Post New

So as I've been ruminating about the Peace Plan, I'm starting to wonder whether what happens to Gaza in the future is even all that relevant to its aims. What if it's already accomplished everything that it's intended to accomplish, because the goal isn't about Gaza?

The key immediate elements to the plan were the ceasefire and the release of hostages - which happened and were already agreed to in advance. But the next elements involve Hamas voluntarily disarming and dissolving while Israel withdraws, which seem somewhat half-baked. Someone needs to be the government, someone needs to be in charge of security in any given area. Someone has to be the people with guns that serve as the police and defense forces and government - and if it's not going to be Hamas or Israel, there needs to be another option. And that's not in place yet, and there's no real urgent movement to it being in place. Hamas never agreed to disarm and dissolve, either.

But maybe that's not the point? Hamas changed the political dynamic on 10/7, derailing the gradual movement of the Sunni nations in the region into tighter economic and possibly security relationships with Israel. There was no way that could resume while there was still active fighting in Gaza. The thinking was that ending the fighting in Gaza wasn't enough, that actual movement towards a Palestinian state was needed.

What my theory presupposes is.... what if it's not?

The Peace Plan has ended the fighting (for the moment) and gotten Israel to agree to a document that contains a roadmap to a Palestinian state and disavows annexation of Gaza. Yes, the roadmap is barely a few sentences, no one really thinks that the current Israeli government is committed to it, and no one really regards it as much movement towards a Palestinian state. But it is this government agreeing that if Hamas and the PA do certain things (which they won't, but a pin in that), then a Palestinian state. And taking annexation of Gaza off the table. It's no Oslo... but given what the lack of results after Oslo, and how foreseeable those results were after so many cans were kicked down the road in Oslo, it's not that much less than Oslo.

What if it's enough? What if the ME states have decided - in private - that they would actually like to move ahead with normalizing relations with Israel despite there not being any real movement towards Palestinian statehood? That the bare roadmap and disclaiming annexation of Gaza is sufficient? Or whether they would like to do it or not, that Trump is presenting enough of a bundle of carrots and implied threats that they feel that's their best option?

Maybe that's what the Plan is really about. It's really hard to see any of the other ME governments wanting to fight Hamas for control of Gaza, but maybe that's not the game plan. Maybe it's nothing more than keeping a lid on the fighting for a few months so that they can line up Abraham Mark II, give Hamas the option to dissolve and move towards a Palestinian state by dissolving themselves, and then everyone blaming Hamas when they "miss the opportunity to miss an opportunity." The other ME nations get the chance to start doing actual business with the major economic powerhouse in the region and with the U.S., shore up their security interests by making friends with Israel and presenting a common front against Iran, and get the fig leaf of an illusory roadmap to a Palestinian state in the Peace Plan to placate their domestic population. Combine that with being excused from any further movement on greater freedom for their domestic population, which gives them more leeway to take unpopular stands knowing the U.S. is completely uninterested in having a second Arab Spring.

Gaza can just go back to October 6th, and everyone else moves on? Everyone pretends the Peace Plan is a win for the Palestinians, and gets their economic and security deals with Israel - and the ME gets regional peace even though the Palestinians still don't have a state? The Peace Plan is so poorly-suited to solving Gaza or the Palestinian state, but so wonderfully-suited to enabling a broader arrangement, I wonder if that's the play....

What if the ME states have decided - in private - that they would actually like to move ahead with normalizing relations with Israel despite there not being any real movement towards Palestinian statehood? That the bare roadmap and disclaiming annexation of Gaza is sufficient? Or whether they would like to do it or not, that Trump is presenting enough of a bundle of carrots and implied threats that they feel that's their best option?

Well...yeah.
The ME states have grown up in a sense and discarded a lot. They now view Iran as their major enemy.

The Abraham Accords were the first step. Recall that Saudi Arabia and Israel were talking just prior to 10/7. History was moving towards some kind of relationship between the Israelis and the Arab nations.

Everyone pretends the Peace Plan is a win for the Palestinians, and gets their economic and security deals with Israel - and the ME gets regional peace even though the Palestinians still don't have a state? The Peace Plan is so poorly-suited to solving Gaza or the Palestinian state, but so wonderfully-suited to enabling a broader arrangement, I wonder if that's the play....

Well...yeah.
The Palestinians have worn out their welcome. In Egypt, in Turkey, in Qatar, wherever they go they bring their baggage with them and the other states have likely had enough.

The ME states have grown up in a sense and discarded a lot. They now view Iran as their major enemy.

That, and the Arab Spring turned to Winter.

The ME states oriented against the West and towards the Soviets after WWII for a variety of reasons, many of which have faded over time. But one that persisted was the West's insistence on things like democracy and human rights. None of these countries are free democracies. They're all monarchies, autocracies, or some other hybrid flavor of non-democratic rule. They all have restrictions on religious freedom, press and political activity that are anathema to liberal (small-l) Western democracies. And the West was constantly trying to change that. To bring democracy and freedom to the Middle East.

Right-wing populism has changed that a lot, and Trump especially has changed that. The message is loud and clear to these rulers: we don't care anymore. We don't care that you're not elected, we don't care that you deny basic democracy to your people, we don't care if you deny them political freedoms or the right to choose their own leaders or the right to free press or assembly or anything else. That's your business. Israel's moved away from the West, as the West has shunned them; the institutions in the West that were trying to create freedom and democracy in the Middle East have faded in potency; and the U.S. has absolutely given up on the "bringing democracy and freedom to oppressed people" business.

That's created a lot of space for these guys to move closer to Israel and the U.S. We're now treating them not as bloodstained oppressors who rule without the consent of their people, but as Guys We Can Do Business With.

That's created a lot of space for these guys to move closer to Israel and the U.S. We're now treating them not as bloodstained oppressors who rule without the consent of their people, but as Guys We Can Do Business With.

Yes.

I disagree with this:

Right-wing populism has changed that a lot, and Trump especially has changed that. The message is loud and clear to these rulers: we don't care anymore. We don't care that you're not elected, we don't care that you deny basic democracy to your people, we don't care if you deny them political freedoms or the right to choose their own leaders or the right to free press or assembly or anything else. That's your business.

This isn't a Trump thing. Rather, the insistence on democracy as the Frist Principle through which the United States will deal with you is the change in traditional US foreign policy - not Trump. If anything, Trump is returning the US to more of a Realpolitik stance of the type most frequently espoused by Kissinger and Nixon but also employed by every other post-WWII US President: Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ...only until you get to Jimmy Carter do you see a move away from that model.

It's along the lines of "We get that so-and-so is a scumbag, but it's fine as long as he's *our* scumbag". This is the kind of a foreign policy you set up in a bipolar world where battle lines will be drawn up sooner rather than later.

There's another reason why the US is moving in this direction and why Trump wants both the middle east and the conflict in the Ukraine settled yesterday: they're both sideshows. The main event is over the Pacific and the US needs worldwide stability to enable focus there.

For those who doubt me that we're shifting our eyes to the Pacific, I give you this:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/f-47-phoenix-p...

Eagle-eyed viewers will immediately understand the connection between the squiggly line on the side of the patch and the colors of the Phoenix. Especially astute viewers will immediately make the connection to the "FBC" initials on the right.

This isn't a Trump thing. Rather, the insistence on democracy as the Frist Principle through which the United States will deal with you is the change in traditional US foreign policy - not Trump.

it's certainly a massive reorientation of U.S foreign policy from what it has traditionally been... because five decades of policy is enough for that to become our traditional foreign policy. Trump's foreign policy inarguably represents a significant break from U.S. foreign policy over the last fifty years. You're absolutely correct that Trump didn't invent a policy of not caring about democracy or human rights in other countries. But I don't think there's much disagreement that he's made a drastic change in our foreign policy from our traditional championing of liberty, democracy, and freedom. You clearly agree with that change, but I don't think there's any basis for claiming that this isn't a Trump choice to move away from our traditional approach to foreign policy to one from a more historic era.

So now the ME governments feel like they have more room to move towards aligning with the U.S. They know that we're not going to be trying to promote democracy or freedom anywhere anytime soon, so they've got more comfort in cozying up to us. That's why I think the Peace Plan might be more about leveraging that moment to affect change outside of Gaza, rather than an effort to carve up Gaza to the ME countries. Normalizing relations with Israel may be the bigger prize for them, not getting some useless beachfront property deals.

That's why some MAGA folks, like Laura Loomer, are so enraged. Like you, they envisioned the world as aiming for an "us vs. them" kind of Manichean stand-off - but they definitely view Islamists states as having to be firmly in the "them" category in the clash of civilizations to come. If it's a bipolar world, these guys are in the other pole.

Eagle-eyed viewers will immediately understand the connection between the squiggly line on the side of the patch and the colors of the Phoenix. Especially astute viewers will immediately make the connection to the "FBC" initials on the right.

The line appears to be China's eastern coastline. What does FBC stand for?

it's certainly a massive reorientation of U.S foreign policy from what it has traditionally been... because five decades of policy is enough for that to become our traditional foreign policy. Trump's foreign policy inarguably represents a significant break from U.S. foreign policy over the last fifty years.

Fifty years? More like...25. Bill Clinton's foreign policy was about trade with China. Bush43 was the first to really push the notion of the US exporting democracy.

Prior to Clinton, Bush41/Reagan/Ford/Nixon/LBJ/JFK/Eisenhower/Kennedy all pursued some version of Realpolitik or other.

You clearly agree with that change, but I don't think there's any basis for claiming that this isn't a Trump choice to move away from our traditional approach to foreign policy to one from a more historic era.

I believe in meeting the world where it is, not where I wish it to be.
I'll remind you that the entire Cold War era of foreign policy was predicated not necessarily on human rights and exporting democracy but primarily oriented towards keeping the Soviets out. Would you say that places like South Korea, Vietnam, Honduras, El Salvador and other flash point or potential flash point countries were models of open government?

So now the ME governments feel like they have more room to move towards aligning with the U.S. They know that we're not going to be trying to promote democracy or freedom anywhere anytime soon, so they've got more comfort in cozying up to us. That's why I think the Peace Plan might be more about leveraging that moment to affect change outside of Gaza, rather than an effort to carve up Gaza to the ME countries. Normalizing relations with Israel may be the bigger prize for them, not getting some useless beachfront property deals.

The Middle East has always backed The Strong Horse. It's in the United States' interest to be that strong horse. It's really that simple. The Arabs have seen the Israelis' capabilities up close including

-Taking out Iran's entire air defense network in 3 or so days
-Decapitating all of Hezbollah's leadership in a single day
-Decapitating all of Hamas' leadership
-Wiping out thousands of Hamas' fighters

The above 4 things represent a capability of direct + asymmetrical warfare that the Arab countries can't possibly match.

So they face a choice. Put aside the Fist In The Air Justice For Palestine stuff and team up with the Israelis against their *other* enemy of Iran -or- continue a cause for a people that have (in the Arab mind) outlived their usefulness and who are now more trouble than they're worth (yes, that is a very ruthless way to put it but this is the perspective over there; I merely repeat it). And as a bonus get closer to the United States.

Behind door number 2 is having Mossad raise hell inside your country knowing that you have zero ability to stop it or retaliate in any meaningful *plus* you piss off Uncle Sam.

So it's a very easy call.

The line appears to be China's eastern coastline. What does FBC stand for?

That it is. Notice the Phoenix's colors are China's national colors also. FBC stands for "Freaking beat China", with "Freaking" standing for something else, if you take my meaning. The other acronyms are Air Combat Command (ACC) and the Special Missions Office (SMO).

I believe in meeting the world where it is, not where I wish it to be.

That seems inaccurate. You clearly believe that U.S. foreign policy should try to change the world - specifically, to try to reduce China's strength and power globally and reorient as many of the world's countries towards the U.S. and away from China as possible. You just have different things about where you wish the world to be that you prioritize. Nothing wrong with that as a general principle - almost by definition anyone that has opinions about foreign policy has to decide what their priorities are. But it's still setting priorities about the world you wish it to be, not merely meeting the world where it is.

So they face a choice. Put aside the Fist In The Air Justice For Palestine stuff and team up with the Israelis against their *other* enemy of Iran -or- continue a cause for a people that have (in the Arab mind) outlived their usefulness and who are now more trouble than they're worth (yes, that is a very ruthless way to put it but this is the perspective over there; I merely repeat it). And as a bonus get closer to the United States.

Behind door number 2 is having Mossad raise hell inside your country knowing that you have zero ability to stop it or retaliate in any meaningful *plus* you piss off Uncle Sam.

So it's a very easy call.

All militarily weaker countries end up having to ally/triangulate in order to meet their national security needs. The ME nations are no exception. During the Cold War they played against both the U.S. and the Soviets (except for the nations that chose to obviously align, like Iran or Israel). It's not always the easy call to align with the strongest country in your neighborhood, because they might extract a very high domestic price for your alliance - that's why Taiwan and Japan and other nations don't just ally with China.

One factor that's kept the ME nations somewhat at a remove from the West (and the U.S.) after the Cold War is their dismal status on democracy and human rights. Not their position supporting Palestinians getting their own country, which has been the official policy of the U.S. since at least Carter. But because these are oppressive monarchies and dictatorships who correctly feared having too close an alignment with the U.S. (and therefore Israel) because of our arm-twisting on human rights.

Trump's transactional approach to foreign policy eliminated that block. No one's going to ask them to adopt our ideas of free speech or political openness. So there's more deal space available. Which is why I wonder if the Peace Plan isn't really about Gaza at all, but just clearing the way for Abraham Accords Mk II and letting Gaza just go back to 10/6.

That seems inaccurate. You clearly believe that U.S. foreign policy should try to change the world - specifically, to try to reduce China's strength and power globally and reorient as many of the world's countries towards the U.S. and away from China as possible.

No. "Meeting the world where it is" is a cultural statement. What are your plans for instituting democracy in say, Saudi Arabia? Gonna force it on them? Or gradually nudge them towards reforms (as bin Salman seems to be doing)? Are you planning on insisting these places hold US-style elections tomorrow?

How'd that work out for us in Iraq?

You're looking at the world not as it is but through your cultural lens.

But because these are oppressive monarchies and dictatorships who correctly feared having too close an alignment with the U.S. (and therefore Israel) because of our arm-twisting on human rights.

Trump's transactional approach to foreign policy eliminated that block.

I think you're misremembering how we've treated the middle east and other places for some time now. Remember Bush43 walking hand in hand with the Kind of Saudi Arabia? Or Obama bowing to the guy? How many "banana wars" did we fight? What about Somoza in Nicaragua? Or others?

Which is why I wonder if the Peace Plan isn't really about Gaza at all, but just clearing the way for Abraham Accords Mk II and letting Gaza just go back to 10/6.

Yes on the first part of this, emphatic NO on the second part. The Israelis are not letting Gaza go back to 10/6. That, in their minds, is the best way to guarantee there will be another 10/6.

This isn't a Trump thing. Rather, the insistence on democracy as the Frist Principle through which the United States will deal with you is the change in traditional US foreign policy - not Trump. If anything, Trump is returning the US to more of a Realpolitik stance of the type most frequently espoused by Kissinger and Nixon but also employed by every other post-WWII US President: Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ...only until you get to Jimmy Carter do you see a move away from that model.

Carve this on your dashboard: Steve agrees with Dope. All you need to do is look at the horrible dictators that the US backed, in Iran, Chile, Argentina, Nicaragua. All the US required was that the dictator pay lip service to being "a good anti-Communist". Lets throw in the dictators in South Korea and the Philippines. How many thousands of people did the Argentine junta grab off the street, never to be seen alive again? But, when the junta invaded the Falklands, a UK possession, did the US send a carrier strike group, so the Brits had decent air cover as they defended their territory and their citizens? Nope. Must not upset the "good anti-Communists".

Steve

I think you're misremembering how we've treated the middle east and other places for some time now. Remember Bush43 walking hand in hand with the Kind of Saudi Arabia? Or Obama bowing to the guy? How many "banana wars" did we fight? What about Somoza in Nicaragua? Or others?

I think you're misunderstanding the scope of what we're talking about here. We have always combined having relations with these countries and pressure to improve their human rights. It's not an either/or binary. These weren't countries that were diplomatically isolated like North Korea, nor were we trying to "force" democracy on them. But We were also trying to get them to change their culture - not leap straight to elections next month, but also pushing them to adopt reforms that would lead to the countries going down that road.

It's not a cultural lens and pretending that the world today is different than it is, but doing the same thing you want to do with China. You're not looking at China and pretending that they're weak and isolated today - you're looking at them and contemplating taking steps so that they will be weaker and more isolated in the future. So, too, with ME countries and human rights: not pretending that they are models of human rights and representative democracy today, but also not accepting that status quo and making sure that we work towards that goal in the future. Which is something that Trump absolutely does not include in his foreign policy.

Yes on the first part of this, emphatic NO on the second part. The Israelis are not letting Gaza go back to 10/6. That, in their minds, is the best way to guarantee there will be another 10/6.

They don't have a choice. The Peace Plan "solves" the Hamas problem by the simple expedient of saying that Hamas will choose to disarm and dissolve. That way the field will be clear for a multinational security force to take over without having to fight Hamas for it, and that MSF will then block Hamas (or the PLFP or any other terrorist group) from taking power in the future. Problem solved!

But if Hamas doesn't disarm and dissolve, then Israel still has a major problem in Gaza. So they're right back in the same position they were on 10/6. They may have a different policy towards Gaza going forward... but I have my doubts. They still have absolutely zero good options. There has to be a government in Gaza: you can't have two million people living without a government. Either Israel will be the government, the MSF will be the government, the PA will be the government, or Hamas will be the government. The last choice is a terrible choice...but I don't know that any of the others are much better for Israel.

I think you're misunderstanding the scope of what we're talking about here. We have always combined having relations with these countries and pressure to improve their human rights. It's not an either/or binary. These weren't countries that were diplomatically isolated like North Korea, nor were we trying to "force" democracy on them. But We were also trying to get them to change their culture - not leap straight to elections next month, but also pushing them to adopt reforms that would lead to the countries going down that road.

No, I understand that all too clearly.

It's not a cultural lens and pretending that the world today is different than it is, but doing the same thing you want to do with China. You're not looking at China and pretending that they're weak and isolated today - you're looking at them and contemplating taking steps so that they will be weaker and more isolated in the future. So, too, with ME countries and human rights: not pretending that they are models of human rights and representative democracy today, but also not accepting that status quo and making sure that we work towards that goal in the future. Which is something that Trump absolutely does not include in his foreign policy.

You're putting words in my keyboard and not getting them right, no offense. My position is quite clear: China is a far bigger threat to the United States than the Soviet Union ever was due to their near-peer status in technology and economics *plus* the fact that modern societies are far more dependent on poorly secured tech than they've ever been. Witness

https://www.wired.com/story/china-hackers-us-water...
and
https://www.baltimoresun.com/2025/10/06/feds-plot-...

Everything else is a sideshow.

They don't have a choice.

Yes, they do. You think thousands of Palestinians are ever getting jobs inside of Israel sometime soon? Or that the border posts won't be manned and armed to the teeth from now on? Or that they won't have a lot more radar surveillance and cameras looking at their borders? Or having any compunctions on shooting first and asking questions later? Much like the US still hasn't adopted a relaxed posture in airports and in other secure areas the Israelis aren't going back there, either.

Everything else is a sideshow.

That's certainly a position to take - but it's no more (or less) trying to change the world than people who think that promoting democracy and human rights should also be among the priorities the U.S. tries to advance. The latter isn't looking at the world through a cultural lens, as you put it. Trying to make the world different than it is today isn't the same as falsely believing the world is different than it really is. Whether the change you want to effect in the world is economic/military (as with China) or sociopolitical (as with human rights in the ME), you're still trying to effect a change in current conditions to a scenario you think is better.

Yes, they do. You think thousands of Palestinians are ever getting jobs inside of Israel sometime soon? Or that the border posts won't be manned and armed to the teeth from now on? Or that they won't have a lot more radar surveillance and cameras looking at their borders? Or having any compunctions on shooting first and asking questions later? Much like the US still hasn't adopted a relaxed posture in airports and in other secure areas the Israelis aren't going back there, either.

Oh, there will be tweaks. But there may not be a fundamental change in governance of Gaza the way that the Peace Plan optimistically contemplates. That's what I mean - we may end up back on 10/6, where Gaza is isolated but Hamas is in charge, rather than some any other party taking control of the area. The other ME countries may not be doing this because they want to be in charge of Gaza, but because they want to cut a deal with Israel; and Israel may not be doing this because they seriously think that someone other than Hamas will be in charge of Gaza, but because they want a deal with the other ME countries.

Just an FYI -

Trump Warns Hamas Over Disarming

Speaking at the White House on Tuesday afternoon, Trump warned Hamas to disarm.

"If they (Hamas) don't disarm, we will disarm them. And it will happen quickly and perhaps violently," he said during a meeting with Argentine President Javier Milei.

Tony Blair seems to have a central role on the BoP, so I puzzled over how getting violent with Hamas would work with him, but T seems to think it can happen, or is it just TACO tuesday?

Tony Blair seems to have a central role on the BoP, so I puzzled over how getting violent with Hamas would work with him, but T seems to think it can happen, or is it just TACO tuesday?

It's bluster. It has nothing to do with Tony Blair, who may or may not have a position on the BoP when it gets established. Even if the BoP-led security force happens, they're not going to have boots on the ground in Gaza any time soon. If anyone's going to "get violent" with Hamas in the relevant time period, it would only be the IDF.

Fifty years? More like...25. Bill Clinton's foreign policy was about trade with China. Bush43 was the first to really push the notion of the US exporting democracy.

Wilsonianism: President Woodrow Wilson (1913–1921) introduced the idea of moral diplomacy, which involved supporting countries with democratic governments while economically pressuring non-democratic nations. He promoted the idea that the U.S. had a special mission to spread liberty and democracy globally.

So, 1921 to 2025 - rounding to 100 years?

That's certainly a position to take - but it's no more (or less) trying to change the world than people who think that promoting democracy and human rights should also be among the priorities the U.S. tries to advance. The latter isn't looking at the world through a cultural lens, as you put it. Trying to make the world different than it is today isn't the same as falsely believing the world is different than it really is. Whether the change you want to effect in the world is economic/military (as with China) or sociopolitical (as with human rights in the ME), you're still trying to effect a change in current conditions to a scenario you think is better.

Looking at the world through our cultural lens - and thereby assuming that there are George Washingtons and Thomas Jeffersons in all these countries with crap human rights - was a core mistake made in Iraq and Afghanistan. It didn't work out for us. Stressing things like women's rights is a fine thing but unless you're wiling to wholesale change someone's culture you're not going to make much progress unless you ease the process along.

No one on Planet Earth is going to turn the Gazans into a peace loving society any time soon. It's not happening.

Whether the change you want to effect in the world is economic/military (as with China) or sociopolitical (as with human rights in the ME), you're still trying to effect a change in current conditions to a scenario you think is better.

I'm not sure where you're getting this. There's a vast difference between arraying chess pieces on the global board vs. trying to remake Rooks into Knights. A Rook is a Rook and a Knight is a Knight.

My message vis a vis China is one of preparedness and readiness. They've made no secrets of their desires on the rest of the world and their views on who should be running it. Spoiler alert: Not us.

War is not inevitable but in their case Si vis pacem, para bellum should very much be the philosophy of the day. If you listen to Trump carefully this is exactly the policy he's pursuing.

But there may not be a fundamental change in governance of Gaza the way that the Peace Plan optimistically contemplates. That's what I mean - we may end up back on 10/6, where Gaza is isolated but Hamas is in charge, rather than some any other party taking control of the area. The other ME countries may not be doing this because they want to be in charge of Gaza, but because they want to cut a deal with Israel; and Israel may not be doing this because they seriously think that someone other than Hamas will be in charge of Gaza, but because they want a deal with the other ME countries.

I'll be brutally honest: I don't really care. That sounds harsh, but going back to Bill Clinton people have tried to reach out to the Palestinians and offer them things if they would Just. Stop. Trying. To. Kill. But they won't.

Clinton had this whole thing nailed years ago:

https://www.newsweek.com/clinton-arafat-its-all-yo...

Clinton said, somewhat surprisingly, that he never expected to close the deal at Camp David. But he made it clear that the breakdown of the peace process and the nine months of deadly intifada since then were very much on his mind. He described Arafat as an aging leader who relishes his own sense of victimhood and seems incapable of making a final peace deal. "He could only get to step five, and he needed to get to step 10," the former president said. But Clinton expressed hope in the younger generation of Palestinian officials, suggesting that a post-Arafat Palestinian leader might be able to make peace, perhaps in as little as several years. "I'm just sorry I blew this Middle East" thing, Clinton said shortly before leaving. "But I don't know what else I could have done."

Clinton was NOT a failure; Arafat was. And so is Hamas today. You could take BC's quote from back then and insert any Palestinian leader in there you'd care to name and it would still apply: they're all trapped in a past that never existed (some glorious Palestinian state free of Da Joos) and envision a future that never will be (From the River to the Sea and all that).

In other words, they're collectively delusional and it's time to stop humoring the delusion. I say truck in all the food and water they want but be done with it after that.

How delusional? This delusional:
Clinton said he bluntly contradicted Arafat when, in one of their final conversations, the Palestinian leader expressed doubts that the ancient Jewish temple actually lay beneath the Islamic-run compound in Jerusalem containing the holy Al Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock. This was a critical point of dispute, since the Western Wall, a remnant of the temple's retaining wall, is the holiest site in Judaism and one the Israelis were intent on maintaining sovereignty over. "I know it's there," Clinton said he told Arafat.

They believe their own BS, reality be damned. I don't believe it's fixable any longer.

I'm not sure where you're getting this. There's a vast difference between arraying chess pieces on the global board vs. trying to remake Rooks into Knights.

Right. Taking steps to counter China and trying to advance human rights and democracy are both arraying chess pieces on the global board. Neither is trying to remake Rooks into Knights.

Clinton was NOT a failure; Arafat was. And so is Hamas today. You could take BC's quote from back then and insert any Palestinian leader in there you'd care to name and it would still apply: they're all trapped in a past that never existed (some glorious Palestinian state free of Da Joos) and envision a future that never will be (From the River to the Sea and all that).

In other words, they're collectively delusional and it's time to stop humoring the delusion.

Now who's refusing to see the world as it is and instead applying their own cultural lens? Clinton never offered Arafat a deal he could agree to. The actual politics of the Palestinian people are different than what Clinton wanted them to be.

The problem is, was, and always will be the right of return mentioned in the article. The majority Palestinians have been at the point where they could live with the existence of Israel and the presence of Jews in the region - but being forever denied the same right to emigrate to Israel that Jews are given and that the UN said they had was a non-starter.

Arafat never had the ability to agree to a deal that didn't have a right of return in it. Because the Palestinian people don't have an actual government, there's no mechanism by which a Palestinian leader can gain the authority to agree to something that the population doesn't support. The leader of the PLO then - and even the leader of the PA now - doesn't have the authority to bind all the Palestinians. There's enough support among the Palestinian people to agree to nearly all of the elements a two-state solution would require (even if there's not majority support for any particular division of land or timing or terms). But not to give up the UN-authorized right of return.

Clinton may want to blame it on Arafat being "delusional" or "weak," but the reality is that Arafat knew what the deal space was and Clinton is the one deluding himself if he thinks otherwise.

Right. Taking steps to counter China and trying to advance human rights and democracy are both arraying chess pieces on the global board. Neither is trying to remake Rooks into Knights.

Iraq and Afghanistan were 100% trying to turn Rooks into Knights. I have no problem encouraging the Saudis to let women drive or wear whatever. Assuming we're going to have free and open elects in Gaza tomorrow vs. this Peace Board thing is what I'm talking about. Realistically, some kind of mandate is going to be the best solution they get.

Will there be repression? Sure. Of Hamas, who even now is gunning down their political opponents (not getting much media coverage).

Now who's refusing to see the world as it is and instead applying their own cultural lens? Clinton never offered Arafat a deal he could agree to. The actual politics of the Palestinian people are different than what Clinton wanted them to be.

Hahahahahahahaha! Arafat turned it down because he wanted to pretend that 1948 didn't happen. He demanded the "Right of Return".

But Arafat continued to demand that large numbers of Palestinian refugees, mainly from the 1967 and 1948 wars, be allowed to return-numbers that Clinton said both of them knew were unacceptable to the Israelis.

Talk about delusional.

The actual politics of the Palestinian people are different than what Clinton wanted them to be.

And this is the rub, isn't it? The Palestinians do - at all - believe that Israel should exist. They think the land is theirs and the Israelis should be swept into the ocean like so much flotsam. When one side doesn't acknowledge that you have a right to live, hates your guts, and refuses to accept anything less than your total annihilation, there's not a lot of deals they're going to accept.

And thus go the Palestinians.

The majority Palestinians have been at the point where they could live with the existence of Israel and the presence of Jews in the region - but being forever denied the same right to emigrate to Israel that Jews are given and that the UN said they had was a non-starter.

LOL. Come on, the Palestinians wouldn't be moving to Israel to live side by side with their neighbors and you know that. They tried the "let's throw them in the ocean strategy" in 1948/1967/1972 and went 0 for 3.

Hey, I'm still sore that the state of Washington stops where it does. 54°40' or fight, goddammit!

Because the Palestinian people don't have an actual government, there's no mechanism by which a Palestinian leader can gain the authority to agree to something that the population doesn't support.

That holds true today. There's no functioning government in Gaza because Hamas runs it, so....

I have no problem encouraging the Saudis to let women drive or wear whatever. Assuming we're going to have free and open elects in Gaza tomorrow vs. this Peace Board thing is what I'm talking about.

But it's not what I'm talking about. The change to U.S. foreign policy that Trump has made is to stop pushing the Saudis to let women drive. Or to allow a free press to any of their people, or to allow full freedom of religion, or to engage in political speech, or any of the basic human rights that are infringed on a regular basis in many of these countries. The authoritarian regimes in the ME don't like that, because they don't have any democratic legitimacy to remain in power and don't want another "Arab Spring" that might, you know, give people human rights in their countries. Trump is offering them the chance to get close to the U.S. and Israel without being expected to make any changes.

Hahahahahahahaha! Arafat turned it down because he wanted to pretend that 1948 didn't happen. He demanded the "Right of Return".

Why are you laughing? In 1949, the UN - which authorized the creation of the state of Israel - said that all of the Palestinians have the right of return. They passed a formal Resolution declaring that right. It's something they believe they are entitled to under international law, with a fair amount of justification.

Because of that, it is one of the most important issues in any peace negotiation. The UN declared that the Palestinians have the right of return, and they have never been willing to give that up. They insist that Israel needs to follow international law and honor the UN Resolution confirming that right.

Regardless of whether you agree with them or not, there was no way that Arafat in the 1990's could have entered into a deal that did not include the right of return. He was the representative of the Palestinian people, but he knew that he didn't have the authority to agree to give that up as part of a bargain. If Clinton thought that there was any real possibility of a conclusive deal without the right of return, then Clinton was delusional.

There's no functioning government in Gaza because Hamas runs it, so....

So there's no way to get actual buy-in from the Palestinian people who live in Gaza to any agreement, because there's no representative that can claim to legitimately speak on behalf of those two million people. This is one of the main criticisms of Netanyahu's policy towards Gaza, BTW. His opponents alleging that he intentionally allowed Hamas to remain in control of Gaza, despite having the ability to cripple them and allow the PA to regain control, because he wanted to avoid having a functioning government there so that there would be no one to bargain with. Because he didn't want to bargain.

A post on the Political Asylum board suggests alternatives to the US MSM sources. Acknowledging that most media is biased to reflect specific interests, it does open ones eyes to the perspectives of others. Right or wrong, those perspectives exist and will not evaporate just because another nation or perspective wishes it would cease.

This one is obviously pro-pal/anti-zionist, yet it still makes some valid points.

https://www.dawn.com/news/1948160/why-trumps-gaza-...

Ejaz Haider Published October 12, 2025
The plan cements Zionist occupation, institutionalises apartheid and legitimises genocide under the guise of diplomacy.

......let’s establish a simple fact: this is not a peace plan. In fact, it’s not even a plan. At best, it can be described as a framework or certain guidelines. Its first and foremost objective is to achieve a ceasefire.

That cannot be faulted in and of itself, given the devastation in Gaza and the ongoing genocide in the Strip. But it’s important to flag this point to temper expectations about what can be achieved through these 20 points.

Far from promising lasting peace, US President Donald Trump’s plan for Gaza not only ignores the structural causes of the conflict in Palestine, it cements Zionist occupation, erases Palestinian sovereignty, institutionalises apartheid and legitimises genocide under the guise of diplomacy

The second fact is that this document does not address any of the structural, political, social, legal, economic and security issues for the Palestinians in Gaza or the OPTs, issues that have remained unaddressed since the colonial British Mandate.

Like it or not, it doesn't feel like it's over.

"If they (Hamas) don't disarm, we will disarm them. And it will happen quickly and perhaps violently,"

Just, exactly, who is this "we"? Trump, "Bibi", and the IDF. Or Trump, the USN and the USAF?

October 1:

A massive wave of U.S. Air Force KC-135 Stratotankers has moved into the Middle East, marking one of the largest aerial refueling deployments in recent months. Flight tracking shows aircraft departing from Atlantic bases and converging on Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, headquarters of U.S. Central Command.

https://www.newsweek.com/us-deploys-military-asset...

As Hamas has zero defense against high level bombers, his nibs could send BUFFs. Leave not one brick laying on top of another.

The 6th Fleet operates in the Med, centered around the USS Ford and it's air group. The fleet also includes three amphibious warfare ships and about 1800 Marines.

After all, with the living hostages released, Israel, or it's tools, don't need to use any restraint.

Steve

It's bluster.

Good. Condition normal, well... normal for Trump.

This one is obviously pro-pal/anti-zionist, yet it still makes some valid points.

I think she's absolutely correct that this agreement is a significant setback for the prospect of a Palestinian state. Even though it has Israel formally signing on to a nominal roadmap for the first time since Oslo, the interim step of having Gaza be re-occupied by a U.S.-led multinational governing body is incompatible with Palestinian autonomy. And the milestones for removing the "interim" governing body are so nebulous (and perhaps unattainable) that this is unlikely to change.

But again, a lot depends on whether Hamas goes quietly or not. Early indications suggest they won't, but we'll see.

agree to something that the population doesn't support.

You agree Spankee is the same as Arafat (which is you being quoted, above).

You agree Spankee is the same as Arafat (which is you being quoted, above).

Nope.

One of the things about an elected democratic system of government is that it conveys legitimacy to the elected officials to make decisions on behalf of the electorate, even if those decisions are not themselves especially popular and would not be supported by a majority vote. By having the election and agreeing to the (typically) constitutional framework that set up the government, they are providing consent to be bound by the decisions of the elected official - even if they disagree with them. That's the difference between representative democracy and direct democracy. We all agree that we will have an election, the person who wins the election will have certain powers, and they can make decisions consonant with those powers and they will be legal and enforceable.

That's incredibly important. People sometimes think of democratic institutions as a way that a People can reach consensus on decisions - but oft-times it's more a mechanism by which the People can reach a decision when there isn't a consensus. You have a vote, you put someone in charge, and they get to make the decisions their offices entitle them to.

When you don't have that kind of a system, though, the un-elected "leader" doesn't have that type of institutional legitimacy to make binding decisions on behalf of the People. The People haven't formally agreed to put that person in charge, or to what powers they have. Their "authority" comes only through suasion, informal power, influence, and (for the most part) their credibility in assessing what the People they represent actually want. There isn't a way for them to legitimately bind the People to decisions that the People would overwhelmingly disagree with, the way they would be able to in a more formal structured government.

The UN declared that the Palestinians have the right of return

To *where* do they have the right of return?

To Israel? To Palestine? To whatever land they lived on previously? Or what? Unspecified.

If they get to return to wherever Palestine is located, their choice. But they are not able to go beyond that territory.

If they claim all of the land including--all of Israel--then THEY are being delusional and can not be dealt with rationally.

To whatever land they lived on previously?

Yes.

It's a long-standing rule of law that when warfare and fighting forces people to become refugees in order to escape the fighting, they should be allowed to return to where they previously lived once the fighting is done. The UN adopted a specific Resolution applying that principle to the Arab-Israeli war of 1948, declaring in 1949 that all the folks who became refugees as a result of that war should be permitted to return to their homes.

It's a long-standing rule of law that when warfare and fighting forces people to become refugees in order to escape the fighting, they should be allowed to return to where they previously lived once the fighting is done.

Uhhh, not really. There are several million Germans who used to live in Eastern Poland and other places that would like a word.

Uhhh, not really. There are several million Germans who used to live in Eastern Poland and other places that would like a word.

Yes really. Just because the rule of law is broken at times doesn't mean the rule doesn't exist. There were about 1.3 million Cambodians slaughtered in the Killing Fields, but that doesn't mean that mass executions of your own civilian population isn't against international law. It just means that sometimes nations break international law.

It just means that sometimes nations break international law.

And it also means that
a) belligerents don't always get the benefit of the doubt
b) possession is 9/10ths of the law

The "right of return" in Israel isn't happening. In fact...I've not heard it come up once in the context of the cease-fire talks with Hamas.

The "right of return" in Israel isn't happening. In fact...I've not heard it come up once in the context of the cease-fire talks with Hamas.

I agree that it's almost certainly not happening. I think a two-state solution also is almost certainly not happening. But Palestinians' desire for a right of return is not at all delusional or irrational, and it remains the overwhelming matter that prevents a deal from being made. That's why Clinton's efforts failed. Not because of Arafat's capabilities, but because the two parties were in fundamental disagreement over a core material issue that no one could resolve to their mutual acceptance.

It hasn't come up in the cease-fire talks because the cease-fire talks were...cease-fire talks. They weren't trying to solve the entire Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Trump decided to vastly expand the scope of the talks to just cut Hamas out of it and bring in regional issues - trying to solve one problem with another - and it worked to get the ceasefire done. But they're not talking about right of return, because no one is bothering to ask whether this deal is one that the Palestinian people want or would accept.

It's a long-standing rule of law that when warfare and fighting forces people to become refugees in order to escape the fighting, they should be allowed to return to where they previously lived once the fighting is done.

I'll take authoritarian regimes that say "Fuck the courts, Alex"

What is_ _ _ _

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.