Gaza
Posted: Sat May 17, 2025 6:48 am
Just wondering where we stand on this by now. Perhaps intp.live should write an editorial.
(Saoirse don Phalaistín)
(Saoirse don Phalaistín)
Utisz wrote: ↑Wed May 21, 2025 3:49 am^^ A drop in the ocean.
Finally seems untenable now, the current situation. Starving people is very bad PR. They won't show a child partially crushed under concrete, or decapitated by shrapnel, or suffocating slowly during hours or days in a pocket of air under a collapsed building, but they will show on the bulletin living children wasting away, ribcages protruding in the daylight, without pixellation.
The objective is not to get along, but to stop the bloodshed while ensuring basic dignity. This at least they managed in Northern Ireland / the north of Ireland, arguably. The goal is not to stop the hate, but rather to stop the killing.
While I understand where you are coming from, I largely disagree. The Palestinians in Gaza tried the "passive resistance approach" with the Right to Return marches in 2018/2019, which were almost entirely peaceful on the Palestinian side, and where Israeli snipers killed over 200 Palestinians, without any Israeli casualties. But internationally the Israeli atrocities received very limited coverage, because it did not fit conventional narratives, so basically these people died in vain. The Palestinians turned the other cheek for 18 months, on a level far beyond Civil Rights marches in (for example) the U.S. and the north of Ireland, and nothing resulted from it, except hundreds dead and thousands injured from Israeli sniper fire. Essentially hardly anybody, internationally, gave a fuck.Hindsight being 20/20, while the Palestinians got a bit of a raw deal in 1948, if had they just taken a two state solution back then, and decided to co-exist peacefully with the Jews, everybody would have been better off. Heck we might even have an uneasy peace.
Now, a two state solution seems completely off the table and Israel is acting rather badly. Hamas is not helping though with their intractability. I don't really see how the hostages are helping them, they should try letting them all go and seeing how that influences global opinion. They remind me a bit of the black night in Monty Python who after getting his arms and legs cut off is yelling "Is that all you've got? Come back here and I will bite you on the knee!". Sometimes you just have to admit defeat. Oct 7 did not work out for them as planned, so time to switch gears. I'd suggest a Nelson Mandela/Gandi passive resistance approach might result in a better outcome (as opposed to terrorism) but I don't know that Islamic culture would allow for such an approach.
I'm in general agreement with you but it seems we are tracking more towards your option #1 at the moment. Israel is talking about re-occupying Gaza permanently and they are also fragmenting the west bank more and more. The international community seems rather impotent these days (I could say the same thing about the situation in Ukraine). The UN is all full of talk and condemnations but they are a rather toothless tiger. And with the US on Israel's side, widespread sanctions and the like will probably never happen.Utisz wrote: ↑Sun May 25, 2025 6:15 amA two state solution may or may not be off the table, but I think it will increasingly become the preferable realistic option for Israeli Zionists. I think there are essentially only three ways forward: (1) continued apartheid or ethnic cleansing or genocide towards establishing a "greater Israel", (2) a two-state solution, (3) a one-state democratic solution with one person, one vote.
The international community increasingly does not have the stomach for live-streamed apartheid nor for ethnic cleansing nor for genocide, and pressure from ICC/ICJ/legacy is slowly starting to turn career politicians who have paid lip-service to Zionism AND the two-state solution against this goal. Israel is increasingly become a rogue state similar to apartheid-era South Africa, and something has to give. The pretentiousness of the right-wing Israeli PR machine is not helping matters, where they brazenly treat the international audience as fucking dumbasses. Option 3 would see Palestine/Israel become a (slight-)majority Arab state, and would not be acceptable to the Zionist powers that be. So the only other option left for the medium term is a two-state solution, where Israel probably gets way more than just, but have to pull most settlers out.
In that sense, October 7th will surely move the dial in a way that "passive resistance approach" never could, and never did, but with an atrocious cost. But I believe that the unfair way things were positioned, moving the dial was always going to require an atrocious cost for Palestinians to win the PR battle.
The international community is very obviously becoming more vocal against Israel. I think in the past month or so, the Overton window has shifted in countries like the U.S and the U.K., and criticism of Israel is no longer automatically antisemetic, and the reflexive defenses appealing to antisemitism (in relation, for example, to leaders like Macron) are becoming increasingly tired and transparent. This is already a big shift. Even amongst the purest political classes (a lot of international Zionism is just "realpolitik") there is a lot of future-proofing going on now as people realise that Israel (or at least the "Netenyahu government") is becoming a sinking pariah ship. It is becoming more and more intractable to argue that Israel is not commiting genocide.Senseye wrote: ↑Sun May 25, 2025 9:16 pmI'm in general agreement with you but it seems we are tracking more towards your option #1 at the moment. Israel is talking about re-occupying Gaza permanently and they are also fragmenting the west bank more and more. The international community seems rather impotent these days (I could say the same thing about the situation in Ukraine). The UN is all full of talk and condemnations but they are a rather toothless tiger. And with the US on Israel's side, widespread sanctions and the like will probably never happen.
A one-state non-apartheid solution is probably the fairest solution, even though I am not sure it is realistic (because most Israelis insist in their God-given right to a "Jewish state", even though most don't believe in God, and they have a material advantage).Senseye wrote: ↑Sun May 25, 2025 9:16 pmI think a two state solution would be the best. Now that Gaza is pretty much rubble I would think it might be a good time to relocate all the Palestinians to the West Bank, but in this case the West Bank should go back to the 1968 armistice lines and be a contiguous region (all Israeli settlements removed - kind of a trade off for Gaza).
Alas, no one is interested in my opinion. I also think an independent Palestine would probably be a pretty poor state, akin to Lebanon, so I don't know how well that would actually work. Terrorist groups tend to thrive politically in those kinds of states, which would simply lead to a new conflict. Still, it seems a better option than the current apartheid state, and I think we both agree option #3 would never be acceptable to the Israelis.
Israel is in the worst position right now, internationally, that it has been possibly even since its inception. It is consistently becoming more of a pariah state each day. In that sense, October 7th will achieve something that passive resistance never could, nor did, but with an awful cost. This is comparable to similar struggles against occupation elsewhere. Again, there were atrocities on October 7th that were counterproductive, but from a Palestinan perspective, it was an impossible situation.Senseye wrote: ↑Sun May 25, 2025 9:16 pmI realize passive resistance hasn't worked that well for the Palestinians, but then again neither has armed resistance. And terrorism generally doesn't play well with international opinion. Its kind of gives Israel a get out of jail free card for some of their violence. Especially, since Oct 7. I'm not sure if Hamas was banking on more international outrage constraining Israel, or perhaps more military support from the wider Arab states, but neither seem forthcoming. Also, Hamas seems to be willing to 'martyr' pretty much every Gaza civilian, whether they like it or not, so I have little good to say about them either.
True, but talk is cheap. I am not seeing any actions, or even threats of actions (sanctions for example).Utisz wrote: ↑Sun Jun 01, 2025 7:24 am
The international community is very obviously becoming more vocal against Israel. I think in the past month or so, the Overton window has shifted in countries like the U.S and the U.K., and criticism of Israel is no longer automatically antisemetic, and the reflexive defenses appealing to antisemitism (in relation, for example, to leaders like Macron) are becoming increasingly tired and transparent. This is already a big shift. Even amongst the purest political classes (a lot of international Zionism is just "realpolitik") there is a lot of future-proofing going on now as people realise that Israel (or at least the "Netenyahu government") is becoming a sinking pariah ship. It is becoming more and more intractable to argue that Israel is not commiting genocide.
A one state non apartheid solution is the fairest in theory. In practice, if the Palestinians ever had equal voting rights, they would take control of the government and re-implement an apartheid state with the Jews being the second class citizens this time round. And the Jewish people would never allow that risk. There is simply too much hatred between the two groups for peaceful coexistence in a single state IMO.Utisz wrote: ↑Sun Jun 01, 2025 7:24 amA one-state non-apartheid solution is probably the fairest solution, even though I am not sure it is realistic (because most Israelis insist in their God-given right to a "Jewish state", even though most don't believe in God, and they have a material advantage).
Moving Gazans to the West Bank is ethnic cleansing. Gaza is the home of many Gazans, and the rest are refugees from "Mandatory Palenstine" that have a right to return (independently of the fact that Israel will not allow this). They are not pieces on a chess board, but rather human beings that maintain basic rights under international laws.
I am not as optimistic as you this will end well for the Gazans/Palestinians. If Gaza is re-occupied, life there will be more miserable than ever. This will probably result in more terrorist attacks down the line, and the whole cycle of violence will repeat.Utisz wrote: ↑Sun Jun 01, 2025 7:24 am
Israel is in the worst position right now, internationally, that it has been possibly even since its inception. It is consistently becoming more of a pariah state each day. In that sense, October 7th will achieve something that passive resistance never could, nor did, but with an awful cost. This is comparable to similar struggles against occupation elsewhere. Again, there were atrocities on October 7th that were counterproductive, but from a Palestinan perspective, it was an impossible situation.
I really don't agree that Hamas are willing to martyr everyone in Gaza, but they are willing to martyr some, and themselves, yes. But I think that October 7th will prove decisive in terms of a better future for Palestinians, again by paying an awful cost to overcome Zionist tendencies in western powers, and a general Islamophobia post 9/11. But I don't think there was any way to move the needle without paying a massive cost.
That said, again, the needle has certainly moved now, by giving the Isreali government a "pretext" to commit an ongoing live-streamed genocide. There is no going back from that for Israel. Western politicians cannot whitewash this anymore, nor maintain their credibility while defending the images that anyone can find on social media. It will also be a turning point for traditional media, and for the influence of Zionist lobbies.