Anniversary of Israeli massacre

Sadly the demographic changes in Israel is likely to lead to less support for a two state solution and an even greater appetite for settlement in the West Bank and probably Gaza too
The future for Israel and the countries that surround it looks pretty dire, I'm not surprised that secular Jews are leaving as indeed they are. It looks likely that Israel will win another war by sacrificing any chance of a peaceful future. The irony is of course, who will protect the Haredi who are still not conscripted into the IDF but are prominent amongst illegal settlers in the West Bank?

The one country that could supervise Gaza is Egypt but they steadfastly don’t want anything to do with Palestinians they think it would make their own security much worse. Jordan is the same, Palestinians are a problem for them too.

Security for Gaza means preventing Palestinians attacking Israel, by force if needed, only Israel likely to take this on, even if they dont want to.

Agree David49

Tried to find out what the UN peacekeeping mission had to say on Gaza and was surprised to find that a translation into English wasn’t available.

I was a very poor decision when Israel was formed that Palestine was not given the equivalent status.

Nevertheless, it does not form part of Israel state boundaries.

The whole point of trying to get a 2 state solution is to give Gaza and West Bank rights to self determination.

I agree David49

David49

The one country that could supervise Gaza is Egypt but they steadfastly don’t want anything to do with Palestinians they think it would make their own security much worse. Jordan is the same, Palestinians are a problem for them too.

Security for Gaza means preventing Palestinians attacking Israel, by force if needed, only Israel likely to take this on, even if they dont want to.

@David
It isn’t that Egypt and Jordan find Palestinians troublesome, I think you will find that the populations of both countries support Palestinians, but Egypt has so many Palestinian refugees from before who have no right to return under Israeli law that they can’t afford to take any more, theirs is not a rich Arab country, also they don’t want to enter into a political bear pit that has bitten them before. Jordan is the same, they also have a lot of Palestinian refugees from before who cannot return and will not engage with Israel politically over Gaza, is too dangerous. But you have it backwards, they are more worried about being attacked by Israel than Palestinians. This has happened before historically.
Also do you suppose Israel would even allow a third party to be involved?
My guess is that Israel will take northern Gaza and militarise it, and will take part of southern Lebanon and militarise it, Palestinians will then have to cram into whatever is left of Gaza which was one of the most densely populated strips of land before this.

Babs03 I think you are correct with the addition of further illegal expansion into the West Bank and also into Gaza. At the recent rally, organised by the settlement organisation Nahala, Zvi Sukkot from the Religious Zionist Party said " the rally’s goal was for the settler movement to present a vision for the “day after” to contend with other ideas proposed within Israel and by the international community. He acknowledged that settling Gaza was not Israel’s official position but said that his goal was to convince the government to adopt it."
I posted information about the attendees at this rally yesterday but here is the link to The Jerusalem Post again.
www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-825512

@foxue thanks for link.
The thing is I don’t believe for a minute that Netanyahu and other hardliners would go this far without pushing for further expansion, they have never been in such a privileged position where they can land grab in the name of security.

The Jerusalem post article makes it crystal clear there are many on the right who are planning settlements. There were some counter demonstrators there.

In the same paper the same day another article:

"Netanyahu must put his ministers in order to make successful 'day after' plan - editorial

Netanyahu must put his house in order and instruct the MKs in his party and the ministers in his coalition to wait with these ambiguous statements regarding settlements".

He appears to be "sitting on the fence" possibly because of international reactions as the official policy of the US (and UK) is still "two state" which surely precludes settlements.

You are right Wyllow3 Netanyahu will sit on the fence, and of course there are many moderate Israelis who would not want more illegal settlements, for one thing they want a peace settlement and to have the hostages released, not more hostility from Palestinians whose land has been grabbed.
But I feel he could get away with militarising Northern Gaza and possibly part of Southern Lebanon in the name of security and a few years down the line who knows…..?
If foundations for settlers start to creep into Northern Gaza who will say anything?
After all this has been happening in the West Bank for decades.

Babs, Egypt and Jordan do support the Palestinian cause but don’t want to be any part of the Gaza solution because it would mean having to use force to control security.

As for Israel being a threat to Egypt or Jordan that’s nonsense the US spends as much arming them as they do Israel
In 2023 it was 3.5 billion dollars to Israel the same to Egypt and Jordan. There is absolutely no chance that Israel will attack them, the US would stop that for sure.

Hmmmm. all eyes on the USA again shaping policies in the region!
A lot of funding for Israel is a mid eastern "base" against Iran.

foxie48

Sadly the demographic changes in Israel is likely to lead to less support for a two state solution and an even greater appetite for settlement in the West Bank and probably Gaza too
The future for Israel and the countries that surround it looks pretty dire, I'm not surprised that secular Jews are leaving as indeed they are. It looks likely that Israel will win another war by sacrificing any chance of a peaceful future. The irony is of course, who will protect the Haredi who are still not conscripted into the IDF but are prominent amongst illegal settlers in the West Bank?

Yes, so many leaving, and they are the ones with the skills and brains, for obvious reasons.

Wyllow3

Hmmmm. all eyes on the USA again shaping policies in the region!
A lot of funding for Israel is a mid eastern "base" against Iran.

So you think Iran should have free range to shape policy in the region.

@David so pointing out that the US has bought off many countries in the ME means that a poster thinks Iran should do this instead?
How does that work?
Is the same as accusing someone of supporting terrorism because a person is against Netanyahus war plan in Gaza.
I imagine one can be against the empire building propensities of the US in the ME and against Iran.

Babs03

@David so pointing out that the US has bought off many countries in the ME means that a poster thinks Iran should do this instead?
How does that work?
Is the same as accusing someone of supporting terrorism because a person is against Netanyahus war plan in Gaza.
I imagine one can be against the empire building propensities of the US in the ME and against Iran.

Both Egypt and Jordan are effectively military dictatorships, Egypt did hold elections but the Iranian financed Muslim Brotherhood caused so much terrorism that the Army had to take over to control them.

That is the situation today the US finances the Egyptian armed forces. We should hope that continues, it’s not US empire building that we should worry about it’s Iranian empire building, they want the whole region to become fundamentalist Islamic and are sponsoring any terrorists that that will fight for that cause.

But I suppose you approve of that.

David49

Wyllow3

Hmmmm. all eyes on the USA again shaping policies in the region!
A lot of funding for Israel is a mid eastern "base" against Iran.

So you think Iran should have free range to shape policy in the region.

I think you know very well that I am not saying that David.

I'm just pointing out one of the reasons why the US continues to invest so heavily in Israel is partly for a containment of Iran.

Not just Israel the whole region without massive military aid the whole region would be at he behest of Iran.

Too many criticize the US, we should all worry if it decides to be isolationist.

I may be shot down in flames for this but hey ho, the I actually think that if the US pulled out of the ME that Iran would also call it a day. Bear with. This isn’t as crazy as it sounds, or maybe it is but let’s just consider a point. Do we suppose that Iran is fighting against Israel? The answer to that is NO. Iran is fighting the US using proxies in the ME and of course Israel is an American outpost in the ME paid to be a buffer against Iran.
Historically Iran has not got along with Arab neighbours, the Iran/Iraq war is an example of this, and perhaps unsurprisingly there were many Palestinian mercenaries fighting against Iran in said war, indeed many Palestinians to this day have posters of Saddam up in their tea shops, for many Arabs still lionise him.
But desperate times call for strange bedfellows and because the Iranian regime can’t fight their sworn enemy the US directly it does this through proxies. But Iran is on its knees economically due to crippling sanctions so arming its proxies during this conflict has drained it even more. Fact is Iran hasn’t attacked Israel with any real gusto, many missiles were fired but with the knowledge that most wouldn’t get through, many were surprised but heartened by this, expecting a third world war, even Israel despite its hyperbole hasn’t made good on its promise to hit back because the there has been no direct follow up from Iran.
So if Iran’s expansionist tendencies are dictated by the US presence in the ME I would expect that if the US withdrew that Iran would do the same and save itself billions in the process.
Anyway will never happen. But that’s my take on it.

Perhaps if Iran stopped sponsoring all the terrorist groups the US would be happy to withdraw, I don’t think that’s on the agenda.

Harris and Trump on Israel: Harris, more or less more of the same, Trump is isolationist and unpredictable but says Israel’s future depends on his election success.

www.jta.org/2024/10/22/politics/how-donald-trump-and-kamala-harris-differ-and-agree-when-it-comes-to-middle-east-policy

Babs03

@David so pointing out that the US has bought off many countries in the ME means that a poster thinks Iran should do this instead?
How does that work?
Is the same as accusing someone of supporting terrorism because a person is against Netanyahus war plan in Gaza.
I imagine one can be against the empire building propensities of the US in the ME and against Iran.

No, I really think that one cannot.
It’s naive in the extreme to think that if the US were to pull out of ‘interference’ in the ME then all would be sweetness and light from Iran.They’d be delighted of course but that’s another story.

Realistically what is up for discussion are the details of what the US and other countries are prepared to back as regards different Israeli government choices and tactics as regards Gaza, West Bank, Lebanon, and the fate of the Palestinian people.

It’s a fair bet Trump would support Israel and continue in the Middle East, Ukraine is another matter it sounds like he thinks it is Europe's problem not his.