Clausewitz said it well: "The political object—the original motive for war—will thus determine both the military objective to be reached and the amount of effort it requires". The military objective cannot be the political objective. Or some popular slogan.

The perfect example of this is now clearly present in Israel where the Netanyahu administration struggles with this problem as Benny Gantz, a former Chief-of-Staff of the IDF, has made an ultimatum to walk out if basically the political goals of the conflict are not met. Also it's clear now that also the IDF leadership would like some political goals to the war too in the Clausewitzian fashion.

Unlike generals, populists don't read Clausewitz, unfortunately.

based on what borders? Legally, only the 1948 borders were ever recognised.

I'm afraid this is still mostly symbolism. 140 other countries already recognised Palestine without any effect. It's good as a signal but without explicating which borders you're referring to there's very little to take a stance on.

True, and I doubt whether this makes a two-state solution any more likely.

But that's not the reason why I believe this is significant.

The more diplomatically isolated Israel becomes, the more it turns into a strategic liability to the US.

When US support for Israel starts waning, that's when this ball may finally start rolling.

The more diplomatically isolated Israel becomes, the more it turns into a strategic liability to the US.

When US support for Israel starts waning, that's when this ball may finally start rolling. — Tzeentch

Well it might, but I honestly doubt it.

The other option is that the deranged fanaticism in Israel becomes even more entrenched, mainly because less fanatical jews can simply leave so it creates a self selection process.

True, the more Israel becomes an even bigger liability the more likely (though far from certain) the US will put at least some pressure ... but enough for a 2 state solution? Possible, but difficult to imagine. Entirely new politicians may make it happen but think we can agree we're far from that.

The situation can therefore simply fester until a much larger war.

A lot of attention is put on the states of the Middle East and how they don't really want to help the Palestinians nor a war with Israel nor getting nuked by Israel. What gets less attention is the non-state actors and their funding from both states and individuals across the Islamic world and that a literal genocide is going to radically increase that funding.

Simultaneously advanced weapons are becoming far more available on the black market thanks to the war in Ukraine while various technologies are creating new asymmetric tactics generally speaking.

There is therefore a recipe here for more chaos until a much larger war. It may take some years, or even a decade, but seems to me the likely scenario.

Israel has a small population and no strategic depth, so it is very vulnerable to the erosion of technological advantage. Committing a genocide, focused particularly on children, while self-uploading all sort of humiliating acts against the Palestinians is convincing a lot Westerners that Israel is doing evil, it is even more convincing to the Muslim world.

States maybe deterred from going to war, but there is plenty of avenues for action in the Middle East.

True, fanatical factionalism easily just leads to fighting amongst themselves, and that's possible, but Israel's actions may simply be so extreme that it unites otherwise adversaries.

Not to say how this would play out, but more chaotic violence for years to come absorbing more and more people and resources from the region in a gradual way seems as or more likely than a two state solution, and could last a long time without any sort of battlefield resolution. Maybe no state of non-state actor in the Middle-East could defeat Israel in the foreseeable future, but Israel can't achieve some decisive victory either so it can just keep going for a long while.

Israel simply needs to go back to the table and offer a solution and stop supporting right-wing agendas in the name of security. At the same time, Hamas is doing what it set out to do since the 90s, which is to cause Israel so much violence and chaos, it would make them unwilling to work with Palestinian moderates..

However, I get the sense if you talk to Israelis, even liberal/moderate ones, they would ask you what a moderate Palestinian might be, as they haven't seen one? I think that is giving too short a shrift to Abbas, but I might not know enough about why he is sidelined other than convenience.. I know the PA do have the paying of suicide bomber families on their books, but if that's the only game in town.. you have to work with him to build a state, I would suppose. I can think of interesting outliers that are anti-violence, but doubtful they would be seen as acceptable to Palestinians, as they would think they were just plants for Israel and not representing them..

You can look at it a different way too.. Germany did not get certain regions that it thought was rightfully there's after WW2 because they were completely defeated in a total surrender.. Israel thinks after 67, Palestine has less negotiations to work with.. them and the Arab nations lost that war.. Unlike the Germans who willingly admitted defeat and thus could rebuild from there, this is not the case here.

As Benny Gantz and Gallant have critiques Netanyahu for, you need a political end game.

However, I get the sense if you talk to Israelis, even liberal/moderate ones, they would ask you what a moderate Palestinian might be, as they haven't seen one? — schopenhauer1

Probably because they have never visited the West Bank.

Take it for what it's worth, but while I was there I did not hear a single Palestinian express they believed violence was the solution.

You know who are radicals? Israeli settlers. Those people can rightly be called radical, and yes I met them too.

As Benny Gantz and Gallant have critiques Netanyahu for, you need a political end game. — schopenhauer1

My basic point is that there might not be a political end game even in the situation of the erosion of both US and Israeli power.

Things maybe locked into a cycle of violence that lasts another century, in which the only possible termination is an Israeli total defeat (as at the end of day Israel simply doesn't have the numbers to conquer all of the Middle-East).

The reason for this to occur is, forget the current politics, the genocide and the endless pictures and videos of it as well as humiliating rituals like wearing Palestinian women's clothing, may create something entirely new within the Muslim world.

What I am talking about is not necessarily the extension of any current political process or the next act of any participant, but rather a manifestation of a deep trauma to the global mind and in particular the Muslim one.

Israel has assumed, and correctly so far, that both the Muslim and Western world will let them have their Palestinian play thing. It's possible that Israel has simply gone too far and the dynamic that has persisted so far changes.

Things could go back to the status quo, or then a two state solution could happen. But my own guess is Israel has started a process of violence it will lose control of and it's difficult to see how it will unfold but will be long and terrible.

Israel has intrinsic weaknesses in population and geography, so far compensated by being backed by a superpower with a far bigger population and geographic advantages.

Israel's choice for genocide is, in my view, essentially formed by seeing the decline of US empire and therefore it's "now or never". Insofar as this is some sort of strategy at all and not simply delusional religious fanaticism, the danger is changing the dynamic in the Muslim world generally, which can manifest both in unforeseen changes to governance as well as unforeseen changes generally speaking.

Western analysis generally rests on the supposition that there is no empathy for the suffering of brown people, be it working as slaves in a mine or then shot for sport, but this is of course only generally true in the West; there are plenty of brown people who empathize with other brown people, and it is this emotion and its consequence that I would put money on we will see, however unforeseeable it may be in its eventual particular manifestation.

Take it for what it's worth, but while I was there I did not hear a single Palestinian express they believed violence was the solution. — Tzeentch

Anecdotally, I am sure that is true. The history doesn't bare that out. You can try to dictate that the story goes..

"Israel wants the West Bank and thus they closed opportunities for peaceful resolutions"..

Or you can look at various things that happened during the "Second Intifada" (mainly bombings and violence.. which caused a whole bunch of things, including building a wall and allowing harderline politicians that had the double agenda of the radicals settlers that went with it..

Western analysis generally rests on the supposition that there is no empathy for the suffering of brown people, be it working as slaves in a mine or then shot for sport, but this is of course only generally true in the West; there are plenty of brown people who empathize with other brown people, and it is this emotion and its consequence that I would put money on we will see, however unforeseeable it may be in its eventual particular manifestation. — boethius

This to me is wildly inaccurate to the goings-on in Israel.. especially since over half the population are Middle Eastern Jews.. But also, if that were the case, countries like Saudi Arabia wouldn't be tolerated for their treatment of people and human rights abuses.. It's more about strategic interest and historical affinity, not this Leftist oppressor narrative.

This to me is wildly inaccurate to the goings-on in Israel.. especially since over half the population are Middle Eastern Jews.. But also, if that were the case, countries like Saudi Arabia wouldn't be tolerated for their treatment of people and human rights abuses.. It's more about strategic interest and historical affinity, not this Leftist oppressor narrative. — schopenhauer1

Half the population in the Middle East (what I'm talking about) are not Jews.

Of course, the bet that "what happens in Palestine stays in Palestine" has so far proved true.

The genocide is not a narrative but fact largely self-documented by Israel.

Now, if you're thinking about what will happen tomorrow, that tends to resemble today.

What I am talking about is what processes have been started today and where they will lead.

If you take an objective view of the images and video coming out of Palestine (a lot posted by Israelis) you may personally approve and any "oppression" of shooting people for sport is just a leftist narrative people say. You may say shooting people for sport is just good fun and oppression is just a social construct. Ok, sure, whatever.

What is objectively true however is that other people are disturbed by what you find non-disturbing, and a lot of disturbed people can have a consequence through unforeseeable ways.

The hypothesis that this genocide can be perpetrated in broad daylight and there is no consequence for it, things will just go back more-or-less how they were before, to me seems short sighted. American power will wane, Israel power will wane with it, but the memory of what has happened may not wane, but in fact grow stronger.

Simply speaking as a strategist, making so much bad blood seems to me just bad strategy.

If you're betting on continuation of the status quo in the Middle East, I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just noting here that my own guess is the terrifying process of the genocide will lay the foundation for still yet more violence to come for years and decades.

I do not think there is any further possibilities of peace here, which is what the Israeli religious fanatics want. Currently there's confident that there is no consequences down the line for a genocide. The foundations of such confidence are exactly as you say: take a very short sighted view of a few actors right now and it's unclear where consequences would come from.

My basic point is that things are a lot more complex than that.

No one should really be defending a terrorist organization that murders innocent people, but also shouldn’t treat this organization as equal to the people they supposedly represent.

I’m referring of course to Likud, who is responsible for murdering tens of thousands of innocent people not only over the last 7 months but for many years. They’re not the Jews and they’re not even the Israelis— even if many Israelis support them.

Hamas shouldn’t be defended either, but they kill far fewer people and have been promoted by Bibi and his party, so…

Again, the Nat Turner Rebellion is relevant.

So great to watch Bibi and his ilk squirm and cry over being left behind by… basically the entire world.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/24/world/middleeast/icj-israel-gaza-rafah-ruling.html

:up: :up:

Israel simply needs to go back to the table and offer a solution and stop supporting right-wing agendas in the name of security. — schopenhauer1

Good luck with that. Israeli politics have changed. That's the problem here.

However, I get the sense if you talk to Israelis, even liberal/moderate ones, they would ask you what a moderate Palestinian might be, as they haven't seen one? — schopenhauer1

Correct. They just reject the PLO as their country has been all the time rejecting any Palestinians that have talked about a two state solution. Netanyahu has been quite successful in this.

So great to watch Bibi and his ilk squirm and cry over being left behind by… basically the entire world. — Mikie

Times are changing indeed. I think the day is coming when the "Isreali lobby" will lose it's grip on the discourse about Israel and the US support will not be so unconditional as it is now.

Even if I disagree with Mearsheimer on other points, I think he here makes a good point why this thing is all failing for Israel (from 8 days ago):


The actual lecture 48 minutes, then questions.

:up:

All the more reason to take him seriously on Ukraine.

Correct. They just reject the PLO as their country has been all the time rejecting any Palestinians that have talked about a two state solution. Netanyahu has been quite successful in this. — ssu

But you must admit, with Arafat and Abbas, there is more than a bit of gaslighting with saying "two state solution" but not making the hard decisions in a position of relative weakness comparatively (being their allies and them went to multiple wars and were basically defeated.. and in those wars did not have the aim of having a state so much as eliminating the existing state of Israel, and only recently as of the 60s really making it about forming a strictly "Palestinian" state rather than an enclave on a greater pan-Arab goal (whether that be "greater Syrian, being part of Jordan or Egypt, split into various internal groups, or its own entity of Palestine, West of the Jordan.,,

Shorter sentences, Schop!

At least they were willing to negotiate about the two state solution, accepted the existence of Israel and even think were totally OK with Israel with the pre-1967 borders. It really was about Gaza and West Bank.

Yet it was back then the Labour party that pushed for the two state solution. Bibi has always been against it. Is Labour coming back? And that's why Netanyahu supported so eagerly Hamas, those Palestinians that are against a negotiated two state solution.

Who knows, but many liberal Israelis are simply opting to leave the nation. Which I think started even before October 7th.

(Dec 7th, 2023) Nearly half a million Israelis have left the country since 7 October, according to data from the Israeli Population and Immigration Authority.

Israel’s Zman magazine reported that 470,000 Israelis have emigrated from Israel and it is not known if they will return at a later point.

Data also shows a significant decline in the number of Jewish immigrants to Israel since the start of October, by about 50 per cent compared to the start of the year.

According to the data, migration to Israel declined by 70 per cent in November compared to previous months of 2023, with 2,000 immigrants arriving in November compared to 4,500 who arrived every month since the start of the year.

At least they were willing to negotiate — ssu

Negotiation with the intent of not conceding the hard stuff is relatively easy hoop to jump through.

It really was about Gaza and West Bank. — ssu

Not for Hamas!

And that's why Netanyahu supported so eagerly Hamas, those Palestinians that are against a negotiated two state solution. — ssu

There was legitimate criticism about this peace process though. You should check out Edward Said his interviews at the time. And it was dissatisfaction with how the PLO was relinquishing self-determination that made Hamas popular in the first place and that shitty deal pushed PLO into political irrelevancy.

Quite frankly, I don't think that peace process would've gone anywhere even if Rabin had lived.

Negotiation with the intent of not conceding the hard stuff is relatively easy hoop to jump through. — schopenhauer1

Giving up the land you legally have a right to is not conceding the hard stuff? Why don't you explain to people who actually lose their homes, families, community and culture what else they should give up on to really get to the "hard stuff"?

The internal Israeli justice department memo in the 70s clearly stated the settlements would be illegal. Bibi lied about that as he's the one who refuses the two state solution. In fact, he greatly contributed to the atmosphere that got Rabin killed.

Giving up the land you legally have a right to is not conceding the hard stuff? — Benkei

That wasn't really the thought process before 67 or in 48, so yeah...

Why don't you explain to people who actually lose their homes, families, community and culture what else they should give up on to really get to the "hard stuff"? — Benkei

Right of return is off the table. It's a non-starter and he hung his hat mainly on that, and you can add a few other irrelevant things..but it was mainly that hat.. Using a peace deal to indefinitely try to get more in your favor when you have no state apparatus in the first place was not a great move. He had a chance, and let it slip through his fingers (and that is being too gracious.. I'm sure he never meant to settle a deal), and encouraged the "Second Intifada" pushing people like Barak away, promoting the Israeli right's move for "security" and sealed the fate of the peace process for years..

Right of return is off the table. — schopenhauer1

Who decides this? Why is it off the table? Because Israel says so? It's a negotiation. Nothing is off the table. The whole point is that everything is on it and you negotiate. And that's how Israel usually blocks every progress by putting demands on the table before negotiations even happen. And you happily go along with it because you obviously have zero experience in negotiations.

Who decides this? Why is it off the table? Because Israel says so? It's a negotiation. Nothing is off the table. — Benkei

Yes some things are non-starters. If the religious right demanded that all Jews have right of return to their ancient homeland of Judea and Samaria you’d probably say that’s a non-starter.

And that's how Israel usually blocks every progress by putting demands on the table before negotiations even happen. And you happily go along with it because you obviously have zero experience in negotiations. — Benkei

No Palestine has blocked their own progress because they never accepted a Jewish state in any variation since the Peale Commission..lost every war that would make it a reality, and then from a position of having lost make demands 45 years later to effectively dissolve the current contingent demographic majority of a Jewish state. The Palestinian leadership certainly failed big time at negotiations..They had Clinton backing them, everything set to get their nation states, compensation for refugees, ln and exchanges, East Jerusalem, etc. they had a prime minister who was bending over backwards based on the politics of the time.

And that's why Netanyahu supported so eagerly Hamas, those Palestinians that are against a negotiated two state solution. — ssu

:100:

Yes some things are non-starters. If the religious right demanded that all Jews have right of return to their ancient homeland of Judea and Samaria you’d probably say that’s a non-starter. — schopenhauer1

They already have this right of return under Israeli laws. They don't have a right to displace existing populations though.

No Palestine has blocked their own progress because they never accepted a Jewish state in any variation since the Peale Commission..lost every war that would make it a reality, and then from a position of having lost make demands 45 years later to effectively dissolve the current contingent demographic majority of a Jewish state. The Palestinian leadership certainly failed big time at negotiations..They had Clinton backing them, everything set to get their nation states, compensation for refugees, ln and exchanges, East Jerusalem, etc. they had a prime minister who was bending over backwards based on the politics of the time. — schopenhauer1

You don't know what those accords proposed to think that would be remotely acceptable. It was "sold" in the West as a fantastic peace deal but it wasn't.

A Palestinian State was never feasible, because Israel since 1967 worked extensively to make it unfeasible via their settlement policy.

That's the point of the settlement policy, and this very criticism at Israel's address is made in several UN Security Council Resolutions, condemning it as a purposeful obstruction of the road to peace.

I don't understand how willfully blind you have to be as to not acknowledge this.

Here, this is what the effects of Israeli settlement policy looks like:




No American president can change this now, and that was of course exactly the point. Note the situation at the start of Clinton's presidency in 1993.

What realistic prospect of a Palestinian state are you even talking about?

What realistic prospect of a Palestinian state are you even talking about? — Tzeentch

I see only two possibilities for a viable functioning Palestinian state to emerge:

a) Israel suffers a military defeat

b) Israel's would face economic stress from sanctions that it has to take the two state solution seriously.

Both a) and b) are unlikely. Option a) is quite out of the question. Not only has Israel the sole nuclear armed state in the region, but it's armed forces dominate others. And with the Iranian missile attack on Israel, we both saw that the US and UK would come to assist Israel, and also that US and others had absolutely no desire to start a war with Iran (the US - Oman backchannel clearly showed this, see here).

And even if university students are showing what future generations will think about Israel's actions, it will take a long time for opinions to change in the US because of the evangelist support will not go away.

And even if university students are showing what future generations will think about Israel's actions, it will take a long time for opinions to change in the US because of the evangelist support will not go away. — ssu

Evangelicals are becoming more and more of a minority in the US though. Just look at the abortion debate.

What realistic prospect of a Palestinian state are you even talking about? — Tzeentch

The 2000 one.. where 92% of land was contiguous. It was the best deal they could get, and the best Arafat could say was it didn't include right of return, so no deal and no counter offer.. Read this article for most accurate understanding:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/may/23/israel3

Benny Morris is often cited as the standard for history on this conflict..

Considering the historical precedent of Jewish death in Europe, Western backing of a Jewish state would seem part of a post-WW2 reality.. In whatever form that takes.. Combining the years of medieval hatred, Dreyfus Affair, pogroms, inquisitions, the holocaust and anti-Israeli Leftist sentiment and you get a quite ridiculous judenhass.

The 2000 one.. where 92% of land was contiguous. — schopenhauer1

Do you expect me to believe you don't understand the meaning of those maps?

Those settlers were never going to go away. Israel could promise 100% of the West bank; it sure as hell wasn't going to remove hundreds of thousands of settlers after the Sinai disaster.

They were deliberately positioned to break up any would-be Palestinian state into a field of little islands. The point was to create facts on the ground that would pre-empt any peace accord, and Israel was called out on it in UNSC resolutions.

This is not, and never was, a feasible basis for a state and you know it.