Far-right Israeli minister orders preparations for West Bank annexation
Far-right Israeli minister orders preparations for West Bank annexation
Israel’s Finance Minister Smotrich hopes US President-elect Trump will support plan to annex occupied West Bank in 2025.
"Israel’s far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich has ordered preparations for the annexation of the occupied West Bank ahead of US President-elect Donald Trump taking office in January 2025."
You're viewing a single thread.
Wow, they are really going to do it, aren't they?
they've been self-defensing their way towards the total elimination and annexation of Palestine from the 1940s to now.
this whole thing really should not surprise anyone that knows even a simplified history of god's special country. they have been slowly and steadily inching towards their goal. they're not really shy about it.
hear it from Israel's first prime minister
"You are no doubt aware of the JNF's activity in this respect. Now a transfer of a completely different scope will have to be carried out. In many parts of the country new settlement will not be possible without transferring the Arab fellahin." He added: "Jewish power [in Palestine], which grows steadily, will also increase our possibilities to carry out this transfer on a large scale."
"With compulsory transfer we have a vast area... I support compulsory transfer. I don't see anything immoral in it."
Here's another guy, a director of the JNF, Joseph Weitz
"There is no way besides transferring the Arabs from here to the neighboring countries, and to transfer all of them, save perhaps for [the Arabs of] Bethlehem, Nazareth and Old Jerusalem. Not one village must be left, not one [Bedouin] tribe. And only after this transfer will the country be able to absorb millions of our brothers and the Jewish problem will cease to exist. There is no other solution."
I just didn't think they would do it formally (de jure).
games like EU4 simulate it pretty well
when you first take a territory, it requires infamy. other countries look at you with sideways. you can't extract the full value out of the land yet. but after a long period of time (upwards of 50 years) it slowly starts to become legitimized. especially as you import settlers and built population centers. after a long enough time, it's both de facto and de jure yours and if you hold it long enough people will recognize it as yours.
so look what happened with West Bank. when Israel took control of WB in 1967, it was majority Palestinian.
what did they do? first, you import settlers. you give incentives for people to come and populate the area with Jews. you also tacitly endorse the ideology of the settlers, so they do it even without you actively supporting it (so you have some semblance plausible deniability when people call you out)
then, you take the native peoples and you herd them into smaller and smaller pieces of land. you restrict movement (like through their "jewish only roads" and the many checkpoints through the WB) (edit: sound similar to what Americans did to another native peoples by chance? almost like it was a blueprint)
fast forward to today, and now 63% of the land area of West Bank is majority Jewish. The Palestinian population is still higher, but they are forced into smaller and smaller pieces of low-value land. In about 50 years or so they've managed to turn a majority Arab area into a majority Jewish.
this gives them legitimacy. there's no way some future government, even if they wanted to be more generous, would ever give up majority Jewish land.
I'd say the entire process is gonna take ~75 years or so. we're almost to its conclusion. they're gonna replicate their WB strategy in Gaza, but since Gaza is much smaller and they're being much more brutal about it, it'll go much faster
I think the best way to become more resistant to propaganda is to read and understand history. If you only pay attention to this conflict since Oct 7th and you are getting your entire media diet from certain dubious sources, you don't stand a chance.
but if you deep dive and actually look at the history. look at the beginning of the state of Israel, look at the early leaders, what they were saying, what they believed. look at the process of occupation, what the policies have been (
ethnic cleansingspopulation transfers, restriction of movement, blockade of gaza, destruction of airports, killing of journalists, etc)then you will have a more cynical eye when certain people try to twist and bend the truth. and you will be more accurate in predicting where the ball will land.
They've already BEEN doing it. And this was the critical failure of all those who argued that Trump would be better for Palestine than Harris. I voted for Harris, but I am not at all surprised this cost her the election.
Israel doesn't need to do ANYTHING differently to complete its genocide of Gaza and the West Bank. It is already on that road, actively engaging in a campaign of ethnic cleansing against the Palestinians. And the Biden/Harris team have, through their inaction, fully endorsed this genocide.
Kamala was so comically bad on Palestine that the only hair-brained thing they could come up with to defend her stance was, "well...well...Trump will let the Israelis do a genocide EVEN FASTER!"
Kamala's campaign slogan was, "a vote for Mussolini is better than a vote for Hitler!"
And then she was surprised when enough liberal voters in swing states stayed home to cost her the election. It turns out, there are plenty of people who will NOT turn out to vote for Mussolini just because Hitler is also on the ballot. They won't vote for either of them; they'll just say "a pox on both your houses!" and stay home.
Is a vote for Mussolini better than a vote for Hitler? Objectively, probably yes. Hitler objectively did a lot worse harm than Mussolini. But you also can't be shocked when people refuse to hold their noses and vote for Mussolini, just because Hitler might be objectively worse. Ultimately, it's your fucking fault for expecting people to vote for Mussolini.
I can't speak for the nuances w.r.t Harris, Trump and US foreign policy in Israel/Palestine.
I can with full confidence say that not voting is definitely not going to achieve anything. The only justified case would be an attempt to highlight the illegitimacy of the voting process if there are no options at all. It's relatively common for people to vote tactically on a consistent basis, although of course it's understandable when people lose motivation to vote when they feel there are no good options.
You are ignoring how people actually think and live. You view voting as a utilitarian choice. Utilitarianism is not the only ethical system in existence. In fact, utilitarianism is exactly how histories worst autocrats justified their atrocities. Hitler himself ran on a platform of doing painful things that, he at least claimed, simply had to be done. The Holocaust itself was justified entirely from a "lesser of two evils" perspective. Hitler just had to convince the broader German populace that killing all the Jews was a necessary evil. Kill all the Jews or have the world taken over by godless Communists. That was Hitler's central "lesser of two evils" message.
This is the fatal flaw of appeals to the lesser of two evils approaches. Yes, you "achieve more" by picking the lesser evil. But from many ethical perspectives, if both choices are objectively evil, and you can't stop either, your only ethical choice is to not support either side. You're still supporting evil, even if it's the lesser evil.
You’re still supporting evil, even if it’s the lesser evil.
this is rather why i like the quote from ZIzek i heard in an interview recently
"if i were an American, I would obviously vote for Kamala. No question. But before I go into the booth, I would make the Christian Catholic cross with my hands and beg God for forgiveness"
i voted for Kamala but I did it with an awful taste in my mouth. Of course, just like all humans are guilty of Eden's original sin.. I think all of us Americans are guilty of benefiting from imperialism, capitalist exploitation, and the spoils of genocide.
No, I am basing this on real life experience. I.e. How I and many people vote and voted in my country, as well as other European countries that I follow.
This is a very practical matter. You feel like voting, you pick either your candidate or the best option that works. You're not happy with that, don't vote; but then you take responsibility for your (lack of) action. It's as simple as that.
I don't know where you are going with the utilitarianism and Hitler example. This is a massive stretch bordering on being rather insulting.
That is how YOU vote. A lot of people do not view it as a practical matter. They view their vote as an endorsement.
I don’t know where you are going with the utilitarianism and Hitler example. This is a massive stretch bordering on being rather insulting.
It really isn't when we're discussing fascists coming to power in the US. Godwin's Law is dead. It is not a stretch when the reason Kamala lost is for literally supporting a genocide.
Kamala's message was, "yes, I support a genocide overseas. But, my opponent supports it even more, and he will support crimes against humanity at home, while I will only support them overseas."
Not just me. This is common in other countries. People most definitely do not treat their vote as an endorsement. You can believe me or not or say I am bad, but this is a matter of fact.
I was refering to your claim that tactical/pragmatic voting is somehow related to a deep philosophical commitment to utilitarianism which in turns is how you get Hitler. People don't vote tactically out of some deep commitment to utilitarianism. Utilitarianism of course has its own set of problems, the stuff about Hitler in context of tactical voting is a ridiculous stretch; very condescending as well.
I don't deny the possibility of US turning into a essentially a non-democratic oligarch state. If anything, research suggests authoritarians who come to power via somewhat democratic means, tend to solidify their rule in their second term if there is no pushback from society. So in a sense I agree with you.
Where I don't agree with you are your justifications for not voting. As I said originally, I think the only fair reasoning is if there is nationwide protest to highlight the illegitimacy of an election/regime. Otherwise, there is no point in not voting.
Not just me. This is common in other countries. People most definitely do not treat their vote as an endorsement. You can believe me or not or say I am bad, but this is a matter of fact.
Being from an "other" country, having lived in another 3 of said "other" countries, an even having been involved in politics in 2 of them, what you wrote is complete total bullshit.
Plenty of people do indeed have an utilitarian view of their vote, but lots of people, maybe even most, treat their vote as an endorsement.
In fact from my own experience in various countries the utilitarian view is more common in countries with less Democratic voting systems with few actually electable choices, similar to the US (so, for example, Britain) whilst the endorsement view is more common in countries with highly Democratic voting systems with lots of choices (such as The Netherlands, which has Proportional Vote).
I'm sorry but whilst you having an utilitarian posture is perfectly valid, your idea that it's the only valid posture and other people don't have different postures is complete total mindless self-centred bollocks.
I never said anything about validity. Let me quote myself:
This is a very practical matter. You feel like voting, you pick either your candidate or the best option that works. You’re not happy with that, don’t vote; but then you take responsibility for your (lack of) action. It’s as simple as that.
I didn't mean to imply all people treat their vote as an endorsement. That's my mistake, I wasn't clear. I was saying that a lot of people vote tactically and do not treat their vote as an endorsement.
You can have a different posture, but the fact remains that people are complex and they can (and should) switch between committed voting and tactical depending on the situation. If you don't take the tactical approach, then it is reasonable to hold one responsible not taking part in the voting process.
In my experience, how many people vote tactically massivelly depends on the voting system and whether it's a presidential system or not.
The kind of utilitarian votes that sees one vote for somebody one does not like is not quite an Americanism because it doesn't happen only in the US (for example, the UK, even though it doesn't have a Presidential system, has a lot of tactical vote because they use First Past The Post for Parliament so each parliamentary seat is like a mini-presidential election where thare can only be one winner), but it's not really common in other countries.
As I said, I was involved in Politics in two countries, including canvassing and leafletting, and from talking to people (as well as observing how my family, friends and party colleagues did their "politics") voting it's far more often an affair of the hearth than of the head, starting by how people chose which politicians to trust given that they all promise nice things to them.
The cold and rational pondering about who to vote is not actually that widespread and many of those who try are still being swayed by emotional factors (for example, via who they chose to trust and how much) and people tend instead to vote on who they like and trust (or dislike and distrust all of them hence refuse to vote).
Further, even the cold and rational pondering is often not that rational because when it comes to such complex subjects with such a high level of uncertainty and misinformation, most of what one choses to believe as informations and one's own most favored forecast, is chosen based on less that scientific proof. (There is so much misinformation, disinformation and outright lying that chosing not to chose - i.e. not to vote - might be the most rational option of all).
What I've learned from decades of trying to go at things in a rational way is that we can never be fully Objective so it's a good idea to be aware of and keep track of the Subjective elements in one's decision making. Sure, it's valid to try, just don't decieve yourself that you have a perfectly logical decision making process and that everybody should be reaching the same conclusions as you.
From were I stand, your idea that you have a valid tactical approach and that it THE superior approach without question is just you misleading yourself about the nature of your information gathering and your thinking processes, hence you passing judgment on others for not going through the same obstacle course you do to end up making a decision which was de facto contaminated by subjective elements such as your choice of what information to trust and what forecasts you judged more likely, is like the blind criticing others for not seeing.
You really are not standing on top the moral high ground you think you're standing on.
This is not about a "moral high ground" or some deep commitment to utilitarianism (which you somehow turned into a bizarre rant about electing Hitler).
I am talking about a practical, real life evaluation. Of course many people vote based on emotional reasons, but that doesn't mean tactical voting is not extremely common (perhaps even a majority of voters).
And the fact remains that even people who have a strong emotional motivation can still be willing to make tactical choices. It's not all black and white like you describe.
They've been signaling it for more than a year now.
Are you surprised?
Drop pretence? Yeah they are going to do that.