It is difficult to instigate regime change for democratically elected governments.
Iran has an unelected supreme leader.
Israel has a large portion of its population completely disenfranchised.
The US has a generally democratically elected government.
If one of these governments is going to fall during military instabilities, it would most likely be Iran. The US will have significant regime change in November if polling holds.
> Israel has a large portion of its population completely disenfranchised.
Care to elaborate? As far as I know, this is false. All Israeli citizens 18 or older can vote; there are no voting restrictions based on race, religion, gender or property; prisoners can vote (unlike in many US states for example); permanent residents who are not citizens cannot vote in national elections but may vote in municipal elections (not the case in the US). National turnout ranges between 65% and 75%.
Minorities are well represented: Arab and Druze citizens vote and have representation in the Knesset.
I struggle to find any dimension in which your statement is correct.
Very obviously, I’m referring to the Palestinians in the “Palestinian Territories” being de facto governed by Israel and are not allowed to vote in Israeli elections.
There is nothing obvious about that statement. In fact it's catastrophically wrong.
Palestinians in Gaza have been governed by Hamas since 2006. Before that, they had been governed by the Palestinian Authority (Fatah) since 1994.
Palestinians in Judea and Samaria ("West bank") have been governed by the Palestinian Authority continuously since 1994, with the exception of Area C.
Palestinians who live there are NOT "de facto governed" by Israel. They pay taxes to the Palestinian Authority; receive birth certificates, IDs, business licenses and social security payments from the P.A.; Go to schools, hospitals, courts, police stations and jails run by the P.A. And most importantly, they vote in elections run by the P.A. To say that they are "de facto governed" by Israel is ridiculous, and shows a lack of basic understanding of Israel and Palestine, and the conflict between them.
"The exception of Area C" is doing a lot of work in this argument. That's 61% of the territory of the West Bank ("Judea and Samaria") (those scare quotes also doing a lot of work).
To counter your list of things that the PA does de facto control, I will add: who controls the criminal court system? The checkpoints which lead to the outside world? The airspace? The ability to import and export goods? The roads? The territorial contiguity of Areas A and B? The decisions on building new settlements?
Aside from the municipal things you mentioned, which in most places in the world are controlled by subnational entities, Israel is in de facto control of the lives and futures of all 15 million people "from the river to the sea", roughly half of them Jews and half of them Arabs, while only one of those groups has what anyone in the West could consider to be a normal existence.
> "The exception of Area C" is doing a lot of work in this argument. That's 61% of the territory of the West Bank
Area C is less than 10% of the Palestinian population in the West Bank, 6% of Palestinian population if you count Gaza. Interesting that you chose to focus on territory! Last I checked, square kilometers do not vote, people do.
In any case, you are right that Area C is more complicated, since it is controlled by Israel and there are Palestinians who live there.
However, Palestinians living in area C can also vote in Palestinian elections. So although it is true that they live in a territory governed by Israel (unlike the other 94% of Palestinians), it remains false that they are a "large part of the Israeli population that is disenfranchised" (the original statement).
> ("Judea and Samaria") (those scare quotes also doing a lot of work).
Obviously the choice of name for this region reflects a political preference. But that works both ways. I prefer to call it Judea and Samaria because that's what it was called until 1948, when Jordan invaded and annexed it. "West bank" is a relic of Jordanian occupation, chosen by King Abdullah to absorb the region into his kingdom, not just politically but semantically. Jordan hasn't controlled the region in 60 years - longer than the occupation itself. It seems reasonable to stop calling it by its colonial Jordan name.
You seem to take particular issue with my use of the term "Judea and Samaria". That is also a political preference. Do you care to explain it the same way I explained mine?
> To counter your list of things that the PA does de facto control, I will add: who controls the criminal court system?
In areas A and B, the Palestinian Authority.
> The checkpoints which lead to the outside world?
On the Israeli side: Israel. On the Jordanian side: Jordan.
> The airspace?
Israel
> The ability to import and export goods?
The Palestinian Authority, but subject to stringent security control by Israel.
> The roads?
In Areas A and B: the Palestinian Authority.
> The territorial contiguity of Areas A and B?
That was jointly defined by the bilateral agreement at Oslo. So, both sides agreed on that.
> The decisions on building new settlements?
In area C: Israel.
In areas A and B: there are no settlements (Jews are not allowed to live there).
> Israel is in de facto control of the lives and futures of all 15 million people "from the river to the sea"
We're straying from the original topic of disenfranchisement... I will just say that, in my opinion, your view is simplistic and manichean. The closest we ever got to a resolution of the conflict, in 1994, was with a bilateral agreement. Neither side is fully in control of the outcome. Denying that Palestinians, too, have responsibilities and agency, is the surest way to perpetuate this conflict.
To wit, if you get to vote for the HOA board but not for the government that can override every decision the HOA makes, are you meaningfully enfranchised?
They're arguing that due to the failure/stalling of the two-state solution, the PA is effectively not a national government. It administers local services, like policing, courts, infrastructure. But it doesn't control borders, tarrifs and duties, or airspace. The Israeli military operates a parallel legal system that can detain and prosecute them, all under a legal framework that they have no vote or say in. I think its fair to call this a kind of disenfranchisement?
I understand where you're coming from, but this is a flawed analogy.
The legal framework for the Palestinian Authority's existence is a bilateral treaty. Israel did not unilaterally create this flawed administrative entity: it was jointly created with the PLO, as an interim step towards a fully sovereign Palestinian state. The negotiations that followed were also bilateral. These negotiations failed, leaving both sides with an incomplete interim solution. As a result Palestinians are neither citizens of Israel, nor of a wholly sovereign state. They are stateless, that is undeniable. But the reason they are stateless is not that they "have no vote or say". They had a say at the negotiation table in Oslo. They also had a say in Camp David in 2000, when Yasser Arafat walked away from a deal that would have given him a state with its capital in Jerusalem, and started the second intifada instead. They had a say in 2005 when they elected Abbas over reformist alternatives. They had a say in 2006 when they elected Hamas in Gaza. And they have a say now, as Abbas maintains the "pay to slay" program that rewards attacks against Israeli citizens with welfare payments to the attacker's families. There's a reason Israel insisted on overriding security control in the interim state. They couldn't trust the PLO, the very group that killed countless Israeli civilians in shootings, stabbings and bombings, to become the sole guardians of Israeli safety overnight. In Oslo the Palestinian Authority accepted the responsibility to prevent terrorist attacks against Israel. They are free to deliver on that commitment anytime.
My issue with your framing ("the PA is like an HOA"), the parent comment's framing ("Israel solely controls the fate of Palestinians"), and the original comment that started this whole debate ("Palestinians are a disenfranchised part of Israeli population"), is that it strips Palestinians of agency and shared responsibility. It's annoying when you do it. But it's tragic when Palestinians do it to themselves. By perpetuating this myth that they are helpless, blameless victims of external forces, they are making internal reform impossible ("what is there to reform? All our problems are Israel's fault") and any resolution to the conflict impossible ("we are the rebels, Israel is the empire. The only resolution is to blow up the death star").
To tie this back to the original topic of disenfranchisement: even in the flawed interim state created in Oslo, Palestinians have had the opportunity to vote. Not in a state, but in an institution created specifically to chart a path to a state. They elected a president, who then proceeded to cancel presidential elections (the last one was in 2005). They elected a legislative body, who started a civil war and established one of the most violent theocracies in the world. None of this was Israel's doing. To the extent that Palestinians are disenfranchised - denied the opportunity to vote - it is by their own leaders. If anything, it makes me glad Palestine isn't a full-blown state: with leaders like that, the more limits to their power, the better.
I shouldn’t even have to argue here. Access to the West Bank is controlled by Israel. That is de facto governance.
At best the Palestinian Territories have “quasi-governmental control.” I’m saying this as someone who isn’t particularly pro-Palestine. Pretending that Israel isn’t de facto the government of the Palestinian Territories is an unserious position.
If you don't like to argue, may I suggest not making controversial claims on controversial topics, in a place that encourages constructive debate?
> Access to the West Bank is controlled by Israel.
That is mostly true. On the border with Jordan it is jointly controlled by Jordan and Israel (like most international borders).
> Pretending that Israel isn’t de facto the government of the Palestinian Territories is an unserious position
I already explained in great detail the specific ways in which the Palestinian Territories are, in fact, governed by the Palestinian Authority. Taxation, elections, justice, police, education, healthcare, roads, sewers, business regulation, population register...
So far your counter-argument is that Israel controls the border... and therefore Palestinians should vote in Israeli elections? Should they also vote in Palestinian ejections? Or should the P.A. simply stop to exist? What point are you even making exactly?
Calling me "unserious" doesn't make you automatically "serious", or right.
I don't think the terms de facto and de jure mean what you think they mean. At this point it appears you're just throwing fancy words at me, and are not able to make a coherent point or meaningfully address mine. So, let's just agree to disagree.
The person you're responding to said they were unable to vote in Israeli elections. You said "no, they're able to, uhh, not vote in the case of those under Hamas and they're able to vote in elections held by the Palestinian authority in the case of those in the west bank." I don't know a ton about this, but I don't believe the Palestinian authority elections are the same as the Israeli elections. As I understand it, the right to vote is gated behind a citizenship process that is restrictive enough to generally prevent Palestinians from obtaining it.
> The person you're responding to said they were unable to vote in Israeli elections.
They said Palestinians are "a large portion of the Israeli population [that] is disenfranchised". That is a wrong statement. Palestinians are not part of the Israeli population and there is no expectation (on either side) that they would participate in Israeli elections. That issue has been largely settled by the Oslo framework in 1994.
> As I understand it, the right to vote is gated behind a citizenship process that is restrictive enough to generally prevent Palestinians from obtaining it.
I'm not sure which elections you mean.
- Israeli elections are for Israeli citizens. The 20% of Israelis who are Arab (sometimes loosely referred to as "Palestinians" as a loose synonym for "Arab living in former mandatory Palestine") can participate normally
- Palestinians in the West Bank vote in Palestinian elections. ' not aware of any citizenship-related restrictions there. Possible issues might be: logistics of getting to polls because of Israeli checkpoints; or simply the absence of elections (PA hasn't held a national election since 2006, although there are municipal elections).
- Specifically in East Jerusalem, on which Israeli claims sovereignty, Palestinians are classified as permanent residents of Israel. They may apply fot Israeli citizenship but that's probably a difficult process. As permanent residents they can vote in Israeli municipal elections, and as Palestinians they can vote in Palestinian national elections. But not being Israeli citizens they cannot vote in Israeli national elections. Perhaps that is what you're referring to?
The peace process that Oslo initiated is certainly dead. But Oslo itself, as the last bilateral agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, is de facto the law of the land, even though it was meant as an interim agreement. For better or worse...
This is like saying Australians are disenfranchised because they can't vote in New Zealand elections. They're not governed by Israel in any meaningful way.
It would be like if Native American tribes could not vote in American elections, but the federal government still controlled the ability for those nations to access the external world.
Correction: It is like saying Australians can't vote in general elections after being pushed out of 75% of the territory, except a small percentage who are tolerated in the major land since they won't make a difference.
The ostracized Aussies then can vote for their own leaders but will be blamed if they vote for the wrong ones and embargoed, regularly shot and even bombed from time to time to remind them who the place belongs to.
Palestinians living in the Palestinian Territories are not Israeli citizens and cannot vote. I would say the Palestinian Territories are occupied, not part of Israel (though Bibi definitely has a sizable camp in his government that would love to make it so).
Do we expect occupied peoples to have a vote? sort of depends how you define democracy. Under an American interpretation (no taxation without representation, 1 person 1 vote) there’s a good argument that you should count occupied peoples.
> Under an American interpretation (no taxation without representation, 1 person 1 vote) there’s a good argument that you should count occupied peoples.
Palestinians are not taxed by Israel. They are taxed by the Palestinian Authority, and participate in Palestinian elections. So they do have representation - just not in Israel.
If we are talking about Democracy—which is where I started this—then yes. If occupied peoples don’t have representation in the government occupying them, yes, that’s very obviously less democratic than if they did. Quite literally by definition. This shouldn’t be controversial.
How many times were they offered statehood. How many times did they attack Israel? Why is there a wall? You know what happened when the wall went up and security blockades went in? The number of Palestinian suicide bombings dropped. Palestinians have decades of history of terrorism. They could have been like Singapore. But they chose terrorism.
Palestinians already have statehood: Palestine is a state, just like israel is a state. They are exactly equal in value and in their right to exist free from coercion by the other.
The issue is that israel is attacking, invading, occupying, annexing, and genociding the state of Palestine.
The US is a republic with some democratic institutions, but the economists index isn’t some platonic indicator that gets to define who’s a good government and who isn’t. Several of its higher ranking countries have outright banned extremely popular political parties in recent years.
And both have a similarly executive-centric form of government where the president and the majority party hold a disproportionate amount of power. Although the US is even worse than France on this regard as far as I know.
I think it makes sense that both are categorised as flawed.
If you want to talk about rhetoric look at the idea of a “democracy index” - a score suggesting a scientific approach for determining how good/free a nation is.
We can play the “whose saying it game”, or look at the arguments. Democracy is rule by the lowest - and it’s easily manipulated by the popular. Buying votes, focus on the carnal, and immediate is a clear sign of democracy in decline.
I was more wondering about these emperors, kings, barbarians, and those in their influence who were casting aspersions at Athens. Why are we giving these historically incorrect people the time of day?
Once again, looking at incentives can help you find hidden motivations. But at some point you have to look at the arguments at see if they make sense or not.
The US founders didn’t believe in democracy. More people do today, mostly out of a sense that it’s moral obligation. Very few actually will argue it leads to better government outcomes.
The US and Israel are elected governments, but that should certainly not presuppose democratic. The Roman Republic was, for example, fully elected but simultaneously it was intentionally autocratic to the elite. That is why it fell to a dictatorship which then increased the liberty and standards of the people.
Democracy is the directness by which social participation equates to governance. The US is a federal republic with only two parties each bound by the same hostile funding system that benefits political contributions over the vote. That is far from democratic.
Democracy and Republic both mean “normal people are in charge of government” and are in opposition to monarchy. The distinction you are referring to was a contrived interpretation in the federalist papers to make a point.
No. Democracy and republic are fundamentally different. You want to equivocate them because there is a vote. They have always been different going back to the Ancient Greeks and Romans who each invented those terms.
Had. Israel probably has a list with the next 3 or 4 in line to replace Khamenei and is currently working towards eliminating them, like they did with the Hezbollah.
Regime change could also be triggered through impeachment or PM losing support and government coalition getting dissolved in the case of Israel.
The Israeli government has de facto control of large sections of the Palestinian Territories. The people in those territories, however cannot participate in the elections of that government.
The distinction being de jure and de facto control is something worth debating, but it’s trivially true that Israel controls large swaths of territory where people are not eligible to participate in that government.
In that order, in the context of that region. Then consider their meanings in the context of (say) Canada. Consider how conventional applications of those terms are different for the two.
Iran has an unelected supreme leader.
Israel has a large portion of its population completely disenfranchised.
The US has a generally democratically elected government.
If one of these governments is going to fall during military instabilities, it would most likely be Iran. The US will have significant regime change in November if polling holds.