"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.

>> 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

What a laughable statement. This is entirely the point of the disenfranchisement claim.

In what way is it laughable? Please contribute something of substance.

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.

By de facto I mean explicitly not de jure.

You are confusing de facto control and de jure control. That’s why I’m arguing the position is unserious. I don’t know anything about you personally.

You’re making my point anyway, by conceding that the West Bank is effectively governed without representation in the governments controlling them.

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?

> That issue has been largely settled by the Oslo framework in 1994.

A process that's alive and well, just like Yitzhak Rabin.

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.

Counterpoint, Palestinians (many of whom were not alive in 2006, as they are children) are not exactly drenched in sovereignty at the moment.

I agree. But it is not Israel who is disenfranchising them - it is the Palestinian Authority (in West Bank) and Hamas (in Gaza).

Oh yikes, that is either the most ignorant or the least honest argument I've seen anyone make on this topic.

Shame on you.

In the absence of a counter-argument I can only assume that you don't have anything of substance to offer on this topic.

This is a little bit like arguing against someone saying the earth is flat, or that the sun isn't in the sky.

There's not really any point. They are too far gone.

Thank you for confirming that my assumption was correct.