The article admits in the first paragraph that it’s a possible mistranslation. If you’ve been following the rhetoric then you know this is not a new stance, it is a reiteration of the existing question of what body will administer Gaza after the war. Biden has said that the PA should be “revitalized” and assume control of Gaza. Netanyahu has said that the PA lacks the capability, credibility, and capacity to do so. As far as credibility, it’s hard to imagine that Israel is the better option. The idea that Netanyahu is better than the admittedly unpopular Abbas is risible.
Egypt has flat out refused to take on the job, the Arab league has floundered.
It seems like the best solution would be a UN transitional force that would rebuild Gaza with financial support from Qatar and UAE, who have expressedwillingness. They would be responsible for maintaining order following the power vacuum of removing Hamas, PIJ, etc. They would have to bolster the PA, establish a police force, systems of governance, and roll out the transition for a peaceful transition of power to the PA (or a newly created body).
That’s no small task. The last thing anyone wants is another Afghanistan. The USA spent decades and billions of dollars to remove the Taliban and establish a democratic system. They finally admitted that it hadn’t worked and handed everything back over to the Taliban.
That’s not the significant part of the mistranslation, however. This article says that “Israel will take over the entire region” but the more accurate translation is “Israel must have security in the region.”
This article is using the most shocking possible translation just to get clicks.
He’s made it very clear he means to create that security by annexing it all. The article does provide the alternate translations. They do not help Netanyahu’s case.
That’s seems like an awful lot for a tiny little spit of land that basically affects fewer people than any medium sized American city. I think Israel has the superior claim, arguably a duty.
On the other hand, imagine the efforts that the world would go to to free a medium sized American city that was taken captured by terrorists and rebuild it afterword.
Israel may be the best equipped to maintain order, and they have an existential prerogative to do so. However, what does the eventual transfer of power look like in that scenario? The PA and the UN are maybe the only bodies with the credibility to manage and rebuild the area and form a stable and representative government.
Obviously there are significant differences between the circumstances; whether there are leaders and partners on the ground we can work with, whether there is a nuclear power involved, being the significant differences that stand out to me.
I think the transfer of power looks like this: members and accomplices of Hamas are killed as enemy combatants and terrorists, infrastructure is repaired, goods and supplies flow, and and everyone is pretty glad to be rid of them and people who just want to live their lives go and do so, I hope as or at least with a path to full Israeli citizenship and democratic representation. Bibi and his loyalists are also going to need to be voted out by the Israeli people, part of that existential prerogative. Maybe pockets of residence will persist underground. They will be got though.
That’s a very alarmist interpretation.
The article admits in the first paragraph that it’s a possible mistranslation. If you’ve been following the rhetoric then you know this is not a new stance, it is a reiteration of the existing question of what body will administer Gaza after the war. Biden has said that the PA should be “revitalized” and assume control of Gaza. Netanyahu has said that the PA lacks the capability, credibility, and capacity to do so. As far as credibility, it’s hard to imagine that Israel is the better option. The idea that Netanyahu is better than the admittedly unpopular Abbas is risible.
Egypt has flat out refused to take on the job, the Arab league has floundered.
It seems like the best solution would be a UN transitional force that would rebuild Gaza with financial support from Qatar and UAE, who have expressed willingness. They would be responsible for maintaining order following the power vacuum of removing Hamas, PIJ, etc. They would have to bolster the PA, establish a police force, systems of governance, and roll out the transition for a peaceful transition of power to the PA (or a newly created body).
That’s no small task. The last thing anyone wants is another Afghanistan. The USA spent decades and billions of dollars to remove the Taliban and establish a democratic system. They finally admitted that it hadn’t worked and handed everything back over to the Taliban.
The alternate translation is “everything west of the Jordan River”. It’s the same thing, just not in a prepackaged sound bite.
That’s not the significant part of the mistranslation, however. This article says that “Israel will take over the entire region” but the more accurate translation is “Israel must have security in the region.”
This article is using the most shocking possible translation just to get clicks.
He’s made it very clear he means to create that security by annexing it all. The article does provide the alternate translations. They do not help Netanyahu’s case.
That’s seems like an awful lot for a tiny little spit of land that basically affects fewer people than any medium sized American city. I think Israel has the superior claim, arguably a duty.
On the one hand, it is a little frustrating to see this global focus when there is so little attention paid to the 1.7 million people displaced in Pakistan of the 6 million people displaced in Sudan, or the 86,000 people killed in Nigeria.
On the other hand, imagine the efforts that the world would go to to free a medium sized American city that was taken captured by terrorists and rebuild it afterword.
Israel may be the best equipped to maintain order, and they have an existential prerogative to do so. However, what does the eventual transfer of power look like in that scenario? The PA and the UN are maybe the only bodies with the credibility to manage and rebuild the area and form a stable and representative government.
Obviously there are significant differences between the circumstances; whether there are leaders and partners on the ground we can work with, whether there is a nuclear power involved, being the significant differences that stand out to me.
I think the transfer of power looks like this: members and accomplices of Hamas are killed as enemy combatants and terrorists, infrastructure is repaired, goods and supplies flow, and and everyone is pretty glad to be rid of them and people who just want to live their lives go and do so, I hope as or at least with a path to full Israeli citizenship and democratic representation. Bibi and his loyalists are also going to need to be voted out by the Israeli people, part of that existential prerogative. Maybe pockets of residence will persist underground. They will be got though.