Israel and Palestine

You're continuing to miss the point - that poverty-stricken states become their own problem, and are demonstrably less likely to attempt expansion and colonisation. It doesn't really matter how angry and resentful the rump state is if it's not making itself everyone else's problem. Like, if you really want to compare this to the Gaza blockade, then both sides lobbing piss-rockets and incendiary party balloons at each other is obviously better than one side using that and the other using incredibly sophisticated modern American hardware. Just look at the casualty balance from any recent Gaza clash.

To be blunt, Israel is already a dangerously paranoid rogue state which, by your own admission, is incredibly difficult and probably pointless to negotiate with. Reducing their capacity to inflict their irrationality on others seems like the obvious option.

Those who live under the PLO suffer from poverty and corruption aswell. as a matter of fact, the Palestinians don't want a state. previous Israeli goverments gave the Arabs/Palestinian so many chances, but the Arabs/Palestinians constantly rejected said proposals and encouraged bloodshed and terror. no wonder why the current Israeli Goverment refuses to negotiate.

You may want to develop a closer familiarity with previous I/P talks, because you're operating off pretty severe ignorance there - a bunch of them broke down because the Israeli side were either demanding unacceptable concessions or were not credible negotiating partners (the 2008 talks, for instance, fell through because Ehud Olmert had a 3% domestic approval rating and his promises weren't worth the paper they were written on).

And you keep forgetting just how small the area actually is. maintaining a settlement 30 km east of Jerusalem isn't actually more expensive than maintaining a town 30 km west of Jerusalem. this isn't like old-school colonialism where countries needed to maintain military presence halfway across the world. I mean, if mainstream Israel was twice as large and the occupied territories were somewhere in Jordan, you wouldn't have expected sanctions to cause it to collapse to half its size right?

But Israel won't be using piss-rockets and incendiary party balloons, it would use Merkava tanks and whatever else its military industry would be able to produce. even with sanctions the military capabilities of a fully industrial nation would far outweigh those of the Palestinians.

Look, North Korea is a very rare case. usually sanctions don't actually reduce states into fifth world hellholes. Iran under sanctions could still function as Hezbollah main weapon supplier and intervene in the civil war in Syria. Saddam Hussein under even heavier sanctions could still maintain control over an area 20 times larger than Israel. I just don't think sanctions would have the effect you are hoping for on Israel

Edited by nnokwoodeye1 on Nov 24th 2018 at 1:50:55 AM

If Israel would be fully blockaded, I'd wager said Military Industrial support complex would run out of material somewhat fast-ish. As you said, it's not that big a country.

It would have to start recycling civilian infrastructure fairly quickly but it would probably be at least 10 years before the shortage would affect the military. Of course it won't actually get that far because it won't be a full blockade. sanctions are not designed to make countries desperate. desperate countries are dangerous countries, that why everyone keep freaking out about North Korea status as a desperate nuclear power.

Oil would be the big issue. Civil infrastructures could still survive on natural gas and renewables, but there's no way a modern military is functioning without lots of it.

If there's active Operations it's more like 10 Months. Don't underestimate just how draining on resources those are.

If Israel dont relent after santion then it would in fact make things harder fo palestinians or double down in their policies, after all that is what hardline and radical actors does when facing pressure, they double down in what they are doing.

Israel is already using extreme military measures including blockades, airstrikes, and protester massacres. Gaza is already functionally without drinkable water. I think we're rather beyond the point where we worry about whether they'll escalate - it's now a matter of reducing their ability to maintain their present level of escalation, because the situation is already a crisis.

Of course it can get worse: Israel is already the target of a lot of antisemite and some nation who dosent want them right there and a scalation and intrenching can make things A LOT worse as whole.

I'll be honest, you're making very little sense.

I think unknowing is pointing out that there are hostile actors in the region (like Hezbollah) that could potentially mess things up further without a strong Israeli military deterring them.

They're saying that things can still get worse because Israel is surrounded by a lot of genuinely anti-semitic neighbours and an escalation of tensions there can lead to the leadership getting even more entrenched in its views, which would make the situation objectively worse.

And those additional military commitments could make the occupation even more difficult with limited resources, yes. Remember that Cuito Cuanavale and the Bush War player a major part in ending South African apartheid by eroding the government's strength and confidence.

Edited by Iaculus on Nov 24th 2018 at 4:21:10 PM

South africa had Nelson Mandela who somehow manage to convince both sides that ending apartheid won't lead to an inverted apartheid. Without him things might have deteriorated to a civil war.

Wrong way round - Mandela was released and invited to negotiations two years after Cuito Cuanavale and the Bush War convinced de Klerk and his government that apartheid was unsustainable and they should begin preparing for its end (because they no longer believed they could handle a black uprising through simple firepower). Mandela himself specifically credited the Cuban intervention in Angola (and their threats of arming the ANC) with getting the ball rolling. He wasn't teaching them that apartheid was bad, he was just an ANC leader they reckoned they could talk to after they had already been convinced to look for people to help them bring the situation to an end.

The problem with I/P is not that there are no reasonable Palestinian activists. It's that the Israeli government has zero incentive to find them because it's been engaging in a colonial project for decades with minimal repercussions.

Edited by Iaculus on Nov 25th 2018 at 11:41:27 AM

Also is diferent in a way, the apartheild was clearly awfull and racist(and at some point borderline nazi line), meanwhile while Israel is being a dick here dosent generate the same level of distrust because is a democracy which is surronder by dictaroship of varian levels(Granted a lot of this trust the west have on israel kinda reeks of orientalism from time to time, the idea of good bastion of civilization in a sea of oriental despost, urgh).

the thing is pretty sustenable for Israel to contine what he does, even if by this rate they could cross the moral evident horizon eventually.

Apartheid South Africa was using the literal exact same 'only democracy in the region' rhetoric to get backing from the exact same people. You may need to read up in a little more detail on the time period.

And remember the fact that the post-apartheid South African government had consistently described Israel's treatment of Palestinians as pretty much apartheid-style oppression/racism. Takes one to know one, I guess.

The thing about Apartheid is that it's a lot more specific term than people realize. take for example the segregation period in the united state, when you compare it to south African Apartheid it is obvious that there are a lot of similarities, but there are also a lot of differences. while both regimes were based on racism, segregation was a case of an oppressed minority group while Apartheid was a case of an oppressed majority group. because of that difference the struggle against those regimes and their eventual cancellation went very differently.

When people say that Israel is an Apartheid state they mean that they think that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is exactly like south African Apartheid and that they expect that it would be solved in exactly the same way. but, just like in the case of segregation there are differences:

1. Unlike the white south Africans who were outnumbered 10 to 1, Israelis are not a minority, so the threat of being 'overrun' isn't there.

2. Unlike South Africa the separation between the groups wasn't created by design. until 1967 the west bank was under Jordanian control and up until 1988 Jordan still wanted it back as a prerequisite for peace. that created a lot of indecisiveness in Israel about what to do with the area. some wanted to annex it to increase Israel's size and power and some wanted to leave it alone to appease Jordan. after 1988 the Palestinian armed resistance started and the Jordanians decided that Israel can keep them leaving Israel stuck with an area that they still kind of wanted but was now to complex to annex.

3. while racism is part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it is not what the conflict is based on. Jews didn't come to the area because they believed it would be better manage by white people, they came because that where the bible told them they came from. this wouldn't have been different even if the area would have been filled by the white descendants of the crusaders. most of the hostility and prejudice between the groups is based on the fact that everyone on both sides knows somebody who was hurt by somebody from the other side. basically, it is more of a blood feud than a racist conflict

What i was trying to say in all my rumbling, is that when people say that Israel is an Apartheid state, they basically say what they want the conflict to be not what it is actually is. after all, a small minority of evil racists is something that could be easily defeated. a large scale blood feud, on the other hand, is something that is a lot harder to solve

Nope, sorry.

If it walks like Apartheid, talks like Apartheid, lies in layers like Apartheid, uses the same razor wire as Apartheid, keeps communities apart like Apartheid, kills protesters like Apartheid and wrecks vital infrastructure along demographic lines like Apartheid... It's Apartheid.

Trying to argue that it's totally different because, like, the numbers — just doesn't wash with me.

I know Apartheid when I look at it because I lived in it. And, Isreal is doing full-on Apartheid.

Full-stop, finished 'n klaar.

Edited by Euodiachloris on Nov 27th 2018 at 10:11:30 AM

I think that kind of misses the point of the above post, which is that the means and motives are vastly different from South African apartheid, meaning the solution will be different as well. Just because there are superficial resemblances doesn’t make them the same thing.

I suspect that it’s most accurate to describe the West Bank situation as Apartheid, as that very much does hit the three criteria mentioned. In the West Bank Israelites are a minority, the separation is created by design (wall anyone?) and the situation is born of racist colonialism (the Israeli government chose to build settlements instead of maintain a military occupation).

In the end though the close friendship that existed between the Israeli government and Aparthied realy doesn't help the Israeli case. When your buddy does something horrific and you then copy him but just in a limited area you’re asking to be compared to him.

Edited by Silasw on Nov 27th 2018 at 1:34:44 PM

The resemblances are anything but superficial, though.

Yes, the solutions need to be tailored for what is on the ground, that is a given. Because there is no "one size fits all" magic fix.

But... a good place to start is to effing admit that the Israeli government is using die Nasionale Party se (the National Party's) playbook of greatest hits... with some local flourishes.

The flourishes don't disguise what they're doing. And, they don't fundamentally change the effects its having in both Palistinian and Israeli communities.

Apartheid wasn't as visible in the exact same ways in all parts of South Africa, either. Not everywhere was the blatantly obvious Cape Flats or Soweto. And, you couldn't always see the barbed wire from the middle of Constantia or Sandton.

But, the effects of the invisible were still there, always. And, they're still there, now.

Israel is steeped in that whole "don't look, don't ask, don't think outside the box" mind-set that can make it very hard for people to actually see what they're looking at when they come across it.

Edited by Euodiachloris on Nov 27th 2018 at 1:53:29 PM