Well hopefully this is short, minimally lethal, and leads to regime change for all those involved.
Including for the U.S. and Israel?
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.
Because a functioning democracy would ban a nazi party.
I think it makes sense that both are categorised as flawed.
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.
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.
I mean I can start my own magazine and create my own index however I want. Doesn’t mean it’s right.
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.
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 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.
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?
A process that's alive and well, just like Yitzhak Rabin.
Shame on you.
There's not really any point. They are too far gone.
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.
By de facto I mean explicitly not de jure.
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.
You’re making my point anyway, by conceding that the West Bank is effectively governed without representation in the governments controlling them.
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.
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.
> We're straying from the original topic of disenfranchisement
What a laughable statement. This is entirely the point of the disenfranchisement claim.
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?
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.
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.
It’s never so simple is it
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.
Stop spreading misinformation.
If you can’t enter and leave your country freely, you don’t that autonomy.
I’m not even some Palestinian political advocate. We still cannot pretend that Israel isn’t effectively in control of the Palestinian Territories.
The issue is that israel is attacking, invading, occupying, annexing, and genociding the state of Palestine.
Does it?
- sovereignty
- border
- population
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.
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.
Just ask the folks who tried on January 6.
> The US will have significant regime change in November if polling holds.
Assuming elections are held fairly. "Trump, seeking executive power over elections, is urged to declare emergency":
* https://archive.is/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2...
In my thinking regime change doesn't only refer to the complete collapse of the political system, just change in direction of the leaders.
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.
And The Constitution.
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.
This comment just shows that you have no idea what Iran is, and how it differs from Libya.
Libya is a loose conglomerate of tribes. Iran majorly Persian that see themselves as one nation. Completely different dynamics.
I see two issues with this assessment. First, I am not sure how substantial is the support from the people. And second, Assad also had all this control over the military, the local governments, etc., etc., and then his rule collapsed in a week.
While Islamic Republic's repressive machine in the form of IRCG and Basij are in much better shape than Assad's, it is not that great if they had to bus in Iraqi militias to help with the suppression of protests.
I do agree that it is not clear if there are viable opposition figures inside Iran, on the other hand it is naive to expect it to be the case given the tight grip IR had on the country.
I guess we can hope that all this war is not for nothing.
This reductionist narrative is absolutely ridiculous and does not at all reflect reality.
The US and Israel are involved. The only way it’s going to turn out is maximally lethal to all those not involved at all.
See… basically any military operation participated in by those nations in recent history.
We got a couple strikes and already managed to hit an elementary school. Nothing I’ve seen in Gaza or Iraq leads me to believe this will be any different.
I don't think any of these were short.
Desert Storm also wasn't really fast, it led to containment operations lasting a bit over a decade in total, ending only when we decided to invade Iraq with the objective of regime change and nation building. And that one, predictably, turned into a quagmire.
That alone hints that it is very hard to bring a dictatorship down with just aerial attacks - the ground component is also essential. Something tells me it is going to be the same here.
Only a land operation or a total collapse of the government, with the armed police and military joining the opposition, can topple the Iranian regime.
Both regimes were deeply racist.
Anyway, I don't think that information entered on the US decision making in any way.
This has been painfully obvious since aerial bombing became possible, but we’ve had so many generals and executives obsessed with the concept that it continues to be a core doctrine, like Kissinger and Curtis LeMay, neither of for whom I have anything but deep contempt.
My biggest concern has always been that US military action against Iran would undermine domestic factions pushing for democratic reforms, at best leading to the installation of a different autocratic regime more amenable to US interests, at worst leading to a wellspring of support for the existing regime both internally, and externally in the form of alliances with other nations who stand to benefit from a reshuffling of the existing world order.
An autocrat regime friendly to US interests, who we could do business with, who won't pursue nuclear weapons, and who won't imperil US allies or the Strait of Hormuz would be a drastic improvement over the current state of affairs.
We don't need to nation-build to have a good outcome for the US: that's something we should've learned after Iraq and Afghanistan.
An improvement over the current regime isn't exactly a high bar.
Even speaking as a someone who generally detests the policies of both Trump and the current Israeli administration, while I don't expect the entirety of the IRGC to go quietly into the night, I can't help but see the removal of the Ayatollah as a good thing.
As for the broader question of democracy in the Middle East, I believe the answer is yes, though not quickly or easily. But an independent, democratic Iran coexisting peacefully with Israel and the US, however unlikely, would certainly be a good start.
That would be ideal but unfortunately not likely. Nobody will like this comment but US ships are sitting ducks. They have minimal ammo per the pentagon and no oilers. No oilers and low ammo means no prolonged conflict. Only two of the ships are nuclear powered not counting submarines. Most of Iran's military and weapons are deep underground in a massive series of underground cities and tunnels. The US would require boots on the ground if they manage to breach the tunnel openings under the mountains. Should that fail the only viable targets are civilians and that won't win favor with anyone or accomplish anything.
Iranian military could just wait it out if they wanted and then smoke Israel with supersonic missiles when the US leaves. Then we find out if Israel does have the nukes for the Samson option and that would result in the destruction of Israel. Iran's military could survive a nuclear strike but would have to clean up the fallout and I am not sure they could. Anyone not underground would likely get Acute Radiation Sickness and Cancer.
On a positive note if the US can manage to get into the tunnels and send in enough munitions to start detonating the missile stockpile a chain reaction could crack all the concrete and collapse the tunnels. Satellite could detect which tunnel they try to evac from. They have less than 5 days to accomplish the chain reaction assuming this is the plan. From the videos I have seen the missiles are literally lined up like a double-strand fuse.
True however AFAIK they have never once been in this situation. Iran has spent 40+ years digging in and hunkering down. There were plenty of bunkers in WWII but this is a whole new setup, deeper under mountains, higher quality concrete assuming they knew what they were doing and dug in much deeper. To get this done in 5 days will be quite a feet. If they manage to do it I will be very impressed.
It's providing peace and stability after that happens where they tend to run into problems.
I think you are correct, what happens afterwards is usually a crap-fest. That would require a lot of boots on the ground to maintain stability for a very long time. It's not a great example but Korea is one such example. The payoff may be worth it if many of the Iranian funded terror groups are drained of resources as a result. Keeping boots on the ground for years will require funding from congress. Short of that it will just be another power vacuum filled by yet another zealot. The "if's" are doing a lot of heavy lifting in my comment.
I imagine that's the strategy, anyway.
This is a short one showing the 2nd to last generation of tunnels. [1] The latest tunnels are painted white including some that are under water. The older tunnels are not painted and one can see what appears to be reinforced concrete. When completed every tunnel is lined on both sides with missiles. This one [2] shows a couple generations of the tunnels. Found the old CNN video. [3]
[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YQ1R7ZAKxE [video][1m]
[2] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQtSPFrnKvo [video][5m25s]
[3] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_Gu_TjmV0E [video][2m12s]
"Now the rovin’ gambler he was very bored / He was tryin' to create a next world war / He found a promoter who nearly fell off the floor / He said I never engaged in this kind of thing before / But yes I think it can be very easily done / We'll just put some bleachers out in the sun / And have it on Highway 61"
You could be entirely right. Honestly I hope you are right. We lost far too many in Iraq and Afghanistan. I was probably just being cynical. I trust the decisions of the senior leaders in the military but their commander and chief tends to trust the wrong advice.
The only possible correction I might add is the Air Force probably will not drop bombs but would have to fire missiles. The openings are on the sides of mountains and require horizontal access or I suppose incredibly massive bombs. Earth shattering bombs. Something closer to tactical nukes which the US has not stockpiled in a long time AFAIK.
[1] - https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/2/28/us-and-israel-attac...
And how exactly would Iran be 'ours' without boots on the ground in this scenario?
“Israel strikes two schools in Iran, killing more than 80 people”
https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2026/2/28/israel-strikes-...
Welp, better luck next time
Eventually, it was established that 1) the casualty number had been a fabrication, 2) the explosion was in the parking lot, 3) it was NOT caused by an Israeli strike, but by a Palestinian Islamic Jihad rocket that had fell short.
Soon the press was forced to issue corrections - New York Times [1] , Le Monde [2], BBC [3]...
This incident looks VERY similar. Which is not surprising, since Hamas was trained in information warfare by the IRGC. Note that Al Jazeera (the media arm of Qatar, who funds Hamas and hosts their leaders in Doha) is enthusiastically amplifying this story with no apparent effort to cross-examine Iran's official source.
I predict that this story will turn out to be fabricated as well.
UPDATE: preliminary reports from the OSINT community seem to indicate that the story was indeed a fabrication... https://x.com/tarikh_eran/status/2027784301840846939
[1] https://www.poynter.org/commentary/2023/the-new-york-times-e...
[2] https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2023/10/24/a-no...
[3] https://deadline.com/2023/11/bbcs-international-editor-grill...
> Al-Shifa hospital was ultimately destroyed by Israeli forces
It was damaged by a series of battles between Hamas and IDF, because Hamas militants embedded themselves within it - like they embedded themselves within all civilian infrastructure. That is the reality of urban war against a terrorist group.
> with grave civilian casualties
Hamas alleged grave civilian casualties. Israel contests it. Again, just like the Al-Ahli incident, Hamas rushes to publish suspiciously precise casualties and reframes an urban battle as a genocidal massacre; naive newsrooms uncritically publish it; wikipedia editors quotes it; then people with an axe to grind endlessly reference it in online arguments like this one.
With Al-Ahli, we got lucky. Independent evidence made it impossible to ignore that Hamas was lying. In many other cases, it is impossible to independently verify how many civilians were truly killed in this or that battle. You have to either believe the IDF, or Hamas.
> and no Hamas tunnels ever found
Al-Shifa was controlled by Hamas and used as a military facility. Hostages were held there. After the ceasefire, Hamas used it as a jail and torture center for Palestinian dissidents.
Or do you believe Israel sent troops inside a hospital in a warzone, at great risk to their safety, to destroy a random hospital with no military value?
In other words, the new "established facts" about Al-Ahli are also questionable, and part of Israeli propaganda. It remains to be seen what the truth is in either case.
The fact of the matter is. Eventually Israel destroyed a fuckton of hospitals and schools in Palestine, on purpose. So this particular story in itself does not really matter.
[1] https://forensic-architecture.org/investigation/israeli-disi...
Isn’t the far more likely explanation here that they (Israel / US) tried to strike an IRGC base and missed?