Operation pillar of cloud. Israeli assault on Gaza

[Nylock]

The summoned ambassadors will turn up, get their dressing-down and then turn around and reply with '...and what exactly can you do about it, eh?' and walk out of there smug in the knowledge that there isn't anything anyone except the US can do to stop them, and the US will just continue to sit on its hands and facilitate whatever is going to come next...

Apols for the pessimism, but that's just the way i see it happening at the moment...

 

[Balbi]

Russia's expressing concern publicly as well.

 

[Nylock]

The head of the UN said last night that the new settlement plan will effectively ruin any chance of a resolution to israel-palestine for good. Doesn't seem to have made one iota of difference. We've been here before with the settlements issue: Israel's allies, interested 'neutral' parties and neighbours tut-tutting about settlement building, ambassadors being called in to explain the country's actions and yet the settlement programme carried on regardless. I just don't see it being any different this time around tbh...

 

[elbows]

There is no particular reason for me to think it will be different this time, but all the same I am open to the possibility that something is different this time. The region is certainly changing, granted in ways where the significance is easy to overstate and future hard to predict, but all the same I am caught up in a sense that in so many ways the world is no longer in the relatively stagnant period that characterised much of my lifetime before 2008.

 

[dylans]

This particular settlement expansion is very significant because it takes place in the so called E1 block. That is an area which links North East Jerusalem with the settlement of Ma'ale Adumim. Its important because by linking Jerusalem with the settlement it would separate the Northern and Southern West Bank from Jerusalem and thus scupper any plans for a two state solution. In 2009 Israel made an agreement with the Bush administration to not build on E1 and so this decision is a breach of that agreement.

I think International reaction does have some (limited) significance. France, Britain and Sweden have summoned the Israeli Ambassadors and there is some talk of withdrawing Ambassadors over the issue and even suspending trade agreements. We shall see and I would be surprised if they go that far, but I think it is an interesting indication of the degree to which Israel has estranged itself from Europe over the past few years. The near unanimous (except for the abstentions by Britain and Germany) vote for Palestinian statehood recognition at the UN last week is another sign.

However, those expecting the US do anything but offer mealy mouthed words shouldn't hold their breathe and until the US opposes it then nothing of substance will happen. I agree however, that the unusually strong reaction from Europe is an interesting development.

 

[Sirena]

There is no particular reason for me to think it will be different this time, but all the same I am open to the possibility that something is different this time. The region is certainly changing, granted in ways where the significance is easy to overstate and future hard to predict, but all the same I am caught up in a sense that in so many ways the world is no longer in the relatively stagnant period that characterised much of my lifetime before 2008.

I agree that something is moving and I believe there would not have been this co-ordinated action unless the USA were involved somewhere in the background. Certainly, Cameron/Hague would not have stepped forward.

 

[dylans]

Meanwhile the Israeli cabinet has not surprisingly voted to reject the UN GA decision last week. Their statement offers quite a revealing hint at the Likud mindset on the West Bank.

The cabinet voted unanimously Sunday to reject the UN General Assembly resolution recognizing Palestine as a nonmember observer state. The cabinet decision described the West Bank as “disputed territory” over which “the Jewish people has a natural right and territorial claims.”

Its not and it doesn't. There is no question of the illegality of the occupation.There is nothing "disputed"about it. It is quite interesting however that Israel are pushing forward this "natural right" argument. This is an explicit admission of their rejection of two states and an indication of their long term plans for settlement, colonisation and eventual annexation of the West Bank. Something, it should be remembered, which is Likud policy but something which they have played down in public in recent years, prefering instead to maintain the fiction of a "peace process". The fact that they are no longer doing that could indicate a more aggressive and accelerated programme of future colonisation and is also an indication of their increased isolation.

 

[elbows]

However, those expecting the US do anything but offer mealy mouthed words shouldn't hold their breathe and until the US opposes it then nothing of substance will happen. I agree however, that the unusually strong reaction from Europe is an interesting development.

Given that its the E1 area, a failure by the USA to say or do anything beyond the norm will be a bad sign. Previous Israeli assurances that they would not build in this area mean this move should antagonise the USA and if Obama wants to go down in history as more than a non-entity then he'll need to give them a slap.

Its also about time that these sorts of blatant comments from Netanyahu blow up in his face:

"We will carry on building in Jerusalem and in all the places that are on the map of Israel's strategic interests."

 

[two sheds]

Backing up what dylans just said:

Yudith Oppenheimer, executive director of Ir Amin, a group which focuses on Jerusalem within the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, explained to the Guardian why the decision to unfreeze development in the E1 area, on the hills between Ma’aleh Adummim and Jerusalem, is so significant. She said:

It's a game changer. All settlements are obstacles for a future agreement but this is the obstacle for the future, the one that can be the last nail in the coffin for a two-state solution. This is understood by not just the Palestinians and the international community but by the Israeli government as well. By indicating the intent to build in E1, they are saying "no" to the two-state solution.

The E1 area divides the West Bank into two cantons. It doesn't allow the necessary contiguity for a Palestinian state. Secondly, it cuts off Jerusalem from the West Bank by mass Israeli settlement. If [East] Jerusalem is cut off from the West Bank, it can never serve as the capital for a Palestinian state.​

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/201...iders-withdrawing-envoy-over-settlements-live
​

 

[dylans]

Britain rules out actually doing fuck all about it
When questioned about the possibility of recalling the ambassador from Israel, a spokesperson for Cameron said

We are not proposing to do that. We are not proposing to do anything further at this stage ...Clearly, we are concerned about the situation ...but we are not setting out any further action at this stage.

So nothing then.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Sounds like a typical discord between the FCO and Downing Street too...

 

[TomUS]

This is an explicit admission of their rejection of two states and an indication of their long term plans for settlement, colonisation and eventual annexation of the West Bank.

I find it hard to believe that Israel would annex the WB. The last thing they want is more Palestinians in Israel. I'd guess they would annex chunks of territory on the west side of the wall that have settlements.

 

[dylans]

I find it hard to believe that Israel would annex the WB. The last thing they want is more Palestinians in Israel. I'd guess they would annex chunks of territory on the west side of the wall that have settlements.

Annexation is Likud policy. Its in their charter and Israel has the most rightwing government in its history. Annexation is exactly where they are heading. Otherwise you have to explain the massive settlement expansion project since Oslo. Settlements have doubled since 93 and are expanding at a rate of 3.5% annually.There are now half a million settlers in occupied Palestine. It is a sad fact that, for all the talk of expansion in E1 making a two state solution impossible, this particular settlement expansion doesn't kill the two state option. That solution has been dead for some time now.

The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting,

The Jordan Valley and the territories that dominate it shall be under Israeli sovereignty. The Jordan river will be the permanent eastern border of the State of Israel.

I agree that annexation sounds self defeating and it is. Many commentators, including Israelis (sadly less and less lately which demonstrates how much of a grip the right has gained in Israel) continually point this out. Haaretz constantly goes on about this. After all it would incorporate millions of Palestinians into Israel and turn Israel into an apartheid state, at least if they wish Israel to remain a Jewish state. Nevertheless this is the inexorable logic of the project of settlement. Right wing zionist strategy is driven by ideology not pragmatism and ideology says that Judea and Samaria are god given lands of Israel. So, apartheid or ethnic cleansing are the options available to achieve this.

This is the great irony. The project of settlement and colonisation is not only a threat to Palestinians but to Israeli democracy too.

 

[likesfish]

That plans truly batshit they might have got away with ethnic cleansing/ masscare in 1967
But not even the US would stand for it now.

 

[dylans]

That plans truly batshit they might have got away with ethnic cleansing/ masscare in 1967
But not even the US would stand for it now.

Yeah I agree. Forcing the population into Jordan or Egypt at gunpoint isn't going to wash now. So that leaves incorporating the populations of the occupied territories into Israel which means either the end to the Jewish majority and hence the Jewish state or the denial of citizenship rights to Palestinians ie apartheid. Apartheid is where Israel is heading.

 

[Combustible]

Yeah I agree. Forcing the population into Jordan or Egypt at gunpoint isn't going to wash now. So that leaves incorporating the populations of the occupied territories into Israel which means either the end to the Jewish majority and hence the Jewish state or the denial of citizenship rights to Palestinians ie apartheid. Apartheid is where Israel is heading.

I find it a little difficult to believe that Israel will be able to implement a formal apartheid system. The Israelis must be familiar enough with South Africa to know how unsustainable it is. Furthermore it would make maintaining security even more impractical. And what about the Israeli Arab population? Would they be stripped of their rights and forced to move to West Bank bantustans?

Isn't it more likely that if the whole of the West Bank is eventually incorporated, those Palestinians remaining will end up with a similar status to Israeli Arabs and without the population of Gaza, the Jewish majority will not be under threat.

 

[dylans]

I find it a little difficult to believe that Israel will be able to implement a formal apartheid system. The Israelis must be familiar enough with South Africa to know how unsustainable it is. Furthermore it would make maintaining security even more impractical. And what about the Israeli Arab population? Would they be stripped of their rights and forced to move to West Bank bantustans?

Isn't it more likely that if the whole of the West Bank is eventually incorporated, those Palestinians remaining will end up with a similar status to Israeli Arabs and without the population of Gaza, the Jewish majority will not be under threat.

What happens when Palestinians threaten to become a majority?

 

[TomUS]

Isn't it more likely that if the whole of the West Bank is eventually incorporated, those Palestinians remaining will end up with a similar status to Israeli Arabs and without the population of Gaza, the Jewish majority will not be under threat.

But that could greatly complicate right wing parties in the Knesset. Israeli Arabs would have to retain some voting rights & they're not likely to vote Lakud. Lakud is likely (hopefully) on the path to it's fall from power.

Noam said recently that the I/P situation isn't at all like S. Africa. S. A. whites needed blacks as a labor force. Israel doesn't need/want Palestinians & would like them to just go away.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Noam said recently that the I/P situation isn't at all like S. Africa. S. A. whites needed blacks as a labor force. Israel doesn't need/want Palestinians & would like them to just go away.

That's a good point. However, they are not going to just go away.

 

[frogwoman]

But that could greatly complicate right wing parties in the Knesset. Israeli Arabs would have to retain some voting rights & they're not likely to vote Lakud. Lakud is likely (hopefully) on the path to it's fall from power.

Noam said recently that the I/P situation isn't at all like S. Africa. S. A. whites needed blacks as a labor force. Israel doesn't need/want Palestinians & would like them to just go away.

I think the south africa comparison is problematic for a lot of reasons tbh.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I think the south africa comparison is problematic for a lot of reasons tbh.

It shouldn't be overdone, but there are useful parallels.

 

[Combustible]

What happens when Palestinians threaten to become a majority?

Well there are about 6 million Jews in Israels, 1.5 million Israeli Arabs, 2.3 million Palestinians in the West Bank and about 1.4 million in Gaza. The incorporation of Gaza and the West Bank into Israel could create demographic problems for Israel. Without the 1.4 million people of Gaza, the Palestinian population would only be 2/3 of the Jewish population and the Israelis may consider there to be less of a demographic threat. This may explain why Israel nominally 'withdrew' from Gaza whilst expanding settlements in the West Bank.

What do you envisage happening to the Israeli Arab population if Israel tries to install legal apartheid? Would they be classified alongside the Palestinians of the West Bank and be forcibly moved?

 

[dylans]

Well there are about 6 million Jews in Israels, 1.5 million Israeli Arabs, 2.3 million Palestinians in the West Bank and about 1.4 million in Gaza. The incorporation of Gaza and the West Bank into Israel could create demographic problems for Israel. Without the 1.4 million people of Gaza, the Palestinian population would only be 2/3 of the Jewish population and the Israelis may consider there to be less of a demographic threat. This may explain why Israel nominally 'withdrew' from Gaza whilst expanding settlements in the West Bank.

What do you envisage happening to the Israeli Arab population if Israel tries to install legal apartheid? Would they be classified alongside the Palestinians of the West Bank and be forcibly moved?

4.3 million Palestinians would be 40% of the population of Israel. To those for whom a permanent Jewish majority is existential (such as Netanyahu) then the question becomes a very real threat.

So the question becomes the one Meir Kahane posed some years ago, Israel will have to choose between being a Jewish state or a democratic one. It won't be able to maintain the fiction of being both. It can do that now while the Palestinian population is 20% but not when it approaches 50%.

I think in that situation Israel will choose to remain a Jewish state and simply deny the vote to non Jews which would be apartheid.

 

[frogwoman]

4.3 million Palestinians would be 40% of the population of Israel. To those for whom a permanent Jewish majority is existential (such as Netanyahu) then the question becomes a very real threat.

So the question becomes the one Meir Kahane posed some years ago, Israel will have to choose between being a Jewish state or a democratic one. It won't be able to maintain the fiction of being both. It can do that now while the Palestinian population is 20% but not when it approaches 50%.

I think in that situation Israel will choose to remain a Jewish state and simply deny the vote to non Jews which would be apartheid.

you reckon? i think if it ever gets to that situation israel will have ceased to exist by that point in the form it currently does today

 

[two sheds]

I think Israel would be more likely to just try to cut off the water supplies and/or drive the Palestinians out by other means. They've been pretty successful so far.

 

[frogwoman]

I think Israel would be more likely to just try to cut off the water supplies and/or drive the Palestinians out by other means. They've been pretty successful so far.

Nah, I don't think so.And this latest time was a fuck up and they know it.

The time when Israel's government can just do that sort of shit when it likes is coming to an end. That doesn't mean that Israel won't pound gaza again, I'd have guessed they would a few more times, or at least try to, but look at how they had to stop early. Look at the international response now and the difference in terms of rhetoric even from the likes of Obama and co, even from cast lead four years ago or from the previous Israeli attack on Lebanon.

The situation in the middle east has changed. Regimes like turkey and egypt, that were once friendly to israel, or at least not hostile towards it, are changing quite rapidly and becoming a lot more condemnatory. Look at how Egypt opened the rafah crossing this time as opposed to keeping it closed as they did during Operation Cast Lead.

 

[frogwoman]

It shouldn't be overdone, but there are useful parallels.

Nah I don't think it is the same at all. In some ways (looking at the situation of Israeli Arabs etc) what is happening there is nowhere near as bad as South Africa, but in other ways it is much, much worse. The demographics etc are also completely different. The Israelis aren't an overwhelmingly rich minority who live in the lap of luxury, cars you dont even find back home etc. even the settlers

I think a more useful comparison (although even then...) might be Serbia/Kosovo tbh. At least during a certain period in its history. The history of the serbs (which subsequently gave the rationale for what the government were doing). the fact that in Serbia proper (not Kosovo) minorities such as Albanians etc were on paper "equal" etc allowing the gov't to complain that they were not racist, that they had representation, etc. The encouragement of settlers (most of whom weren't rich or anything) in the preceding years and the complete neglect or much worse of albanian communities and the use of "proxies" to carry out what they were doing allowing the gov't to say it was nothing to do with them.

The religious bollocks "Kosovo has ALWAYS been a part of serbia" etc. The claims that Kosovans were a "fake" nationality, that they were really Albanians from Albania who had moved into the territory in the 70s etc rather than having always lived there. The invoking of the holocaust "nobody will ever beat you again" and so on.

Although I don't think comparisons like this always work. And of course Kosovo today begins to look slightly similar, except the other way round ...

 

[audiotech]

Is it likely that In Gaza Hamas were to form an independent, Islamic state? Appears that this is what they are implementing presently and from what I can see it's damn brutal too. If this was to come about then it would take the population out of Gaza out of any equation with regards to Israel.

 

[dylans]

As a general rule of thumb, any country claiming to be a democracy that counts demographics/birth rates etc on the basis of cultural or ethnic "threats" demonstrates a pretty unhealthy strain running through it. The so called "demographic threat" is usually cited in terms of the "threat" to the cultural superiority of one group. Most obviously the "threat" to a state self defined in ethnic or religious /cultural terms.

There is however another demographic threat in Israel, not to its Jewish character but to its secular and democratic one. The ultra orthadox Haredi currently make up 10% of the total population, with a population of 700.000. Their birth rate is the highest in the country, currently at about 6% per year which means their population doubles every 15 years.

This is a community that rejects the separation of religion and state and lives their lives according to biblical tradition.

If population trends remain on their current growth rate, in 50 years the Haredi will constitute 48% of the overall population and an overwhelming majority of the Jewish population (27% secular, 25% non-Jew, and 48% Haredi.) and Israel will become a theocracy.

 

[frogwoman]

I have my doubt that the "demographic threat" of the Haredi is as serious as is portrayed by many secular Israelis tbh. It reminds me of "the UK will be muslim in 50 years" bullshit. There's a couple of interesting articles by israeli marxists about this that I'll try and dig out later