Israel - Hamas War IV

[Tywin et al.]

7 minutes ago, Bironic said:

Let's say in the future there is a palestinian government that acknowledges Israels right to exist and there is an Israeli government that allows a Palestinian state to exist. How would that Palestinian state work? with one half landlocked in the Westbank and the Gaza strip only reachable by crossing Israel ? Doesn't strike me as very realistic...

Is there another country on earth that is split in two? Would it be possible to govern it? I am not saying t's impossible but just very hard... idk

The US with Alaska (invade Canada!!!) plus Hawaii and some other island states that are second class citizens (which the US needs to resolve). 

But to your main point, no, it's insane to make Gaza and the WB one state. You're just inviting more problems. 

[Bironic]

1 minute ago, Kalnak the Magnificent said:

Yes, there are several. The US is one such state. While Alaskans may disagree, the US has had relatively little trouble governing it. 

Kaliningrad is also separate from Russia. Azerbaijan is a good example of this being a problem, but it's another one (and Armenia doesn't let them cross via Armenia so they have to go through Iran to get to it). There are several others that are weird; the weirdest one, IMO, is Malawi, which has two islands in a lake that is partially controlled by Mozambique and partially by Malawi, and the islands are in Mozambique territory. 

Didn't think of those, thanks... but with the exception of Azerbajian-Armenia it's always reachable by sea no(alaska and those islands are at least, you don't have to go through canada, and the canada-us relations are less rocky than the israel-palestine, there's also very little alaskans compared to rest of US)? or it's just a very small enclave/exclave like those in the Ferghana Valley or at india-Bangladesh border.

[Bironic]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

But to your main point, no, it's insane to make Gaza and the WB one state. You're just inviting more problems. 

okay... so what would be your proposal?

[Bael's Bastard]

19 minutes ago, Bironic said:

Let's say in the future there is a palestinian government that acknowledges Israels right to exist and there is an Israeli government that allows a Palestinian state to exist. How would that Palestinian state work? with one half landlocked in the Westbank and the Gaza strip only reachable by crossing Israel ? Doesn't strike me as very realistic...

Is there another country on earth that is split in two(i guess pakistan back in the day but that didn't work out either did it)? Would it be possible to govern it? I am not saying t's impossible but just very hard... idk

The original partition before the 47-49 realities on the ground reshaped everything had two points that were much closer together where both states would require crossings. More recent negotiations also planned for corridors between Gaza and the WB through Israel. Not sure whether that would still be viable unless the PA gets a secure hold on Gaza.

Edited October 19, 2023 by Bael's Bastard

[Craving Peaches]

59 minutes ago, Kalnak the Magnificent said:

Going to really push back on this - that is NOT what that link says or what the video says.

The title of the tweet says:

"An Al Jazeera digital investigation found no grounds for the Israeli army's claim that the strike on the al-Ahli Arab hospital in Gaza was caused by a failed rocket launch."

I thought 'groundless' was an acceptable synonym for 'no grounds'?

Edited October 19, 2023 by Craving Peaches

[Bironic]

1 minute ago, Bael's Bastard said:

The original partition had two points thay were much closer together where both states would require crossings. More recent negotiations also planned for corridors between Gaza and the WB through Israel. Not sure whether that would still be viable unless the PA gets a secure hold on Gaza.

Yes but the plan from 1948 isn't on the table anyway... and such corridors I mean they would infringe on israeli sovreignity and would also be entirely reliant on israeli good will?

[Bael's Bastard]

16 minutes ago, Bironic said:

Yes but the plan from 1948 isn't on the table anyway... and such corridors I mean they would infringe on israeli sovreignity and would also be entirely reliant on israeli good will?

There's no way Israeli and Palestinian states will not have to cooperate in some such way or another. As we have seen, any suggestion of even temporarily moving Gazans to avoid striking them while targeting Hamas is accuses of ethnic cleansing and genocide (though note no such language is used when speaking of the inevitable removal of Jews from much of the WB, including from communities rebuilt after Jordan ethnically cleansed them in 48-49). Not finding a way to connect Gaza and the WB will likely be unacceptable to most, especially Palestinians.

Edited October 19, 2023 by Bael's Bastard

[Kalbear]

21 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

The title of the tweet says:

"An Al Jazeera digital investigation found no grounds for the Israeli army's claim that the strike on the al-Ahli Arab hospital in Gaza was caused by a failed rocket launch."

I thought 'groundless' was an acceptable synonym for 'no grounds'?

It is, and that's also not what the link says. Like, at all. 

[Craving Peaches]

18 minutes ago, Kalnak the Magnificent said:

It is, and that's also not what the link says. Like, at all. 

I gave a link to the tweet with a summary based on the text of the tweet. I don't really see what the issue is. If the text of the tweet doesn't match up with the video, that is the fault of Al Jazeera's person in charge of making the tweets...

I feel like I'm missing something obvious here. Maybe I'm just tired?

Edited October 19, 2023 by Craving Peaches

[Tywin et al.]

49 minutes ago, Bironic said:

okay... so what would be your proposal?

Same as its always been, Gaza becomes part of Israel, people in Gaza get relocated to the WB and all the illegal settlements are theirs. 

It makes sense, but both sides will be mad they're not getting everything they want so its never going to happen.

[Relic]

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Same as its always been, Gaza becomes part of Israel, people in Gaza get relocated to the WB and all the illegal settlements are theirs. 

It makes sense, but both sides will be mad they're not getting everything they want so its never going to happen.

Wtf kind of deal is that? 

[Bael's Bastard]

10 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Same as its always been, Gaza becomes part of Israel, people in Gaza get relocated to the WB and all the illegal settlements are theirs. 

It makes sense, but both sides will be mad they're not getting everything they want so its never going to happen.

I think part of the issue isn't just that people aren't getting what they want, it's that the idea of any more Palestinians having to relocate is obviously loaded (even though any plan will also require relocating hundreds of thousands of Jews, which doesn't bother most non-Jews). It would also require trading some part of current Israel, which is also loaded. Do you trade parts where Israeli Jews live (loaded), where Israeli Arabs live like the Galilee as Lieberman has proposed (loaded), or parts where nobody lives and aren't appealing to Palestinians? This and the Palestinian demand of a "right of return" into Israel (rather than into a Palestinian state) are major hurdles to an agreement.

Edited October 19, 2023 by Bael's Bastard

[Tywin et al.]

1 minute ago, Relic said:

Wtf kind of deal is that? 

A pretty good one? They lose the port, but get a ton of ready to go housing in a new state which they'll have full autonomy over and hopefully a number of other states will inject a lot of funds into it so a few years down the road it's a prosperous place. 

[Tywin et al.]

3 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said:

I think part of the issue isn't just that people aren't getting what they want, it's that the idea of any more Palestinians having to relocate is obviously loaded (even though any plan will also require relocating hundreds of thousands of Jews, which doesn't bother most). It would also require trading some part of current Israel, which is also loaded. Do you trade parts where Israeli Jews live (loaded), where Israeli Arabs live (loaded), or parts where nobody lives and aren't appealing to Palestinians? This and the "right of return" into Israel (rather than into a Palestinian state) are major hurdles to an agreement.

I don't have the answers to each question, but what I do know is it would be a really bad idea to make Gaza and the WB one state. That just creates more problems.

Edited October 19, 2023 by Tywin et al.

[Bironic]

9 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Same as its always been, Gaza becomes part of Israel, people in Gaza get relocated to the WB and all the illegal settlements are theirs. 

It makes sense, but both sides will be mad they're not getting everything they want so its never going to happen.

But then palestine loses territory that is internationally recognized as theirs, doesn't strike me as very fair... if Israel gets gaza they should give the palestinians the same amount of territory(ca. 365 km2) in the WB(not the settlements they are already internationally recognized as palestine)...

[mormont]

Let's recall that the best deal the Palestinians have ever been offered, the one people often say now they should have taken, didn't just involve a state of two seperate parts, but one of those parts being riddled with exclaves under Israeli control connected by roads Palestinians would not be allowed to use or approach. 

And there are many, many more Israeli settlements and roads since then.

As I've said before, though, not much point discussing what a Palestinian state would look like since there isn't any sign Israel wants to offer one, and nobody else will make them.

[Mudguard]

3 hours ago, Ran said:

Iron Dome doesn't intercept over Gaza. It doesn't intercept during launches, but in the terminal phase. Al-Jazeera should know this.

Are you absolutely sure about this?  I've seen some videos that show both the rocket launches from Gaza and the Iron Dome interceptions to protect the city of Ashkelon, which is about 2 miles from Gaza.  There is very little time to react, and by necessity, the interceptions occur shortly after the rockets are launched.  Depending on how deep within Gaza these rockets are being launched, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the interceptions took place over Gaza.

 

[Tywin et al.]

5 minutes ago, Bironic said:

But then palestine loses territory that is internationally recognized as theirs, doesn't strike me as very fair... if Israel gets gaza they should give the palestinians the same amount of territory(ca. 365 km2) in the WB(not the settlements they are already internationally recognized as palestine)...

Israelis also lose a lot of property in this deal. 

Look, you cannot connect Gaza and the WB as one state for obvious reasons. If you create the highway between them it instantly becomes one of the most dangerous stretches of land in the world and if you don't then you have to fly between the two places and Israel would demand to control the airports. It just creates more problems not having one piece of land that's the new Palestinian state. I doubt Israel or Jordan would agree to give up land to expand it, that's why I think a flood of resources is the better way to fill the gap. 

[Bironic]

4 minutes ago, mormont said:

Let's recall that the best deal the Palestinians have ever been offered, the one people often say now they should have taken, didn't just involve a state of two seperate parts, but one of those parts being riddled with exclaves under Israeli control connected by roads Palestinians would not be allowed to use or approach. 

And there are many, many more Israeli settlements and roads since then.

As I've said before, though, not much point discussing what a Palestinian state would look like since there isn't any sign Israel wants to offer one, and nobody else will make them.

That's not exactly true is it though? there was a much better plan for palestine in 1947...

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Israelis also lose a lot of property in this deal. 

Look, you cannot connect Gaza and the WB as one state for obvious reasons. If you create the highway between them it instantly becomes one of the most dangerous stretches of land in the world and if you don't then you have to fly between the two places and Israel would demand to control the airports. It just creates more problems not having one piece of land that's the new Palestinian state. I doubt Israel or Jordan would agree to give up land to expand it, that's why I think a flood of resources is the better way to fill the gap. 

Illegal property... I agree that WB + Gaza seems far fetched, but your deal is way to favourable for Israel for it to ever be accepted by a palestinian... Especially since gaza has access to the ocean and Egypt while the WB has access to Jordan and nothing else (meaning that Gaza is way more valuable than almost everything in the WB, similar to Haifa or Tel Aviv being more valuable than let's say Ramla)

[Bael's Bastard]

20 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I don't have the answers to each question, but what I do know is it would be a really bad idea to make Gaza and the WB one state. That idea just creates more problems.

I hear you. What I do know is pretty much nobody wants a one state solution except maximalists like Hamas, Kahanists, and foreigners who either don't understand, don't care, or want one side to dominate or expel the other once and for all. The only just solution remains a multi-state solution, whether that be two or three of whatever sort.