote in US presedential elections.
- Ey7NFZ3P0nzAe 1y ago
  Well the word "occupying" is doing the heavy lifting here.
  - bawolff 1y ago
    How so? There are troops there, The troops are not present with the consent of the local governing powers, the area has not been annexed (has not been integrated into normal civil law of the country with the troops)*. That is a textbook definition of what an occupation is. * except for East Jerusalem, which would normally be considered annexed, but the UNSC has decided (with the binding force of international law) that it is de jure occupied. However Palestinians in east Juruselum can apply for citizenship and get voting rights.
    - SilverElfin 1y ago
      > The troops are not present with the consent of the local governing powers Are the governing powers legitimate? Hamas banned elections after they won the 2006 election. Why should they be considered any more of a governing powers than Israel? Especially when literally the entire broader region was historically Jewish, long before the modern state of Israel, long before Islamic Arabs (now calling themselves Palestinian) were in the area? What I see is that the Islamic Arabs in Israel are living peacefully and are integrated into the “normal civil law”. But the residents of Gaza have been pro terrorism - which is why they voted for Hamas on a charter of committing genocide against all other beliefs.
      - ikr678 1y ago
        Why is 'legitimate' local government the hurdle here? Surely the presence of foreign troops killing civillians and destroying infrastructure counts as an occupation.
        JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > Surely the presence of foreign troops killing civillians and destroying infrastructure counts as an occupation The closest comparison would be domestic counter-terrorism, i.e. if one assumes Gaza is part of Israel. (Which, de facto, it is.)
        jhanschoo 1y ago
        Gaza was de facto administered by the civilian arm of Hamas on the eve of Oct 7, and throughout while there was still infrastructure to speak of, and this is the only sense I understand the term "de facto" to mean when used unqualified; what entity performs the day-to-day administration and security.
      - bawolff 1y ago
        It probably doesn't matter much. I agree that both the PA and especially Hamas are despotic dictatorships. So are a lot of countries. That's tragic for Palestinian citizens but ultimately doesn't matter much for determining if a piece of land is independent, occupied or annexed. Much of it just comes down to drawing a line in the sand at roughly the start of when the United Nations started, and saying this is what the borders are and no one is allowed to change them by force (one of the conditions of joining the UN is to give up the right to acquire territory by force). So from that view, it was egyptian and jordan territory who in turn, supported by the UN, gave it to the palestinian people as respresented by the PA. In a certain way that's pretty arbitrary but i guess its sort of an, it is what it is, sort of thing.
- BrenBarn 1y ago
  International law forbids a lot of things Israel already does. If it respected international law it would withdraw to its internationally recognized borders.
  - dotancohen 1y ago
    Israel's internationally recognized borders are the borders of Mandatory Palestine. The 1948 borders were ceasefire lines - the fact that they were not internationally recognized borders was for decades the justification for cross-border attacks.
    - BrenBarn 1y ago
      The Israeli settlements in the West Bank are illegal under international law.
      - dotancohen 1y ago
        The settlements were declare illegal by a UN resolution that did not specify what law was being broken.
        BrenBarn 1y ago
        Who cares? My point is the international community regards the settlements as illegal and if Israel cared about that they would immediately and completely withdraw.
        dotancohen 1y ago
        And my point is that the international community, which mostly comprise of Arab nations, Muslim nations, or nations that rely on Arab oil, has been shown to levy accusations and resolutions against the state that the Arab and Muslim nations are united to destroy. If there was merit to the claim that Jews building houses in the West Bank is illegal, they would have stated which law is being transgressed.
- holmesworcester 1y ago
  I think "if their authorities can kick down the door of the house you were born in" is a good enough guide here to see the problem as distinct from other military interventions, not like the invasion of Iraq was a good idea. The US was not established in Iraq long enough for generations of adults born in Iraq to have grown up under US control. The border between US and Iraq is not like the border between two suburbs, and there were never Iraqis crossing that border daily to drive a taxi or clean someone's house or see a doctor. They had enough control over Gaza before October 7th to deny Gaza a port, an airport, and even the right to do peaceful commercial fishing without getting their boats lit up. And for whatever limited access their law enforcement institutions had to Gaza for kicking in doors, they just did missile attacks on cars or apartments instead of kicking in doors, because they had no reason to care how many bystanders they killed.
  - bawolff 1y ago
    > I think "if their authorities can kick down the door of the house you were born in" is a good enough guide here to see the problem as distinct from other military interventions, not like the invasion of Iraq was a good idea. The US had troops in iraq that were going around kicking in doors. I'm not trying to make any claim as to wether the invasion was a good or bad thing (actually i think it was a bad thing), but it clearly meets your definition of when people should get a vote. At the same time i think most americans would view the proposition that iraqis should vote in us federal elections absurd. > The US was not established in Iraq long enough for generations of adults born in Iraq to have grown up under US control. This is a bit of a goal post move but what time frame do you think is relavent? America invaded iraq in 2003. They left briefly but then came back. They still have a small number of troops there right now. There is a generation of iraqis who have grown up never knowing a time where american troops werent in their country. > The border between US and Iraq is not like the border between two suburbs, and there were never Iraqis crossing that border daily to drive a taxi or clean someone's house or see a doctor. I'm not sure the relavence. Most borders in europe are like this, they dont vote in each others elections. I don't think at present this would describe the border situation in Israel/Palestine. > They had enough control over Gaza before October 7th to deny Gaza a port, an airport, and even the right to do peaceful commercial fishing without getting their boats lit up. Sure, and that's an argument people use to claim that the territory is under Israeli occupation (or sometimes they argue that would not be enough to start an occupation but its enouth to make the occupation not terminate). I think everyone agrees that Israel exerts significant military control over occupied Palestinian territories. That is why they are called "occupied".
yibg 1y ago
Without some strong general protection isn't that just 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner? Seems at least some basic guaranteed rights and freedoms is needed.
- bombcar 1y ago
  Guaranteed by whom? No guarantee is worth anything if it’s not eventually backed up by someone’s guns.
huevosabio 1y ago
> A government that can kick down the door of the house you were born in has a duty to give you voting rights. 100% The most basic principle in democratic government is that those subject to the monopoly of violence should also have a voice in how that violence is managed.
- jameshilliard 1y ago
  > The most basic principle in democratic government is that those subject to the monopoly of violence should also have a voice in how that violence is managed. I'm pretty sure most democracies also have a right to decide who can become a citizen. Forcing a country to give citizenship to enemy combatants would be kinda crazy, regardless of whether or not the territory those combatants operate from is under a military occupation.
  - immibis 1y ago
    Isn't that basically the USA regime's logic for stripping citizenship from people who vote against the regime?
    - jameshilliard 1y ago
      The current USA regime is attempting all sorts of dumb nonsense, but birthright citizenship certainly isn't universal among countries either. I'm not a citizen of the country I was born in.
jameshilliard 1y ago
[flagged]
- ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
  It's always bizarre to hear this sort of doomsaying about what would befall israelis if they treated Palestinians as the equal humans they are: 'it's suicide to treat Palestinians as people'; 'innocent folks will be expelled from their land if we treat Palestinians as people'; "or worse, killed!' It's bizarre because all the horrible prophecies have already come true, or are coming true, only with the roles reversed: We see that it is actually israel genociding Palestinians, rather than vice versa. Somehow these doomsaying prophets feel this dystopia is actually totally ok, as long as the victims have a particular religion or skin color. Or, to be charitable, maybe the prophets have been paying exactly zero attention to what israel has been doing to innocent Palestinian civilians over the years.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > always bizarre to hear this sort of doomsaying about what would befall israelis if they treated Palestinians as the equal humans they are Treating others as equals and co-inhabiting a space with them are quite different. Israel needs to treat Palestinians with dignity. But a lot of Palestinians (and Israelies) legitimately believe in exterminating the other. That's not a stable social base for building a state on.
  - jameshilliard 1y ago
    The last time Palestinians voted they quite literally elected Hamas terrorists[0], you're making it out as if making Jews a minority and Palestinians a majority in Israel wouldn't represent an existential threat to the Jewish population. There are zero Jews living under Palestinian rule(i.e Gaza and the West Bank Areas A/B), why do you think it would be any different if they were given majority voting rights in Israel? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Palestinian_legislative_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Palestinian_legislative_e...
    - 1y ago

bawolff 1y ago

International law forbids the occupying power to give voting rights to occupied regions. Its also a bit unclear what you mean by "unambiguously under Israeli control" since Palestinians in occupied palestinian territories aren't unambigiously under Israeli control, they had little control over the inside of Gaza until recently, and have some power in the west bank that is shared with the PA. Neither is "unambiguous control". The only group unambigiously under their control are the Palestinians inside Israel proper who as far as i understand do have full voting rights. If you think military presence should equal voting rights, than i think that would imply that Iraq should be able to vote in US presedential elections.

Ey7NFZ3P0nzAe 1y ago
Well the word "occupying" is doing the heavy lifting here.
- bawolff 1y ago
  How so? There are troops there, The troops are not present with the consent of the local governing powers, the area has not been annexed (has not been integrated into normal civil law of the country with the troops)*. That is a textbook definition of what an occupation is. * except for East Jerusalem, which would normally be considered annexed, but the UNSC has decided (with the binding force of international law) that it is de jure occupied. However Palestinians in east Juruselum can apply for citizenship and get voting rights.
  - SilverElfin 1y ago
    > The troops are not present with the consent of the local governing powers Are the governing powers legitimate? Hamas banned elections after they won the 2006 election. Why should they be considered any more of a governing powers than Israel? Especially when literally the entire broader region was historically Jewish, long before the modern state of Israel, long before Islamic Arabs (now calling themselves Palestinian) were in the area? What I see is that the Islamic Arabs in Israel are living peacefully and are integrated into the “normal civil law”. But the residents of Gaza have been pro terrorism - which is why they voted for Hamas on a charter of committing genocide against all other beliefs.
    - ikr678 1y ago
      Why is 'legitimate' local government the hurdle here? Surely the presence of foreign troops killing civillians and destroying infrastructure counts as an occupation.
      - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > Surely the presence of foreign troops killing civillians and destroying infrastructure counts as an occupation The closest comparison would be domestic counter-terrorism, i.e. if one assumes Gaza is part of Israel. (Which, de facto, it is.)
        jhanschoo 1y ago
        Gaza was de facto administered by the civilian arm of Hamas on the eve of Oct 7, and throughout while there was still infrastructure to speak of, and this is the only sense I understand the term "de facto" to mean when used unqualified; what entity performs the day-to-day administration and security.
    - bawolff 1y ago
      It probably doesn't matter much. I agree that both the PA and especially Hamas are despotic dictatorships. So are a lot of countries. That's tragic for Palestinian citizens but ultimately doesn't matter much for determining if a piece of land is independent, occupied or annexed. Much of it just comes down to drawing a line in the sand at roughly the start of when the United Nations started, and saying this is what the borders are and no one is allowed to change them by force (one of the conditions of joining the UN is to give up the right to acquire territory by force). So from that view, it was egyptian and jordan territory who in turn, supported by the UN, gave it to the palestinian people as respresented by the PA. In a certain way that's pretty arbitrary but i guess its sort of an, it is what it is, sort of thing.
BrenBarn 1y ago
International law forbids a lot of things Israel already does. If it respected international law it would withdraw to its internationally recognized borders.
- dotancohen 1y ago
  Israel's internationally recognized borders are the borders of Mandatory Palestine. The 1948 borders were ceasefire lines - the fact that they were not internationally recognized borders was for decades the justification for cross-border attacks.
  - BrenBarn 1y ago
    The Israeli settlements in the West Bank are illegal under international law.
    - dotancohen 1y ago
      The settlements were declare illegal by a UN resolution that did not specify what law was being broken.
      - BrenBarn 1y ago
        Who cares? My point is the international community regards the settlements as illegal and if Israel cared about that they would immediately and completely withdraw.
        dotancohen 1y ago
        And my point is that the international community, which mostly comprise of Arab nations, Muslim nations, or nations that rely on Arab oil, has been shown to levy accusations and resolutions against the state that the Arab and Muslim nations are united to destroy. If there was merit to the claim that Jews building houses in the West Bank is illegal, they would have stated which law is being transgressed.
holmesworcester 1y ago
I think "if their authorities can kick down the door of the house you were born in" is a good enough guide here to see the problem as distinct from other military interventions, not like the invasion of Iraq was a good idea. The US was not established in Iraq long enough for generations of adults born in Iraq to have grown up under US control. The border between US and Iraq is not like the border between two suburbs, and there were never Iraqis crossing that border daily to drive a taxi or clean someone's house or see a doctor. They had enough control over Gaza before October 7th to deny Gaza a port, an airport, and even the right to do peaceful commercial fishing without getting their boats lit up. And for whatever limited access their law enforcement institutions had to Gaza for kicking in doors, they just did missile attacks on cars or apartments instead of kicking in doors, because they had no reason to care how many bystanders they killed.
- bawolff 1y ago
  > I think "if their authorities can kick down the door of the house you were born in" is a good enough guide here to see the problem as distinct from other military interventions, not like the invasion of Iraq was a good idea. The US had troops in iraq that were going around kicking in doors. I'm not trying to make any claim as to wether the invasion was a good or bad thing (actually i think it was a bad thing), but it clearly meets your definition of when people should get a vote. At the same time i think most americans would view the proposition that iraqis should vote in us federal elections absurd. > The US was not established in Iraq long enough for generations of adults born in Iraq to have grown up under US control. This is a bit of a goal post move but what time frame do you think is relavent? America invaded iraq in 2003. They left briefly but then came back. They still have a small number of troops there right now. There is a generation of iraqis who have grown up never knowing a time where american troops werent in their country. > The border between US and Iraq is not like the border between two suburbs, and there were never Iraqis crossing that border daily to drive a taxi or clean someone's house or see a doctor. I'm not sure the relavence. Most borders in europe are like this, they dont vote in each others elections. I don't think at present this would describe the border situation in Israel/Palestine. > They had enough control over Gaza before October 7th to deny Gaza a port, an airport, and even the right to do peaceful commercial fishing without getting their boats lit up. Sure, and that's an argument people use to claim that the territory is under Israeli occupation (or sometimes they argue that would not be enough to start an occupation but its enouth to make the occupation not terminate). I think everyone agrees that Israel exerts significant military control over occupied Palestinian territories. That is why they are called "occupied".

yibg 1y ago

Without some strong general protection isn't that just 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner? Seems at least some basic guaranteed rights and freedoms is needed.

bombcar 1y ago
Guaranteed by whom? No guarantee is worth anything if it’s not eventually backed up by someone’s guns.

huevosabio 1y ago

> A government that can kick down the door of the house you were born in has a duty to give you voting rights. 100% The most basic principle in democratic government is that those subject to the monopoly of violence should also have a voice in how that violence is managed.

jameshilliard 1y ago
> The most basic principle in democratic government is that those subject to the monopoly of violence should also have a voice in how that violence is managed. I'm pretty sure most democracies also have a right to decide who can become a citizen. Forcing a country to give citizenship to enemy combatants would be kinda crazy, regardless of whether or not the territory those combatants operate from is under a military occupation.
- immibis 1y ago
  Isn't that basically the USA regime's logic for stripping citizenship from people who vote against the regime?
  - jameshilliard 1y ago
    The current USA regime is attempting all sorts of dumb nonsense, but birthright citizenship certainly isn't universal among countries either. I'm not a citizen of the country I was born in.

jameshilliard 1y ago

[flagged]

ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
It's always bizarre to hear this sort of doomsaying about what would befall israelis if they treated Palestinians as the equal humans they are: 'it's suicide to treat Palestinians as people'; 'innocent folks will be expelled from their land if we treat Palestinians as people'; "or worse, killed!' It's bizarre because all the horrible prophecies have already come true, or are coming true, only with the roles reversed: We see that it is actually israel genociding Palestinians, rather than vice versa. Somehow these doomsaying prophets feel this dystopia is actually totally ok, as long as the victims have a particular religion or skin color. Or, to be charitable, maybe the prophets have been paying exactly zero attention to what israel has been doing to innocent Palestinian civilians over the years.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > always bizarre to hear this sort of doomsaying about what would befall israelis if they treated Palestinians as the equal humans they are Treating others as equals and co-inhabiting a space with them are quite different. Israel needs to treat Palestinians with dignity. But a lot of Palestinians (and Israelies) legitimately believe in exterminating the other. That's not a stable social base for building a state on.
- jameshilliard 1y ago
  The last time Palestinians voted they quite literally elected Hamas terrorists[0], you're making it out as if making Jews a minority and Palestinians a majority in Israel wouldn't represent an existential threat to the Jewish population. There are zero Jews living under Palestinian rule(i.e Gaza and the West Bank Areas A/B), why do you think it would be any different if they were given majority voting rights in Israel? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Palestinian_legislative_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Palestinian_legislative_e...
  - 1y ago