By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
How many Palestinian lives is sufficient? on 17:07 - Dec 17 by DJR
Turning to the present, this is an interesting development.
Israeli opposition leader and former prime minister, Yair Lapid, has called for Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, to step down.
“We have a prime minister who lost the trust of the people, lost the trust of the world and lost the trust of the security establishment,” he wrote in a post on X.
“Netanyahu cannot continue to be prime minister in the current situation.”
Speculation over whether Netanyahu can maintain his wartime coalition has been rife. Parties could walk away, potentially collapsing the government.
Netanyahu has been fiercely criticised for not taking responsibility for failing to prevent the 7 October attack.
EDIT: Maybe not so significant because he called for Netanyahu to stand down on 16 November too.
[Post edited 17 Dec 2023 17:17]
It's always been a matter of when not if Netanyahu goes, after 7/10. The shooting of the three hostages may well speed up that process.
How many Palestinian lives is sufficient? on 16:18 - Dec 17 by DJR
A demilitarised state is arguably not a state, given that (according to Wikipedia) the most commonly used definition is by Max Weber who describes the state as a compulsory political organization with a centralized government that maintains a monopoly of the legitimate use of force within a certain territory. Other definitions of the expression also include war making and defence as essential characteristics.
And when it comes to Azerbaijan and Nakchivan, I am not sure that is a great precedent given the recent ethnic cleansing of Armenians from Nagorno-Karabach, and demands by Turkey and Azerbaijan for a transport corridor connecting Azerbaijan with Nakhchivan.
Nor would I consider an intervening sea in the case of Malaysia (or an intervening country in the case of Alaska) an obstacle because they exist in situations where there is no real conflict, something which has not been the case from the outset in what was once Mandatory Palestine.
[Post edited 17 Dec 2023 16:24]
The legitimate use of force does not have to be an army - it can be a police force with weapons. There are several countries without armies - most notably Costa Rica.
[Post edited 17 Dec 2023 17:45]
2
How many Palestinian lives is sufficient? on 17:52 - Dec 17 with 3121 views
How many Palestinian lives is sufficient? on 17:45 - Dec 17 by Clapham_Junction
The legitimate use of force does not have to be an army - it can be a police force with weapons. There are several countries without armies - most notably Costa Rica.
[Post edited 17 Dec 2023 17:45]
And West Germany went nearly ten years without an army after the end of the second world war.
How many Palestinian lives is sufficient? on 17:45 - Dec 17 by Clapham_Junction
The legitimate use of force does not have to be an army - it can be a police force with weapons. There are several countries without armies - most notably Costa Rica.
[Post edited 17 Dec 2023 17:45]
That may be true, but in the current context, I think it would be "the monopoly" of the legitimate use of force that would be missing.
Anyway, we seem to be getting side-tracked away from my general point that the idea of a split Palestinian state was perhaps doomed from the outset, although it did try to reflect the situation on the ground.
And I just wondered if anyone had considered this aspect of the issue.
[Post edited 17 Dec 2023 18:41]
0
How many Palestinian lives is sufficient? on 18:21 - Dec 17 with 3064 views
How many Palestinian lives is sufficient? on 17:56 - Dec 17 by Nthsuffolkblue
Didn't Japan too? Or was it just West Germany?
I suppose the difference is that we were at war with the whole of Japan and Germany, and as victors could presumably impose what requirements we wanted.
In the current case, the war only involves one of the enclaves (Gaza), so the parallels are not necessarily the same.
And it brings me back to my original point, that having two separate areas (Gaza and the West Bank) is problematic.
[Post edited 17 Dec 2023 18:36]
0
How many Palestinian lives is sufficient? on 20:48 - Dec 17 with 2985 views
How many Palestinian lives is sufficient? on 11:15 - Dec 17 by leitrimblue
Though it's obviously absolutely awful for the 3 innocent men involved and heartbreaking for their families, this story really does give an indication of the indiscriminate nature of the killing going on inside Gaza. If you are barechested isreali hostages, carrying a white flag and the IDF shout terrorist and gun you down what chance do innocent women and children have inside Gaza?
How many Palestinian lives is sufficient? on 18:21 - Dec 17 by DJR
I suppose the difference is that we were at war with the whole of Japan and Germany, and as victors could presumably impose what requirements we wanted.
In the current case, the war only involves one of the enclaves (Gaza), so the parallels are not necessarily the same.
And it brings me back to my original point, that having two separate areas (Gaza and the West Bank) is problematic.
[Post edited 17 Dec 2023 18:36]
I've done a bit of digging and come across an article which discusses the problem of Gaza and Palestine being non-contiguous, but I haven't found anything else as maybe this issue has never been really addressed because a two-state solution has become a mantra or sop rather than a properly thought out policy.
The article is from Noah Smith, an America former academic and writer for Bloomberg.
In it he states the following, which is along the lines of what I was thinking.
"A two-state solution, of the type specified in the Oslo Accords, is unworkable because Gaza and the West Bank won’t form part of a single state. First of all, and most importantly, they’re non-contiguous. Non-contiguous states have a very poor historical track record, as evidenced by the fate of Pakistan and Bangladesh. Alaska is an exception of course, but Alaska is mostly empty wilderness; I suspect that if Alaska became more populous, it would try to secede. Gaza and the West Bank, in contrast, have roughly comparable populations — about 2 million to 3 million.
Consider transportation. Unlike Alaska or Kaliningrad or even Bangladesh, the West Bank is landlocked. For Gazans and West Bank Palestinians to visit each other’s territories, they would thus have to travel across Israel along a land corridor that Israel could choose to close at any time; this would totally compromise Palestinian sovereignty. The Palestinian state would be at the mercy of Israel because Israel could always threaten to sever it in two.
Even more important is the fact that political control is built locally, through in-person relationships, social services, infrastructure building, etc. This means that Gaza and the West Bank will naturally tend toward being controlled by two different political leaderships. And in fact this is exactly what has happened. Hamas and Fatah, two Palestinian political parties with armed militias, fought each other in 2007; the former prevailed in Gaza and the latter prevailed in the West Bank.
This means that Gaza and the West Bank are part of a single “nation” only in the sense that they both think of themselves as Palestinian, they both dream of a united Palestinian state, and the international community thinks of them as part of one people. But geographically, economically, politically, and militarily, they are already separate entities. And since Israel is unlikely to be wiped off the map, they will remain separate entities in any foreseeable “solution”.
Thus, a two-state solution is really off the table, and always has been — not because of Israel’s actions or Palestinian irredentism, but simply because it’s not practically possible for Gaza and the West Bank to stay united."
How many Palestinian lives is sufficient? on 21:29 - Dec 17 by DJR
I've done a bit of digging and come across an article which discusses the problem of Gaza and Palestine being non-contiguous, but I haven't found anything else as maybe this issue has never been really addressed because a two-state solution has become a mantra or sop rather than a properly thought out policy.
The article is from Noah Smith, an America former academic and writer for Bloomberg.
In it he states the following, which is along the lines of what I was thinking.
"A two-state solution, of the type specified in the Oslo Accords, is unworkable because Gaza and the West Bank won’t form part of a single state. First of all, and most importantly, they’re non-contiguous. Non-contiguous states have a very poor historical track record, as evidenced by the fate of Pakistan and Bangladesh. Alaska is an exception of course, but Alaska is mostly empty wilderness; I suspect that if Alaska became more populous, it would try to secede. Gaza and the West Bank, in contrast, have roughly comparable populations — about 2 million to 3 million.
Consider transportation. Unlike Alaska or Kaliningrad or even Bangladesh, the West Bank is landlocked. For Gazans and West Bank Palestinians to visit each other’s territories, they would thus have to travel across Israel along a land corridor that Israel could choose to close at any time; this would totally compromise Palestinian sovereignty. The Palestinian state would be at the mercy of Israel because Israel could always threaten to sever it in two.
Even more important is the fact that political control is built locally, through in-person relationships, social services, infrastructure building, etc. This means that Gaza and the West Bank will naturally tend toward being controlled by two different political leaderships. And in fact this is exactly what has happened. Hamas and Fatah, two Palestinian political parties with armed militias, fought each other in 2007; the former prevailed in Gaza and the latter prevailed in the West Bank.
This means that Gaza and the West Bank are part of a single “nation” only in the sense that they both think of themselves as Palestinian, they both dream of a united Palestinian state, and the international community thinks of them as part of one people. But geographically, economically, politically, and militarily, they are already separate entities. And since Israel is unlikely to be wiped off the map, they will remain separate entities in any foreseeable “solution”.
Thus, a two-state solution is really off the table, and always has been — not because of Israel’s actions or Palestinian irredentism, but simply because it’s not practically possible for Gaza and the West Bank to stay united."
[Post edited 17 Dec 2023 21:50]
Then you have two palestinian states. The two state solution is mainly about both sides having a place to live, not the actual "2 states"
0
How many Palestinian lives is sufficient? on 21:44 - Dec 17 with 2918 views
How many Palestinian lives is sufficient? on 21:33 - Dec 17 by redrickstuhaart
Then you have two palestinian states. The two state solution is mainly about both sides having a place to live, not the actual "2 states"
Yes, three states is what the author of the article suggests. It would seem sensible to me, but strikes me as being unacceptable politically from many quarters, given the two state solution envisages a single Palestinian state.
[Post edited 17 Dec 2023 21:49]
0
How many Palestinian lives is sufficient? on 21:51 - Dec 17 with 2898 views
How many Palestinian lives is sufficient? on 21:44 - Dec 17 by DJR
Yes, three states is what the author of the article suggests. It would seem sensible to me, but strikes me as being unacceptable politically from many quarters, given the two state solution envisages a single Palestinian state.
[Post edited 17 Dec 2023 21:49]
Neither is acceptable or part of Israel's plans so it is irrelevant.
They are intending to subjugate the lot.
0
How many Palestinian lives is sufficient? on 21:54 - Dec 17 with 2891 views
A few more tweets which show the awfulness of what is going on.
.@WHO is appalled by the effective destruction of Kamal Adwan hospital in northern #Gaza over the last several days, rendering it non-functional and resulting in the death of at least 8 patients. Many health workers were reportedly detained, and WHO and partners are urgently…
Continued heavy Israeli Forces’ bombardments of the 📍#GazaStrip, imposed access restrictions and limited humanitarian supplies detrimentally impedes @UNRWA's ability to provide aid.#Gaza is becoming the graveyard of a population trapped between war, siege and deprivation. pic.twitter.com/ZfYU9vO6Qh
The interview in the last includes the following comments.
"Everything is absolutely unprecedented and staggering. The number of people who have been killed … in forty days, more women and children killed than the number of civilians in the Ukraine war.
The level of destruction, it is said today that more than 60% of the infrastructure has been destroyed. The level of displacement of the population, more than 90% of the population has now been displaced … The number of UN staff which have been killed is absolutely unprecedented …
Conditions are absolutely appalling. The sanitary conditions are terrible … There is hardly clean water … Sewage water [is] appearing in the shelter."
1
How many Palestinian lives is sufficient? on 00:51 - Dec 18 with 2817 views
Maybe I'm wiser than our Western leaders, given this post from Frank Gardner on the BBC live Gaza War page.
"But the fact is that I don't think any of Israel's allies, which include Britain, the US and Germany, envisaged this when on 7 October they pledged their full support for Israel and its right to defend itself.
I don't think any of them envisaged a death toll of approaching 20,000 people in Gaza."
As it is, I posted this on TWTD on 16 October, based on previous use of disproportionate force by Israel.
"Interesting to note from the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs that since the beginning of 2008, and not including the last month, there have been 3,803 Palestinian civilian fatalities in Israel and the occupied territories (a third of whom were women and children), and 177 Israeli civilian fatalities.
If that ratio of fatalities were to be maintained in the current conflict, we could be looking at over 25,000 Palestinian civilian fatalities once it is finally over."
But with the current figure likely to be in excess of 25,000 (given 7,000 missing bodies) and the final figure likely to be much higher than that, it looks like even I was being too optimistic.
EDIT: Interestingly, those on here who were gung ho about destroying Hamas, and called out those of us concerned about the consequences in often unpleasant terms, appear to have disappeared from the scene.
FURTHER EDIT: The more life goes on the more I am reminded of a quote which the Permanent Secretary in the small Whitehall office I worked in had framed on his desk for partly mischievous reasons. The words were from a letter by a 16th Century Swedish statesman to his son who worried about his ability to hold his own amidst experienced and eminent statesmen.
"Do you not know, my son, with how very little wisdom the world is governed?"
[Post edited 18 Dec 2023 16:30]
5
How many Palestinian lives is sufficient? on 12:11 - Dec 18 with 2568 views
How many Palestinian lives is sufficient? on 09:16 - Dec 18 by DJR
Maybe I'm wiser than our Western leaders, given this post from Frank Gardner on the BBC live Gaza War page.
"But the fact is that I don't think any of Israel's allies, which include Britain, the US and Germany, envisaged this when on 7 October they pledged their full support for Israel and its right to defend itself.
I don't think any of them envisaged a death toll of approaching 20,000 people in Gaza."
As it is, I posted this on TWTD on 16 October, based on previous use of disproportionate force by Israel.
"Interesting to note from the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs that since the beginning of 2008, and not including the last month, there have been 3,803 Palestinian civilian fatalities in Israel and the occupied territories (a third of whom were women and children), and 177 Israeli civilian fatalities.
If that ratio of fatalities were to be maintained in the current conflict, we could be looking at over 25,000 Palestinian civilian fatalities once it is finally over."
But with the current figure likely to be in excess of 25,000 (given 7,000 missing bodies) and the final figure likely to be much higher than that, it looks like even I was being too optimistic.
EDIT: Interestingly, those on here who were gung ho about destroying Hamas, and called out those of us concerned about the consequences in often unpleasant terms, appear to have disappeared from the scene.
FURTHER EDIT: The more life goes on the more I am reminded of a quote which the Permanent Secretary in the small Whitehall office I worked in had framed on his desk for partly mischievous reasons. The words were from a letter by a 16th Century Swedish statesman to his son who worried about his ability to hold his own amidst experienced and eminent statesmen.
"Do you not know, my son, with how very little wisdom the world is governed?"
[Post edited 18 Dec 2023 16:30]
This!! I mean who could have possibly known!
"They break our legs and tell us to be grateful when they offer us crutches."
How many Palestinian lives is sufficient? on 09:16 - Dec 18 by DJR
Maybe I'm wiser than our Western leaders, given this post from Frank Gardner on the BBC live Gaza War page.
"But the fact is that I don't think any of Israel's allies, which include Britain, the US and Germany, envisaged this when on 7 October they pledged their full support for Israel and its right to defend itself.
I don't think any of them envisaged a death toll of approaching 20,000 people in Gaza."
As it is, I posted this on TWTD on 16 October, based on previous use of disproportionate force by Israel.
"Interesting to note from the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs that since the beginning of 2008, and not including the last month, there have been 3,803 Palestinian civilian fatalities in Israel and the occupied territories (a third of whom were women and children), and 177 Israeli civilian fatalities.
If that ratio of fatalities were to be maintained in the current conflict, we could be looking at over 25,000 Palestinian civilian fatalities once it is finally over."
But with the current figure likely to be in excess of 25,000 (given 7,000 missing bodies) and the final figure likely to be much higher than that, it looks like even I was being too optimistic.
EDIT: Interestingly, those on here who were gung ho about destroying Hamas, and called out those of us concerned about the consequences in often unpleasant terms, appear to have disappeared from the scene.
FURTHER EDIT: The more life goes on the more I am reminded of a quote which the Permanent Secretary in the small Whitehall office I worked in had framed on his desk for partly mischievous reasons. The words were from a letter by a 16th Century Swedish statesman to his son who worried about his ability to hold his own amidst experienced and eminent statesmen.
"Do you not know, my son, with how very little wisdom the world is governed?"
[Post edited 18 Dec 2023 16:30]
As of your original or first edit, I think yer man who was most guilty of that got banned a few pages ago
1
How many Palestinian lives is sufficient? on 15:17 - Dec 18 with 2438 views
How many Palestinian lives is sufficient? on 14:15 - Dec 18 by leitrimblue
As of your original or first edit, I think yer man who was most guilty of that got banned a few pages ago
Yes, there were a couple who became quite sinister in their posts and ended up being banned, one of whom didn't contribute to this thread and may have been banned before it started.
[Post edited 18 Dec 2023 15:18]
0
How many Palestinian lives is sufficient? on 16:13 - Dec 18 with 2395 views
How many Palestinian lives is sufficient? on 15:17 - Dec 18 by DJR
Yes, there were a couple who became quite sinister in their posts and ended up being banned, one of whom didn't contribute to this thread and may have been banned before it started.
[Post edited 18 Dec 2023 15:18]
Also one or two who only join any debate when antisemitism is mentioned.
How many Palestinian lives is sufficient? on 16:13 - Dec 18 by noggin
Also one or two who only join any debate when antisemitism is mentioned.
[Post edited 18 Dec 2023 16:17]
While I abhor antisemitism, I also dislike false accusations of antisemitism which appear to be designed to shift or close down debate or deflect criticism.
Here, from today's BBC news live feed, is an example.
"The group Human Rights Watch has accused Israel of using starvation as a "weapon of war" in the ongoing conflict, saying the Israeli military has been blocking the delivery of water, food and fuel as well as "wilfully impeding humanitarian assistance".
According to international laws, starvation should not be used in warfare as a tactic.
Israel's foreign ministry spokesperson, Lior Haiat, branded HRW "antisemitic" in comments made to AFP news agency.
"Human Rights Watch... did not condemn the attack on Israeli citizens and the massacre of October 7 and has no moral basis to talk about what's going on in Gaza if they turn a blind eye to the suffering and the human rights of Israelis," he said.
HRW has previously said Hamas has committed war crimes, and has put out statements on the 7 October attack."
Here are a couple of examples of HRW calling things out.
How many Palestinian lives is sufficient? on 16:24 - Dec 18 by DJR
While I abhor antisemitism, I also dislike false accusations of antisemitism which appear to be designed to shift or close down debate or deflect criticism.
Here, from today's BBC news live feed, is an example.
"The group Human Rights Watch has accused Israel of using starvation as a "weapon of war" in the ongoing conflict, saying the Israeli military has been blocking the delivery of water, food and fuel as well as "wilfully impeding humanitarian assistance".
According to international laws, starvation should not be used in warfare as a tactic.
Israel's foreign ministry spokesperson, Lior Haiat, branded HRW "antisemitic" in comments made to AFP news agency.
"Human Rights Watch... did not condemn the attack on Israeli citizens and the massacre of October 7 and has no moral basis to talk about what's going on in Gaza if they turn a blind eye to the suffering and the human rights of Israelis," he said.
HRW has previously said Hamas has committed war crimes, and has put out statements on the 7 October attack."
Here are a couple of examples of HRW calling things out.
I'm not having that! A very learned poster on here in long and ongoing discussions on the subject of antisemitism and accusations of it assured us that the Israeli state would never do such a thing. Oh and it would never happen on this forum either.....supposedly!!!
"They break our legs and tell us to be grateful when they offer us crutches."
Is this a sign (depressing as yet another delay is) that a breakthrough is, and I do not use the word in jest, imminent ? Nevertheless, even as the hope is given as talks continue and we can see that there must be a reason so expect a bit more give and take, innocent lives are being lost with every minute, hour and day that passes.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
