Mid East Peace Plan/Palestine

[Ananda]

think your analysis of the urgency of peace with the Palestinians is wrong.

The urgency that I meant in my post is not only on making peace with Palestinian Authority, but more on solution to Palestinian people.
The UAE or Saudi Arabia need to shown to their population that their move to Israel will also give solution to Palestinians. That's means to Palestinians as whole not just PA. If no progress on that, then there's risk the wind can change back. The Gulf Kingdoms maybe Authoritarian Monarchist, but they also need to keep their population stable and not giving them issue that potential can be used against them by opposition.

Israel it self need to give solution to Palestinians soon, as there're more and more push in US Politics segments for Palestinian solutions. Israel can ignore EU if they have to. However the kind of "unconditional" support that they enjoyed for US is the essentials for their survivability. They can not afford growing discontent view whatever small in US Politics toward them.

It's small,but no one can even think before that a US Congresswoman (eventough coming from Far Left Liberals that always bit critical to Israel), calling Israel risk to be considered as 'Apartheid' nation, if they continue building settlement in Palestinian land.

AOC baffles Jewish community by refusing to meet with leaders

The heads of both the Jewish Community Relations Council and the New York Board of Rabbis said they’ve sought sit downs with the first-term “democratic socialist” congresswoman &#…

nypost.com

She's coming from the fringe of US Politics, but she's represent not only minorities but also some portion of US Millennials. That article coming from US media that's consistently Right Wing (Trump Country) and pro Israel. The Jewish lobby perhaps still playing it down, however it's clear this development rattling them.
Jewish lobby always play the cards of anti semitism for those who critical and not supporting Israel. However this movement that represents by this Congresswoman seems directed on 'you can be pro semites but critical to Israel'. Moreover this movement also gaining support from left wing American Jews millennials. Some of them already see that being Pro Semites means has to support both Jews and Palestinian in Israel since both basically Semites.

Back to my previous post, for me Israel administration it self now pushing themselves in my opinion toward one state solution. Again just I put in my post, giving land concession to Palestinian state with enough access for their own International Border and continuous land area, will provide security risk to Israel.
However taking all Palestinian as Israel citizens will give Palestinians 40%+ of demographic as currently 20% (remember those Arab Israeli basically Palestinian). This's also for Right Wing Israel politics (as current Administration) is the risk losing out, since those current Arab Israeli already voting themselves with Israel Left like Labour Party.

Then again, in my opinion for Israel own security, incorporate Palestinian in to Israel is much better as I have put above.
Yes, PA is corrupt establishment, in fact some Palestinian already giving up on them. They're now sticking to PA (even some media talk with Hamas in Gaza), because Israel doesn't give them any other alternative.

Read sometimes ago from Israel media that talk about Israel policies on taking more Jewish Immigrant is to provide balance of demographic toward Jewish, when they eventually has to take Palestinians in West Bank and Gaza as citizens.

From that I suspect even the Right Wing in Israel already see in the end they have to absorb Palestinian in West Bank and Gaza. However they're very adamant that no right of return to Palestinians that already left.

Question now how to make that kind of deals with PA and Hamas. Perhaps PA will agree on Autonomous status with their own Parliament, and representation in Israel Kneset. It might be happen if the Gulf Kingdoms saying to them enough is enough, make a deal with Israel on autonomy and not separate Nation.
I'm not quite sure with Hamas in Gaza. Perhaps they will stay on their course as long as there's Iran and Syria that supports them.

Democrats seems will win White House even Senate's, and Far Left Wing Liberals will potentially provide considerable part of next Democrats administration. That's and also to keep concelation winds in their Arab's neighbors, is the reason Israel need to provide Palestinian solutions soon.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

The urgency that I meant in my post is not only on making peace with Palestinian Authority, but more on solution to Palestinian people.
The UAE or Saudi Arabia need to shown to their population that their move to Israel will also give solution to Palestinians. That's means to Palestinians as whole not just PA. If no progress on that, then there's risk the wind can change back. The Gulf Kingdoms maybe Authoritarian Monarchist, but they also need to keep their population stable and not giving them issue that potential can be used against them by opposition.

The UAE's official stance is that by making peace with Israel, it could demand of Israel one thing that makes a huge contribution to the Palestinians - an Israeli promise to temporarily back down from the idea of annexation of the Jordan Valley, just enough time for the Palestinians to negotiate based on Kushner's parameters and sign a peace treaty of their own.
But in secret, the Emirati leadership knows too well they'll probably mess this one up as well and reject it. But for them that's okay.
The general opinion in the Arab street, nowadays, is a lot less pro-Palestinian than it was a decade ago, let alone 70 years ago. And a lot more tolerant for Israel.
It's not that Arabs now hate Palestinians. Most just don't really care about them and are against investing money in them. So the Emirati leadership will do just fine, especially when they presented themselves to the people as the saviors of the Palestinians with this deal.
It's also worth remembering that in relative terms, the Emirati people are some of the most tolerant and welcoming in the Arab world. In their immediate region they're probably only second to Iranians (the people, not the Ayatollahs).

Israel itself has tried presenting "solutions" to the Palestinians. And it currently has many running programs for the improvement of the economy of Palestinians in both territory, as well as quality of life improvements. Israel's even looking right now at ways to secure international funding to build a port and airport for Gaza on an artificial island.
But for a solution to be truly comprehensive, it must come as part of a formal peace treaty. The majority of Israel's aid, and international aid as well, was squandered by the Palestinians, and every bit was misappropriated either for military purposes or to fill elites' pockets.

Israel it self need to give solution to Palestinians soon, as there're more and more push in US Politics segments for Palestinian solutions. Israel can ignore EU if they have to. However the kind of "unconditional" support that they enjoyed for US is the essentials for their survivability. They can not afford growing discontent view whatever small in US Politics toward them.

But there is no push either in the US or EU for a "solution". They're all advocating for a peace treaty in which clauses of aid are included. But the two Palestinian administrations that existed in the last 50 years have a long record of rejecting every single peace treaty, no matter the parameters.
None in the US or EU is pushing for a different solution.
The growing discontent comes from the far left. You mentioned AOC but she's part of a wider movement, as you also said. That movement comes from colleges and universities, people who are allegedly educated (not the engineers and scientists, but alternative artists or gender experts) and believe in impractical ideals like Marxism and such. These people have no grip on reality, and when such people somehow find their way into a government, they are forced to change their views to avoid being booted from office due to incompetence.

She's coming from the fringe of US Politics, but she's represent not only minorities but also some portion of US Millennials. That article coming from US media that's consistently Right Wing (Trump Country) and pro Israel. The Jewish lobby perhaps still playing it down, however it's clear this development rattling them.
Jewish lobby always play the cards of anti semitism for those who critical and not supporting Israel. However this movement that represents by this Congresswoman seems directed on 'you can be pro semites but critical to Israel'. Moreover this movement also gaining support from left wing American Jews millennials. Some of them already see that being Pro Semites means has to support both Jews and Palestinian in Israel since both basically Semites.

The "Jewish lobby", an organization that doesn't exist (perhaps you mean the Anti Defamation League?), is not playing the anti-semitism card. The reason why it may seem like that, is that since perhaps the 70's, anti-semites, who almost always seem to be xenophobic in general, have made a switch to labeling themselves as "anti-Israel", to avoid accusations of racism. As if being against the existence of an entire country is not racist, especially if that country is the only one in existence with a certain dominant demographic.
People who are critical of Israel but not anti-semitic, are maybe 10% of the total, but they never use slogans like "apartheid", or equating Israelis to nazis, or demanding a boycott.
I've seen plenty of people of both descriptions, and AOC is talking a lot more like the ones on the anti-semitic bunch.

The Jewish segment in the left wing politics, is not pro-palestinians because they're semitic. Palestinians are, by definition, not semitic people because their arrival to the region came thousands of years after the historical semites consolidated into one group and dispersed.
They have different reasons for that, and their Jewishness has no bearing on that. People can be hypocritical to themselves and not even know it. I was a Jewish man once. I since left religion and became an atheist. I believe that a lot of my former beliefs were self-hypocritical and self-harming, so I know this phenomenon from personal experience.

Back to my previous post, for me Israel administration it self now pushing themselves in my opinion toward one state solution. Again just I put in my post, giving land concession to Palestinian state with enough access for their own International Border and continuous land area, will provide security risk to Israel.

This idea is not only unfounded, but there is a precedent that proves it is impossible.

In 2005 Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza. In 2006 Palestinians run "elections" and Hamas claims a victory in Gaza. Hamas then promptly starts eliminating Fatah politicians and militants and takes total control over Gaza after a bloody and lengthy war with Fatah.
By 2007 the situation became so bad that Israel had to impose a blockade on Gaza, and there was also international consensus on its necessity.
By the year 2015, a total of 20,000 rockets and mortars were fired at Israeli cities, most of them in times of peace.
There are some Israeli cities where having PTSD is more common than not having it.

Israelis understand this well - if another unilateral withdrwal is made, the Palestinians can not only threaten southern Israel, but the very heart of Israel - Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, the Ben Gurion airport, Haifa, actually the entire Israel because of the length of the West Bank. And there's another dimension to it - the West Bank is a mountainous region far above the rest of Israel - it gives them an easy artillery advantage.

That's why the Israeli stance has been that any concession of land will be done as part of a comprehensive peace treaty, in which Hamas and other terrorist groups (PIJ, Fatah, PFLP, DFLP) agreed to disarm.

So I'll summarize.
Withdraw unilaterally now - Get Gaza 2.0.
Withdraw after a peace treaty - Requires Palestinian agreement.

But the Palestinian veto has long been a thorn in such plans. Even the Jordan Valley annexation was part of a grand strategy (INSS plan, public) to take away the Palestinian veto, which seems to work.

Then again, in my opinion for Israel own security, incorporate Palestinian in to Israel is much better as I have put above.

Two reasons not to incorporate them:
1)Israel was built as a safe haven for Jewish people in times of crisis in their respective countries.
2)Israel was built as a liberal democracy for all its citizens.
Both of these values coexist in Israel. Both will be utterly destroyed if a foreign population is incorporated into Israel.
Israel will simply cease to exist.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Part 2:

Yes, PA is corrupt establishment, in fact some Palestinian already giving up on them. They're now sticking to PA (even some media talk with Hamas in Gaza), because Israel doesn't give them any other alternative.

The PA is a Palestinian-created government. It has nothing to do with Israel, other than an Israeli nod of recognition in the Oslo Accords.
Israel is not the caretaker that must give them alternatives. It's up to the Palestinians to form a government. If at every turn it's either a terrorist organization or an elitocratic oligarchy, it's their problem.

From that I suspect even the Right Wing in Israel already see in the end they have to absorb Palestinian in West Bank and Gaza. However they're very adamant that no right of return to Palestinians that already left.

No they don't. They're the ones most critical of such a solution. And leaders on both the left and right always accepted a Palestinian right of return - there was just never an agreement because Israel and Palestine defined refugees differently, and also because Palestine never accepted a peace treaty.

The Israeli right takes an approach similar to Russia's negotiations strategy - we offer you something. We're patient but every time you reject it, we offer you less. Keep rejecting it indefinitely and you'll eventually get nothing and we'll dictate the terms.
But de-facto the negotiations are not run by the coalition, at least not alone. So every offer basically gave Palestinians in the region of 93%-97% of their current territory, with economical incentives only improving every time.

 

[Ananda]

The general opinion in the Arab street, nowadays, is a lot less pro-Palestinian than it was a decade ago, let alone 70 years ago. And a lot more tolerant for Israel

I'm not an Arab, however coming from the largest Moslem Population Nation, we do have quite large interaction with middle East, and by that information on what Arab Grass Roots think on Palestinian issue. They're still strong emotions in the Arab Grass Roots including in the Gulf Kingdoms, especially in Saudi Arabia for equitable Palestinian solutions.

So the Emirati leadership will do just fine, especially when they presented themselves to the people as the saviors of the Palestinians with this deal

Well I'm glad you see that way. That's why I said to keep the conciliation wind from Arab Nation's from blowing back to other direction, Israel also need to meet and provide Palestinian solutions. After all if Israel want the Arabs especially the Gulf Kingdoms to turn their full attention toward Iran and not Israel, then the solution still needed.

None in the US or EU is pushing for a different solution.
The growing discontent comes from the far left.

Maybe you don't see potential those Left on changing EU and US Politics. I'm not going to debate with you on that. Will see how those left progressing on their 'anti' Israel drive (as some in Right say that), if Israel continue being perceived on continuation displacing Palestinian from their territory.
I just saying not underestimate them, on their ability for potential changing Politics of EU and US toward Israel. Especially if Israel still giving them 'fuel' on their cause.

Palestinians are, by definition, not semitic people because their arrival to the region came thousands of years after the historical

I come from Financial Industry, thus I also have interaction with people of Jewish decent in the Industry. All I can say there's quite a lot Jewish decent people that see the Semites include the Arabs.

And leaders on both the left and right always accepted a Palestinian right of return - there was just never an agreement because Israel and Palestine defined refugees differently, and also because Palestine never accepted a peace treaty.

That's new to me, can you provide the source in that ? Because from what many Palestinian possition, one of the reasons they can't reach agreement with Israel, is constant refusal from Israel for the right of return for Palestinian.

So every offer basically gave Palestinians in the region of 93%-97% of their current territory, with economical incentives only improving every time.

If that true, then the two state solution still can be work out. If Israel really want to relinquish 93%-97% of post 1967 'occupied' territory as base for Palestinian State, then it's quite remarkable considering the settlement already taking big chunk of West Bank.

If Israel still want to give this, then means a lot of current settlement in West Bank need to be dismantle. Could you provide source on that ?

My point on One State solution is base on the view that Israel will not give back that 93%-97% of occupied territory (as UN Term). Since if this true, then it should include Jordan Valley, which will give Palestinian State direct border with Jordan. This will give territory for economical workable independent state
Yaser Arafat should take that first offered on that first, and work to find solutions for Jerusalem Old City.

I'm not going to talk Politics on this, since the moderators in this forum not really Keen on that.
The point I make so far on this thread more on security issue. Conciliation wind from Arab states especially the Gulf Kingdoms will be blown back if no solutions to Palestinians can be achieve soon. The term soon means within this decade.

The elites on Gulf Kingdoms may be more conciliatory toward Israel. I also already put it on one of my post. However I do see the grass roots mood still want to have Palestinian solutions as trade off for normalisation with Israel.

Off course there will be enough portion in Arab population that still demand Israel disollvement as a Nation. However changing enough Arab's grass roots toward Israel is also depend on the fate of Palestinian. This can't be 'hang' on balance.

 

[ngatimozart]

In a quite interesting interview with Al Arabiya, Prince Bandar bin Sultan a former Saudi Kingdom diplomat discusses the Palestinians from the Saudi point of view, and why in his views there will never be a settlement between the Palestinians and Israel. And it won't be because of the Israelis or the Iranians. He states that the Palestinian people are let down by their leaders who are factionalised and don't listen to outside advice. In his view Arafat did more to harm the Palestinian cause than any other.

It should be noted that this article is written from a purely Saudi Arabian poverty, but it does offer an unique insight into the Saudi - Palestinian relationship.

Full transcript: Prince Bandar bin Sultan’s interview on Israel-Palestine conflict

In the first part of a three-part series exclusive interview with Al Arabiya, Prince Bandar bin Sultan discusses the Kingdom's position on the Palestinian

english.alarabiya.net

 

[Big_Zucchini]

In a quite interesting interview with Al Arabiya, Prince Bandar bin Sultan a former Saudi Kingdom diplomat discusses the Palestinians from the Saudi point of view, and why in his views there will never be a settlement between the Palestinians and Israel. And it won't be because of the Israelis or the Iranians. He states that the Palestinian people are let down by their leaders who are factionalised and don't listen to outside advice. In his view Arafat did more to harm the Palestinian cause than any other.

It should be noted that this article is written from a purely Saudi Arabian poverty, but it does offer an unique insight into the Saudi - Palestinian relationship.

Full transcript: Prince Bandar bin Sultan’s interview on Israel-Palestine conflict

In the first part of a three-part series exclusive interview with Al Arabiya, Prince Bandar bin Sultan discusses the Kingdom's position on the Palestinian

english.alarabiya.net

It's not an uncommon view in the Arab world, even the Palestinian streets. The PA is not listening to its allies. It's not listening to its own people. So who does it leave, that it IS listening to? The few elites that are running it.

Arafat had a unique disdain for his own people. Abbas is only close behind him. And they are both in a league of people who really wouldn't care if half their populations are wiped out due to famine, civil wars, or whatever kind of horrible way.

But, it is not in Israel's interests to directly intervene, because of the hostility of the population to it.
Another party should intervene to either deter the current Palestinian government into a change, or overthrow it.

The top contender for leadership after Abbas is Mohammed Dalhan.
Dahlan has something in common with the PA's rulers - he's corrupt. However, he's aligned with the more progressive elements of the middle east. Those who've made peace with Israel. And he's the best option for Palestinian leadership if the objective is a quick peace treaty with Israel.
Both PA and Hamas have been cracking down on his assets all across the territories, but he's a military mastermind, and despite some significant failures, he's proven to be overall very capable of withstanding such political pressure.

What I'm saying here, is that through Israeli approval and even assistance, countries like Saudi Arabia or the UAE, could help install new leadership in Palestine. One that will listen to them.

 

[Ananda]

He states that the Palestinian people are let down by their leaders who are factionalised and don't listen to outside advice. In his view Arafat did more to harm the Palestinian cause than any other.

It's interesting, but seems also predicted. With Saudi's see Hamas getting closer with Iran and PA ineffectiveness.
However can this sentiment translate with Saudi's grass roots ? That's I have quite a doubt. The last time I went to Saudi, I visit several cities like Jeddah, Mecca, Madinah, Riyadh and Dammam in the Gulf. There I found the sentiment of quite strong support and sympathy toward Palestinian among the ordinary people.

For those who haven't travel to Saudi, this is the country where strict security movement still being implemented. You can't travel between provinces without proper documentation, and there's check points that you have to pass when traveling between provinces.
The more you're closer to Gulf area or toward Yameni borders the more check points. This's a country where the Kingdom put watchful eyes toward their own citizen.

I'm still see that they will not abandon Palestinian, however the Kingdom fell toward Palestinian leadership. Simply they don't want to fuel and stir unnecessary potentially opposition.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

It's interesting, but seems also predicted. With Saudi's see Hamas getting closer with Iran and PA ineffectiveness.
However can this sentiment translate with Saudi's grass roots ? That's I have quite a doubt. The last time I went to Saudi, I visit several cities like Jeddah, Mecca, Madinah, Riyadh and Dammam in the Gulf. There I found the sentiment of quite strong support and sympathy toward Palestinian among the ordinary people.

For those who haven't travel to Saudi, this is the country where strict security movement still being implemented. You can't travel between provinces without proper documentation, and there's check points that you have to pass when traveling between provinces.
The more you're closer to Gulf area or toward Yameni borders the more check points. This's a country where the Kingdom put watchful eyes toward their own citizen.

I'm still see that they will not abandon Palestinian, however the Kingdom fell toward Palestinian leadership. Simply they don't want to fuel and stir unnecessary potentially opposition.

In the Arab world, where there is no sense of democracy other than some desire among ordinary Lebanese, the common folk can be easily influenced.
The whole pro-Palestinian view that became so strong in the Arab world, exists because people are easily influenced.
And where the government doesn't try to influence people's minds, it just doesn't care what they think.

Egyptians just lost the biggest war they've fought in modern history, and were still licking their wounds, when they signed a peace treaty with Israel. An Egyptian president was killed, even. But the treaty lasts and today one might even see it become an alliance.

I don't believe there's any serious obstacle to a direct Saudi intervention in Palestinian politics. Especially when they got help from the UAE and Egypt, as well as the external pressure now coming from the EU:

EU said to condition expanding aid on PA’s acceptance of tax funds from Israel

Report says European countries told Abbas to take the money Israel is holding on the Palestinians' behalf, but he refused without written commitment annexation won't happen

www.timesofisrael.com

 

[Ananda]

don't believe there's any serious obstacle to a direct Saudi intervention in Palestinian politics. Especially when they got help from the UAE and Egypt, as well as the external pressure now coming from the EU

No, there are not. In fact the ordinary Saudi's want the Kingdom took more active roles. However the expectations from ordinary Saudi's from what I gather still more on providing Palestinian with workable state. Is workable independent state for Palestinian can be acceptable for Israel ? The workable in here is most of West Bank with direct International border control by Palestinian. I doubt this's can be acceptable by Israel, unless I'm wrong.

Yes there're no democracy in Arab world, and judging the result in the latest movement for 'democracy' in Arab world or Arab Spring, it is not end well.
However, will Saudi risk to provide solution for Palestinian that big part of their own grass roots won't accept ? Is benefits for Treaty with Israel outweigh stirring resentment from their own grass roots ?

Saudi's condition is different with UAE. There're big portion of young Saudi's that easy to explode. They are just waiting for enough excuse. The Kingdom already try to channel that toward Iran and now Yamen. However like I said those in the grass roots especially in middle/low segment are still want the Kingdom to help Palestinian to have their own state or at least applicable solution.

UAE citizen are different compared to Saudi's. They are more docile since most of the citizen belong to what can be called upper-middle class with guarantee Job and guarantee support. The lower class mostly imigrants from non gulf Arab and Indian sub continents.
Saudi's used to be like that, however with high increase in population, more and more Saudi's losing those Guarantee that used to be provided one or two generation before.

Again, it's come back to what Palestinian solutions will be. Or some Arab's Kingdom probably will see the risk from their own dissatisfied citizen outweighs any benefit for normalisation with Israel.

Egypt got significant Economics benefit for normalisation with Israel, especially from US. So does Jordan. However when we talk the Gulf Kingdoms, that will be different story.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

An independent Palestinian state is workable for Israel. The only better alternative would be the consolidation of the entire Palestinian population in Jordan, which is already majority Palestinian IIRC, but that's not going to happen.

But the borders agreed upon in past peace talks are no longer viable. Due to the experience with Gaza, Israel may need greater guarantees that the West Bank won't sink into the same chaos as Gaza.
Or in other words, it may require a gradual increase in Palestine's sovereignty rather than a single large scale withdrawal, and annexation of some more lands - not in the Jordan valley, but between the Israeli-Palestinian border, to serve as a long demilitarized and de-populated area.
And of course a direct international supervision similar to UNIFIL but with a greater mandate across the whole territories, including Gaza.

 

[Feanor]

Two reasons not to incorporate them:
1)Israel was built as a safe haven for Jewish people in times of crisis in their respective countries.
2)Israel was built as a liberal democracy for all its citizens.
Both of these values coexist in Israel. Both will be utterly destroyed if a foreign population is incorporated into Israel.
Israel will simply cease to exist.

Can you explain why you think this is the case? And what quantities of foreign population do you think cross those boundries? Obviously there are quantities small enough where positing those kinds of consequences would simply be unreasonable.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Can you explain why you think this is the case? And what quantities of foreign population do you think cross those boundries? Obviously there are quantities small enough where positing those kinds of consequences would simply be unreasonable.

Sure.
The idea of having a Jewish state is un-democratic.
The idea of having a liberal democratic state is un-Jewish.
But the consensus, so far, is that we should maneuver around this and adjust ourselves to make these values coexist. The solution was to form a state of all its citizens, liberal and democratic, with distinct Jewish symbolics and a quite unique law "Right of Return", giving ethnic Jews a fast-tracked citizenship process.

In 1948 Israel won a war, resulting in 700,000 Palestinians displaced, an equal number integrated into Israel's society as citizens with voting rights and all. Israeli Arabs now constitute 25% of Israel's population.
A further 13% are Haredi Jews, and the rest are ordinary secular Jewish Israelis.

Haredi Jews and Arab Israelis are sharing several common factors:
1)Their growth rate is enormous.
2)Their culture is vastly different from the average Israeli.
3)Their assimilation rate into Israeli society is in decline and cannot catch up with growth rate.

These demographical problems are already serious enough for Israel and none's bothering to do anything about it.

Israel's population right now is 8.8 million, of which 6 million are Jewish.
The West Bank and Gaza have a total population of over 5 million.
This means that if Israel were to annex the Palestinian territories, it would have 6 million Jews versus 7 million Arabs.

This is unsustainable. As much as I see Arabs as an integral part of Israel's society and keep advocating for their better integration, having the cultural base of the country, which made it what it is, become a minority, would be no less than a disaster.
If the Palestinian citizens were given voting rights, they'd vote out both the Israeli parties AND democracy as a whole.
To demonstrate just how much bad blood there is between the sides, a proper analogy would be like the US giving all citizens of the USSR voting rights.

And I may sound like a dick, but Palestinian culture is bad. Even Arab Israeli culture has a long way to improve. While general Israeli culture is sorta decent.
Can't have such a clash of cultures occur and expect the state to remain functional.

 

[OPSSG]

...But for a solution to be truly comprehensive, it must come as part of a formal peace treaty. The majority of Israel's aid, and international aid as well, was squandered by the Palestinians, and every bit was misappropriated either for military purposes or to fill elites' pockets...

1. Thanks for sharing your perspective and educating us. As outsiders from the region, I see renewed conflict between Hamas and the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) as inevitable. But I don’t really understand how the IDF deters Hamas, as a quasi-state sponsored group.

2. To ensure that we bring in the military dimension to this geo-political discussion thread, can I trouble you to explain the deterrence effect of Operation Protective Edge? Especially, given that there some significant evolution of the tactics used by the IDF. I am interested in understanding how it has changed and what can be applied in the Singapore context.

In 2005 Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza. In 2006 Palestinians run "elections" and Hamas claims a victory in Gaza. Hamas then promptly starts eliminating Fatah politicians and militants and takes total control over Gaza after a bloody and lengthy war with Fatah.

3. Agreed. The radicalisation of population segments and its militant arm winning elections is a concern.

By 2007 the situation became so bad that Israel had to impose a blockade on Gaza, and there was also international consensus on its necessity.

4. We have the same problem in Johor Baru, where the Sultan of Johor is not in favour of hostilities but certain Malay politicians are willing to go the extra mile to test resolve. This hostility was demonstrated in Dec 2018.

By the year 2015, a total of 20,000 rockets and mortars were fired at Israeli cities, most of them in times of peace.
There are some Israeli cities where having PTSD is more common than not having it.

5. From March 1991, the SAF started low-key intelligence preparations to fight Gaza 2.0 in Johor due to the fringe of Malaysia politics (eg. the more radical members of UMNO and Bersatu, youth wings) desire to learn from the Palestinians to start armed conflict. This SAF effort has been stepped up after the Thunder Runs, and incorporated into armour doctrine in the Singapore Armoured Brigades (SABs) with radical changes to equipping, including the motorisation of infantry with the adoption of the Terrex ICV and Belrax MRAP in the more numerous Singapore Infantry Brigades (SIBs). With 3 SABs allocated for Thunder Runs to KL and 9 SIBs supported by Leopard 2SGs allocated for rotational combat tours in the urban littoral environment, especially in the city centre of Johor Baru at the Woodlands Causeway, I hold the view that the 3rd Generation SAF has significantly changed our TOE to cope with these Hamas inspired threats.

6. There were times where the Malaysian radical fringe nearly succeeded in their plans. As an example, the Al-Ma'unah was a spiritual Islamist militant group based in Malaysia made famous by their audacious raid on 2 July 2000 on a Malaysian Army Reserve camp and stealing weapons from the armoury. The group was later cornered in the village of Sauk, Kuala Kangsar, Perak and was involved in a stand-off the against the Malaysian Army and Royal Malaysian Police forces. The siege was ended when Malaysian security forces, including the army 22nd Grup Gerak Khas (22nd GGK) and police VAT 69 Pasukan Gerakan Khas, stormed the camp in Operation Dawn.

7. Targeted killing in Malaysia by foreign intelligence operatives has also occurred. I believe this keeps the most radical fringe on edge. Fadi al-Batsh, a Palestinian professor and member of the Hamas militant organisation was killed in a drive-by shooting in Apr 2018.

Israelis understand this well - if another unilateral withdrwal is made, the Palestinians can not only threaten southern Israel, but the very heart of Israel - Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, the Ben Gurion airport, Haifa, actually the entire Israel because of the length of the West Bank.

8. We have similar concerns about being attacked by quasi-state sponsored groups, given our much smaller size and have knowledge that the attack can come from Batam in the SAF’s Phase Zero planning since Aug 2016. The SAF’s decision to acquire the ELM-2084 certainly helps to prevent 1 or 2 leakers.

9. The military term of art for Phase Zero planning consists of those things done (i) to make an intervention unnecessary in the first place or (ii) failing that, to ensure that everything is poised for a successful campaign (Phases One to X) to return the situation to Phase Zero as quickly as possible.

10. Singapore’s elite 7th SIB (Guards Brigade) and it’s component, the Army Deployment Force (ADF), will have similar Phase Zero planning concerns. When Singaporean troops are deployed on the future JMMS or MRCVs to conduct a HADR mission (eg. in Cambodia, the Southern Philippines, or Myanmar) or in an INTERFET style Chapter 7 multinational UN peacemaking operations.

And there's another dimension to it - the West Bank is a mountainous region far above the rest of Israel - it gives them an easy artillery advantage.

That's why the Israeli stance has been that any concession of land will be done as part of a comprehensive peace treaty, in which Hamas and other terrorist groups (PIJ, Fatah, PFLP, DFLP) agreed to disarm.

11. As the SAF evolves, we as a country need to do a better job learning from IDF’s battles.

So I'll summarize.
Withdraw unilaterally now - Get Gaza 2.0.
Withdraw after a peace treaty - Requires Palestinian agreement.

But the Palestinian veto has long been a thorn in such plans. Even the Jordan Valley annexation was part of a grand strategy (INSS plan, public) to take away the Palestinian veto, which seems to work.

12. I see.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Thanks for sharing your perspective and educating us. As outsiders from the region, I see renewed conflict between Hamas and the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) as inevitable. But I don’t really understand how the IDF deters Hamas, as a quasi-state sponsored group.

To ensure that we discuss the military dimension in this discussion thread, can I trouble you to explain the deterrence effect of Operation Protective Edge? Especially, given that there some significant evolution of the tactics used by the IDF.

Of course. I am tired of the political rambling anyway.
Hamas, like any militant group, can be deterred. Since it is not particularly influenced by outside factions, deterrence can be rather easy.
1)Targeted killings - most of its ruling elite lives in Gaza, and they make the profit from Hamas's actions. Deter them and you deter Hamas. And what's better deterrence than targeting them for airstrikes?
2)Disproportionate response - such militant groups understand power. And what they should also understand is that they possess no power and no right for power.
They fire a rocket, you bring down a local HQ.
They fire a barrage, you bring down a building.
They fire on troops patroling the border, you destroy a base.
If every firework show they put up results in an earthquake near the military leadership, they'll at least understand they have no ability to cause harm.
3)Swift action - especially true for ground action.
In 2014 we may have lagged because every war in Gaza involves a parallel humanitarian operation, and every action demands such humanitarian considerations, to make an operation as surgical as possible. But we did achieve several objectives very quickly - we destroyed the entirety of Hamas's tunnel network, and targeted their most expensive infrastructure.
That tunnel network was the military and economical lifeline of Hamas's military wing.

If you fear the consequences of dethroning a terrorist group, because it fills a power vacuum that could potentially be filled by someone even worse, or just want more time to make up a grand strategy, you have to bring the terrorist group as close as possible to clinical death without getting it to dissolve.

Few mistakes the IDF is currently making, are:
1)Treatment of incendiary balloons as something ordinary. It should be treated like any artillery fire.
2)Halt to the targeted killing policy.
3)No clear policy on Hamas's existence in the future.

All these factors, for the good and bad, resulted in the absence of any major operation in Gaza since 2014. Only 1 limited escalation in 2019 that died within 2 weeks. But it also emboldened Hamas to test the IDF on a regular basis.

We have the same problem in Johor Baru, where the Sultan of Johor is not in favour of hostilities but Malay politicians are willing to go the extra mile to test resolve.

I always thought Singapore was too small. Its culture is great and deserves a better space for growth and development. I think Johor Bahru would look nice under a Singaporean control, if Malaysia begins hostilities.

Perhaps the points above could be summarized by simply saying you always gotta give your enemy something to lose. Actual fighting begins when one no longer feels he has such thing.

I don't think any Malay king/sultan whatever would risk turning any of the not so many cities they have into a warzone, especially considering the military capabilities possessed by Singapore.

This radical fringe nearly succeeded. As an example, the Al-Ma'unah was a spiritual Islamist militant group based in Malaysia was made famous by their audacious raid on 2 July 2000 on a Malaysian Army Reserve camp and stealing weapons from the armoury. The group was later cornered in the village of Sauk, Kuala Kangsar, Perak and was involved in a stand-off the against the Malaysian Army and Royal Malaysian Police forces. The siege was ended when Malaysian security forces, including the army 22nd Grup Gerak Khas (22nd GGK) and police VAT 69 Pasukan Gerakan Khas, stormed the camp in Operation Dawn.

As expected, Malaysian authorities would crack down on any separatist movement. But the Gaza experience only demonstrated why this is not necessarily a sign of good intentions on the Malaysian side.
Hamas would usually crack down on PIJ and other armed groups trying to fire on Israel, only because Hamas wants to have exclusive control over the tempo.

We have similar concerns about being attacked by quasi-state sponsored groups, given our much smaller size and have knowledge that the attack can come from Batam in the SAF’s Phase Zero planning since Aug 2016.

Batam? How would that work out exactly? Have to cross a sea for that. I'm fairly certain any serious threat would be crushed by Indonesian authorities.

 

[swerve]

Batam is across a very narrow strip of sea. I've not been to Singapore, but I'm sure Batam is visible if you look south, & there are plenty of small islands. The closest point (between a small Indonesian island & a small Singaporean island) is only about 6km. If you know the waters & use both the islands & shipping (there's a lot of it) for cover I think you could be very hard to spot, sneaking across in small boats. I expect there are plenty of small fishing boats, etc. pottering around all the time.

 

[OPSSG]

Six Indonesian militants arrested for planning to fire a rocket at Singapore’s Marina Bay from Batam island have been sentenced to between three and four years in jail for conspiracy to commit terrorism.

Batam? How would that work out exactly? Have to cross a sea for that. I'm fairly certain any serious threat would be crushed by Indonesian authorities.

The Straits of Singapore connects us to Indonesia.

...I'm sure Batam is visible if you look south, & there are plenty of small islands. The closest point (between a small Indonesian island & a small Singaporean island) is only about 6km.

Yes, you can see Singapore from Batam and vice versa. Combat divers will have no problem swimming the distance if they so desire.

But it is not only Batam that is within eyeball distance — if a terror Group can buy an ATGM (like the Spike ER), they can hit Singapore’s central business district from one of these islands — I had the misfortune of spending a couple of days from a hilltop of an island looking at Singapore. And the SAF relies on TNI support to mange these threats.

If you know the waters & use both the islands & shipping (there's a lot of it) for cover I think you could be very hard to spot, sneaking across in small boats.

There is full radar coverage of these waters and daily patrols by the police coast guard but for planning purposes, we do expect to fail if the attempt is determined.

I expect there are plenty of small fishing boats, etc. pottering around all the time.

We do have a mitigation plan against such threats but Indonesian cooperation is needed.

 

[Ananda]

The closest point (between a small Indonesian island & a small Singaporean island) is only about 6km. If you know the waters & use both the islands & shipping (there's a lot of it) for cover I think you could be very hard to spot,

True, and Indonesian Navy and Coast Guard are still far from ability to cover all islands, let alone small islet that doted Maritime Riau Province. When the last time situation getting bit 'tense' in Natuna Waters with Chinese Navy and Coast Guard, Indonesian Navy and Coast Guard move most of the assets in the area to Natuna's water. That create bit vacum in Batam's water, and coincide with the increase on maritime hijacking occurrence in the Strait.

So Singapore understandable worries with those small islets potentially undetected being used as staging points. Indonesian authority it self doesn't rule out that possibility. For that, one of the initiative under current Indonesian Administration (which I have to give credit on), is strengthening border control. Still it's not mean all points already being covered.

in other words, it may require a gradual increase in Palestine's sovereignty rather than a single large scale withdrawal, and annexation of some more lands - not in the Jordan valley, but between the Israeli-Palestinian border, to serve as a long demilitarized and de-populated area.

To create enclosed and connected land area for Palestinian State, means significant Jewish Settlement need to be relocated. Are Israel politically ready for that ? Considering many new Jewish Imigrants being send there ?
I might be wrong, since I'm not Isreali, but seems the picture in media doesn't seems shown that.

Also, if Israel doesn't want to relinquish control on Jordan Valley area to Palestinians to control, is Israel willing to let Arab's Security say from Egypt, UAE or even Saudi take control on Jordan Valley ? As perhaps that's can be more acceptable to Palestinians and the rest of Arab world's.

Yes, most of Arab government in the Gulf are disappointed that Yasser Arafat does not take what's being offer in Oslo and Camp David (this what I heard during my visit to Saudi), but seems the Gulf Kingdoms now try to regain that offer and push it to PA. Frankly speaking it will be huge effort by the Gulf Kingdoms, even if Israel agree to go back with possition on that offer.
Still that's seems what the Kingdoms aim, in order to stabilize any opposition from their own people, for potential normalisation with Israel.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Relocating settlements is bad PR but not something Israel would be unwilling to do.
Overall, only a few settlements are planned to be annexed, and on that even Abbas agreed. Together with their outskirts, they plus certain checkpoints constitute maybe 5% of the West Bank's territory. Israel traditionally offers to compensate with some of Israel's territory.

The majority of settlements would be evicted, and there are 2 factors to keep in mind here:
1)Many settlements are referred to, in Israel, as outposts, or strongholds, and are illegal and therefore routinely dismantled every time a new one is spotted.
Some of these demolitions gained media attention, but never true opposition by anyone. Mostly praise actually.
2)Most settlers actually live in east Jerusalem neighborhoods, which are not going to be evicted due to its proximity to the actual city. That's also pretty far from mainland West Bank.

As for peacekeepers, I see no issue with Arab peacekeepers, but I don't think anyone will have an issue with UN ones.

 

[Feanor]

If you fear the consequences of dethroning a terrorist group, because it fills a power vacuum that could potentially be filled by someone even worse, or just want more time to make up a grand strategy, you have to bring the terrorist group as close as possible to clinical death without getting it to dissolve.

Wouldn't that risk the same power vacuum? If Hamas becomes too weak another group could rise to take their place even if Hamas doesn't dissolve voluntarily. Do you think it would be possible to "educate" Hamas by providing clear consequences for actions, but without actually aiming to destroy or drastically weaken the group? Perhaps arriving at a situation where they learn the hard way that attacking is Israel is not in their interests, while keeping power is in their interests. It seems to me that Hezbollah to a certain extent learned this lesson based on the 2006 war, which went for them as well as they could really have expected (better, really) but still cost them dearly.

1)Targeted killings - most of its ruling elite lives in Gaza, and they make the profit from Hamas's actions. Deter them and you deter Hamas. And what's better deterrence than targeting them for airstrikes?

Can we be completely sure that all of them are involved/guilty? And would this not tend to put Gaza elites in a position where they might as well side with Hamas, since they're going to be a target whether or not they do so? What I'm asking, to rephrase, is whether we have a way to confirm that the targeted killings are justified. Otherwise it just looks like a campaign of random violence against the elites.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Hamas? No. Hezbollah? To a much larger extent, yes.

Hezbollah is an Iranian proxy. Its weapons are Iranian. Its money is Iranian. And so it obeys the IRGC. Therefore they will not attack or attempt anything foolish without a direct order to do so.
Iran wants to conserve Hezbollah for a time of opportunity, and due to its financial problems, it does not allow Hezbollah to mindlessly squander its meticulously built arsenal.

Iran profits from gaining regional military influence via Hezbollah.

But Hamas has no foreign control. As it is controlled by the elites, it does what they want. And what they want usually involves a lot of dead Palestinians and rubble.
Start a war, some Israelis die so get support in some countries. Many more Palestinians die which puts pressure on Arab countries to send money, which Hamas then siphons to certain bank accounts of some people living in Qatar or Turkey, otherwise said Arab states lose public support.
Rinse and repeat.

So Hezbollah is rational and can be deterred. Hamas is irrational, and to deter it a different strategy must be taken.