Sorry, u/el_valor777 – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:
> You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, as any entity other than yourself, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first read the list of soapboxing indicators and common mistakes in appeal**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_indicators_of_rule_b_violations), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal%20el_valor777&message=el_valor777%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1e004p8/-/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Sure, things are looking grim. But how does this conflict compare to other conflicts?
Europe is filled with examples of long lasting conflicts:
England and France has almost a millennium of wars: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-French\_Wars](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-French_Wars)
France and Germany have been at it for hundreds of years, including two world wars: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French%E2%80%93German\_enmity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French%E2%80%93German_enmity)
Japan has had grudge against the west since the 19th century, finally exploding during WW2.
Today all the axis powers have been reformed. All the countries above live in peace.
Doesn't the I-P conflict have hope then? Isn't it smaller and smaller in scale then the other ones?
I would argue that these conflicts are not really comparable. Sure they lasted for very long times but they werent really existential for either side and the involved factions werent competing for control of the same piece of land either.
Fundamentally I have to agree with OP here, neither side of this conflict is willing or able to really coexist alongside the other and even in the west bank I dont see how youd bring about circumstances that would make normalization between the Isrealis and the Palestinians possible since the former will always view occupation of the west bank as a necessary security measure to ensure that
a) No Iran-backed asymmetric fighting force similar to hamas can be established there and
b) In the case of a war with Hizbolla or Jordan they have a geographic buffer alongside their northeastern border
while the latter will thus always resent the occupation forces.
I cannot, for the life of me, imagine a realistic way in which this dilemma could be resolved within our lifetimes
> Fundamentally I have to agree with OP here, neither side of this conflict is willing or able to really coexist alongside the other and even in the west bank I dont see how youd bring about circumstances that would make normalization between the Isrealis and the Palestinians possible since the former will always view occupation of the west bank as a necessary security measure to ensure that
The same was basically said for Egypt, but peace was achieved when the times were right.
Israel is normalizing relations with more and more Arab countries.
The Palestinian state could be formed without a military (like post WW2 Germany). UN Peace-keeping forces can be put in the land. What you're describing are technical details, not the crux of the conflict.
Ww2 Germany was a conventional country where the army could be disbanded and civil servants could continue to work and then there was no real danger.
In Palestine there is no “army” there are militant groups that are embedded in society. You cannot just occupy and disband the army like the allies did. And after that, you cannot let the civil service continue to work, as the militias are heavily embedded in it. Former Nazi collaborators could easily denazificaties and transform into normal west German officials. With Palestinian militias, this switch will be many times harder. Especially because they are part of an international conflict with countries like iran having incentive to destabilise the region
> The Palestinian state could be formed without a military (like post WW2 Germany)
The Palestinians themselves won't support any solution that functionally leaves them at the mercy of Jews. Or really any solution that doesn't put the Jews at their mercy.
The Nazis were only supported by about 25-30% of Germans (despite what their propaganda would have you believe). Hamas, an organization with functionally the same goals (kill the Jews to get living space for Arabs), enjoys north of *seventy percent support*.
Actually creating peace between I-P is going to take some *serious* deprogramming. Mostly revolved around dissolving the Palestinian cultural identity which is defined by its antisemitism. Seriously, that's the only thing distinguishing Palestinians from other Arabs. Get rid of Hamas in a vacuum and the next militant Nazi group will replace them - like Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
They must get rid of Hamas, period point done. No UN peace keeping force is going to be a peace keeping force if the people they are coexisting with a militant group. You said it, formed without a military and that definitely includes Hamas.
The question is if that will make any difference. Hamas was elected and most Palestinians support it, according to recent polls. If you get rid of it, how long until something similar takes its place? The problem is the hateful ethno-nationalism (of both sides), not any particular organization or person. They're just a manifestation of the population's will.
Sweden and Denmark has had more wars with each other than any other two countries, and today they get along. At least cordially - we still "hate" each other. But we work very well together economically and diplomatically.
From my understanding it's the same way with France and England. They'll shit on each other but if war comes they'd die for the other. Kinda like siblings in that regard. Please note I'm american so my perception could be wrong especially given our lovely education system.
It's broadly accurate I think, but I think the English and French feel like they have less in common with each other than the Danes feel like they have in common with the Swedes. There's a sort of Scandinavian unity that hasn't got an equivalent between England and France.
A Brit in Denmark.
Southern Sweden and Denmark definetly is super similar. Plus our cultures are intertwined.
The main dairy products sold in Sweden comes from a Danish company, Danish design is superior in sweden etc.
The rivalry is definitely on a sibling level.
> It's broadly accurate I think, but I think the English and French feel like they have less in common with each other than the Danes feel like they have in common with the Swedes.
Iirc, French used to be one of the (upper class) languages of England, and English nobility was, technically French descended.
Only post-1066!
And, technically they were Normans. French speaking men of Norse descent that settled in Neustria (now Normandy) in exchange for an end to their brutal piracy and raids of coastal French towns. Culturally they were pretty much always distinct from the rest of the French.
The influence this has is part of the reason why English is such a bastard language. There's a lot of roots from French - such as the reason why we call "beef" by that name (derived from the French "boeuf") and not "cowflesh", but there's a lot of roots from Old Norse too, like "skill", "bag", "gift", "ugly" and even "die."
I love the French (as a Brit) but not sure it’s reciprocated. Yes I’ll shit on them and they’ll shit on us, but I think there are just too many drunk-Brit-knobhead-stereotypes and I can’t blame them.
Makes sense, as an American, if Western Europe got attacked I'd put my life on the line for them. I wouldn't need to be asked because I'd take it personally. They're like my cousin. Canada is my sibling. But other countries? Their conflicts are sad, but sad from a distance.
You can’t compare it to the hatred Islam has garnered to Judaism which makes them unaccepting of Jews being equal to them in any part of what they deem Muslim land, this is a society that is built very differently than the west, it has beautiful sides and straight up bad stuff just as any culture but they are far more religious which means they are far less tolerant.. whatever hatred existed between Sweden and Denmark is not on the same scale..
Jews moved on from the holocaust and we today even love Germany, I myself visited there many times, it’s not Israel which is unwilling to let things be forgotten, we made peace with whoever wanted it, Egypt and Jordan are great examples.. maybe it’s not peace in the sense that the average citizens loves us but it’s enough to not be in flat out war..
In order for these to have happened, one side or the other needed to be completely dominated in a full scale war, to the point where there was a clear victor and loser. Japan, Germany, Italy. They surrendered. They didn't just decide for a permanent ceasefire. They lost and their people were told they lost. Then the victor came in for decades and force fed them culture change to prevent the events from occuring.
And even now, Japan still does not take their atrocities seriously. There is a reason that China and Korea still REALLY don't like Japan.
For Israel and Palestine to have this type of peace, Israel needs to win. Permanently. No ceasefire. No half gains. They go in, set up their own government and dictate the laws for the people. Any who disagree will be arrested or worse. But the way that the conflict is built up, no one wants Israel to do that, and even if they tried, there would be fighting non stop.
Plus, there is a lot of external support in both sides keeping the conflict ongoing. Alot of people want one side or the other to win and are doing a lot of background work to keep their side in the fight.
The large scale conflicts of the past weren't like this. This is closer to a proxy Cold war conflict then a World War or a war between two sovereign states. Till the other players stop helping the two sides, neither side has any reason to declare victory or surrender.
>For Israel and Palestine to have this type of peace, Israel needs to win. Permanently. No ceasefire. No half gains. They go in, set up their own government and dictate the laws for the people. Any who disagree will be arrested or worse.
But... Israel doesn't want to do this.
They do not want to give citizenship to 5 million Palestinians. That would turn Israel into an almost exactly 50/50 Jewish/Arab state.
Israel wants to remain a majority Jewish ethnostate run by Jews as a safe homeland for Jews.
They also don't want to just annex or occupy all the Palestinian land while oppressing a bunch of Palestinians (in this scenario they are not granted citizenship). This is a recipe for never-ending rebellion, and it would give even more credence to the claims of Apartheid. It's kind of what they are already doing in the West Bank, to a degree.
Lastly, Israel also does not want a two state solution where there is a potentially unfriendly Palestinian country, armed and on their doorstep.
What Israel wants is to have all that land to settle, ...but without the Palestinians.
> What Israel wants is to have all that land to settle, ...but without the Palestinians.
I disagree. If Israel wanted more land, they wouldn’t have:
1. Given up the Sinai (including dismantling existing settlements),
1. Fully withdrawn from Gaza (including dismantling existing settlements).
immediately after capturing the Golan, they offered to give it all back to Syria in return for a Peace Treaty. Syria insisted on the return of the land as a precondition to negotiations. Which was stupid on their part. Syria was saying, “Give up the only leverage you have, and then we’ll talk.”
(Eventually they got tired of waiting for Syria to get serious, and the annexed the Golan.)
Keep in mind that all the talk about a Palestinian State is to create something that never existed. Israel didn’t take Gaza or Judea or Samaria from Palestine. They took Gaza from Egypt and Judea & Samaria from Jordan. (And the Golan from Syria.)
Israel pulled out of Gaza to prevent the demographic problem that the comment you replied to described, according to [Ehud Olmert](https://www.haaretz.com/2003-11-13/ty-article/maximum-jews-minimum-palestinians/0000017f-ed37-ddba-a37f-ef7fefd10000)
Palestinians arnt capable of running a state. They’ve proven that through their extremely stupid decision making and constantly declaring war on someone much stronger while wasting resources given to them out of charity. While also refusing all peace deals which where historically generous considering the amount of damage Palestinians have caused.
They aren’t saying that Palestine should become part of Israel. Just like Germany didn’t become part of the UK in WW2. They’re saying that Israel should control the government of Palestine. This is a common thing that occurs after a war is over, eventually the government can be turned back over to the citizens.
>This is a common thing that occurs after a war is over, eventually the government can be turned back over to the citizens.
They already did this. All of Palestinian lands (West Bank and Gaza) were under military occupation between 1967 and 1993. That didn't create peace but created more war and terrorism. Hell Arab Israeli villages were under military occupation till the 1980s.
This has been tried already. Military occupation and control of the governance doesn't make peace happen. It pushes peace further way.
The entire point of the failed 1993 Oslo Accords was turning the occupied land back over to the Palestinians, but the actual full transfer never happened and the illegal settlements continue to take more land and push more and more Palestinians into Area C of the West Bank, ie taking more land without taking the Palestinians.
I feel like lots of people have suggestions that have already been tried in this conflict with knowing the history
>I feel like lots of people have suggestions that have already been tried in this conflict with knowing the history
My reactions as I'm reading through these threads: "Oh, that's a good idea! Oh, never mind, that reply knows things. Oh wait! Maybe this could work! Ok, guess not."
This region really is fucked, isn't it?
I don't think Palestinians want a two state solution either. I think the extreme right in Israel (and the current PM who needs to go) probably want a more homogenous society, but they are a minority. If you've talked to any Israeli's most aren't that racist, the concern with a United solution is the security concern that comes from the radicalized Palestinians (even if it is a minority of them). It's not all of them, but Hamas has had a solid 20 years of brainwashing, and obviously the settlements in the West Bank doesn't help either.
>In order for these to have happened, one side or the other needed to be completely dominated in a full scale war, to the point where there was a clear victor and loser. Japan, Germany, Italy. They surrendered. They didn't just decide for a permanent ceasefire. They lost and their people were told they lost. Then the victor came in for decades and force fed them culture change to prevent the events from occuring.
I'm not sure that's either a necessary or sufficient condition. It doesn't seem to apply in the case of England/Britain and France, where the Napoleonic Wars were a clear win but no moreso than the Franco-Prussian War or WW1, both of which were followed by further war. Equally, while it does apply in the case of China and Japan (as you point out) it's hardly unthinkable that those two go to war again in the foreseeable future.
> For Israel and Palestine to have this type of peace, Israel needs to win. Permanently. No ceasefire. No half gains. They go in, set up their own government and dictate the laws for the people. Any who disagree will be arrested or worse. But the way that the conflict is built up, no one wants Israel to do that, and even if they tried, there would be fighting non stop.
Sure, we can go down that route. It might not be easy, but possible. Maybe the UN will rule Gaza. Maybe the Arab League. Maybe Israel. Israel seems to be very determined to continue the current war - so it might take Gaza.
There is also another possibility. When strong leaders on both sides come there is a chance for peace.
Netanyahu won't rule forever. Palestine is still waiting for its Sadat. No one thought peace with Egypt was possible - and then it happened.
Peace settlements bring more war.
The UN ruling Gaza is not a clear loss for Hamas, and they will feel they can try again.
Arab League ruling Gaza is basically a victory for Hamas, and they will try for more.
The Treaty of Versailles did not end German dreams of conquering Europe, Soviet troops killing millions of Germans and raising their flag over Berlin did.
The issue is that the US didn't want to own the territory of Japan or Germany, and they had a strong incentive to get them back on their feet and on their side. Israel is small and has proven during peace time that they will back their settlers in just taking Palestinian land because they really do want the territory (plus obviously have no incentive to want the Palestinians on their feet).
I mean, the former Yugoslavia gave us the word "Balkanization." They haven't fought each other for over two decades now and there's no sign of violence resuming.
And I do think the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is more analogous to the Balkans than anything else – both peoples are indigenous to the region, aren't going anywhere, and need to learn to coexist. If/when it happens, it will likely require a great deal of international pressure.
>I mean, the former Yugoslavia gave us the word "Balkanization." They haven't fought each other for over two decades now and there's no sign of violence resuming.
Albanians and Croatians were chanting "Kill the Serb" at soccer games this summer. It's been relatively peaceful because the memory of NATO bombing them keeps it that way. If they aren't scared of US or NATO intervention you better believe there are plenty of leaders and people in the Balkans who would try to get revenge for something that happened 30, 100, or 300 years ago.
> It's been relatively peaceful because the memory of NATO bombing them keeps it that way.
Not all the Balkan countries were bombed, only Serbia (or FR Yugoslavia at that time), and that was the only solution to stop a possible genocide like what happened in Bosnia. No one in the Balkans wants war, and everyone has learned a lesson in the Yugoslav wars that the only ones who benefit from war are politicians and criminals, the people will only suffer…
In the case of Yugoslavia there was a lot of ethnic cleansing. Serbian separatists in Croatia could be defeated once and for all only because majority of them fled after the Operation storm was conducted. Obviously, forcing people from their homes is not a great thing, but I fear that sometimes it is the only sollution. Someone has to go, or else get ready for an endless war.
I do think that both Palestinians and Israelis have a right to live there.
For one thing, we have now reached a point where most Israeli Jews were born in Israel.
And obviously the area is the birthplace of Judaism and the ancient Hebrews.
But I do think it's a big big stretch to say that some American Jew of Polish ancestry, who has never set foot in Israel and neither have his ancestors going back 10 generations... is Indigenous to Israel.
It's a bit like saying English speaking white Americans are Indigenous to England.
I like your comparison to the Balkans though.
Why is it a stretch to say that Jews are indigenous to the land of Israel? What difference should it make if a Jew happens to be born in diaspora?
Jews in Poland and the rest of Europe were told to “go back to Palestine” and those who couldn’t escape in time were exterminated *because* they “weren’t European”—and *definitely* not “white”. It didn’t matter that Jews had been living in Europe for many centuries. Now I’m supposed to believe the same people when they say, “actually no, you’re Polish after all and that’s where you belong. Go back to Poland, you don’t belong in Palestine”
Look, no offense, but it really doesn’t matter to us whether or not you think we’re “too white” or where you think Jews should and should not be allowed to exist. You’re free to deny our history, heritage, and identity—you can believe whatever you want about us. But *we* know who we are, where we came from, and where we belong, and that is in our ancestral homeland of Eretz Israel, for as long as we exist.
Out of interest. What is a Jew of Polish ancestry? Do you mean a Jew whose ancestors were kicked out and they ended up in Poland and then wanted to return to their homeland. Jews came from 12 tribes all from that region. I'm a Toronto Jew with a South African mother and a father with European grandparents. I'm a Levi meaning from the tribe of Levi. My father's bloodline is literally dna traceable to that region. Unlike many local people living there now.
Jews are indigenous to Israel. period. Indigeneity speaks to the origin af a people, specifically the *where*
Jews in Poland aren't of "polish ancestry" they are a different people from Poles that lived in the country Poland. The key thing is Jews are not *from* Poland and both Poles and Jews knew they were different. That's why jews had their own language that didn't even use the same alphabet
I am gonna say that there's an important difference between Germany - France and England/UK - France and Israel - Palestine. Germany, France and England is all contiguous areas of land (not counting Labourd, and even then England could sail there), while in all realistic views, Palestine won't be. This means that, in the short term, any peace proposal between Israel and Palestine requires Palestinian access to Israeli roads, as the West Bank don't have access to the ocean.
Do you think that, keeping October 7th in mind, that Israel will allow Palestine to control a road dividing Israel? I don't. Do you think Palestine will trust Israel to not close the road? I don't. And if those 2 things don't happen, then any peace will very, very short
>England and France has almost a millennium of wars
And they had a series of wars last almost a hundred years and eventually ending with England losing all of its mainland holdings (with the exception of calais but was lost in the Italian wars)
>France and Germany have been at it for hundreds of years, including two world wars
And peace was only installed after a crushing defeat to Germany with heavy regulations (and would have been total demilitarization if it weren't for the soviets existing)
>Japan has had grudge against the west since the 19th century, finally exploding during WW2.
And was only changed after a crushing defeat, total rework of their goverment, demilitarization, and forced american investment
All your points only support OPs opinion lol.
the Nazis and Russians collectively killed 1/5th of Polands population 80 years ago. my wife's grandfather was a Polish soldier so this trauma is still within living memory. now my sister in law pops across the border from Szczecin to Germany every day to work and has drinks with her German friends at the end of the week. there's a bridge across the Oder that Polish and German cyclists pass each other on when going for a cycle. those that know where Szczecin was pre WW2 will know that it's amazing everyone is friendly with each other on both sides of the border. Russia, well, that's a very different story, but the EU really is an amazing peace project. so while things look dire now, Poland and Germany show that even the worst of enemies can find a path to peace, given time and both finding the will to do so.
I think we can acknowledge that France and England and the Danish and Swedes fought wars over reasons that were largely pride, Israel and Palestine are fighting a war of survival.
It’s not the same thing that’s going to blow over in another century, especially with two religions that conflict so much
Comical to classify the Palestinian side as a war for survival when they were left entirely alone and at peace since Israel left Gaza.
Israel is fighting a war for survival. Palestine is fighting a war of conquest.
Its almost like most of your examples needed a complete and devasting lose in a war, and that just will not happen again while others in the region benefit from their being turmoil
Those other wars were between people of the same race over power, money, and territory.
I/P is idealogy based between two very different races/cultures.
Yes, all your examples. But there are just as many if not more conflicts that have ended because one group either eradicated or subjugated the other
I think the deck is stacked against them for a lasting peace currently. This is a long lasting blood feud that is made worse by an inflamed region where all the global powers want a piece of the pie with two diametrically opposed belief structures(somehow) that always give a reason to shoot first and hide behind hostages later.
There's hope for peace in any situaton, but it wont be by the sword, and it won't be the west that figures it out.
The only way we'll ever see peace in the ME is if the rest of the world stops interfering in literally everything that happens there.
it’s not about the scale of the conflict itself - it’s about the scale of the interested parties. israel has p much always been a military foothold for the west (but esp the united states) in the middle east, and the scale of the american military industrial complex means aipac has a disproportionate influence on american politics. in general, israel and america have a symbiotic relationship when it comes to weapons, policing, surveillance, etc. (gilee is one specific example, but the org deadly exchange has collected info about many more). and ofc non-nato countries would like to weaken america’s global military dominance, which is prob why hamas has had (iirc) some iranian, chinese, russian, etc. weapons (altho nothing compared to the tech the idf has). not saying it’s hopeless - just giving some context for why it’s more complicated than just israel and palestine alone
Wars with swords and catapults is a lot different than wars with rifles and missile launchers.
If England and France started their wars in 2000 instead of the medieval era I think it would be a lot more like Israel v Palestine and made it a lot harder to make up, due to the huge amount of casualties and how much easy it is for people to just go and commit a massacre.
More than likely it'd end up like the two Koreas than anything. No peace signed so technically still at war and both sides have thousands of artillery pieces aimed at each other.
This is totally different.
This is more akin to what the United States and Canada did to its indigenous populations, what the UK did to Kenya and so and so forth because I could spend hours going over this.
This is not two nation states battling for geopolitical superiority.
Not when the governing authority charter states they want to destroy Israel, teach children to kill people with an ethnic Jewish background, and are funded by Iran who sponsors terrorist activities throughout Israel and fund Hezbollah to the north.. there's no hope for peace in a situation like this.
I also think comparing the culture of the Middle East to Europe is really a false equivalence, in the west we value de-escalation but in the middle east there's a hegemony led by Iran that values brutality and backs off when overwhelming force is used to demonstrate power.
External powers and influences will continue to prevent the situation in Gaza from resolving, rather there are just temporary cessation of hostilities. Imagine Japan/US relations today if some massive international organization forced a ceacefire after the battle of Iwo Jima. That war needed to conclude naturally in order for the relationship that Japan and the US have today to exist.
Apples and oranges.
Palestine is a failed state where the original country borders dont even exist. Palestine lost the original Arab war in the first place which is why it is the way it is today. Gaza is a long standing outdoor prison, complete with walls on all sides trying to keep them in. Prior to this conflict even starting, youth in Gaza had absolutely no hope of ever escaping the country nor advancing in any meaningful way. Top that off with an extremist government whose primary goal is the eradication of jews (i.e. they're basically muslim nazis), and you've got a hellscape that can never be fixed without first dismantling everything and starting over. Even their muslim neighbors wont accept asylum seekers from there because they're all so radicalized.
None of the nations you mentioned above are comparable to the failed state of Palestine.
No place on Earth, probably even throughout history, is worse.
If there will be peace between I and P, the scars must heal thoroughly. A mutual understanding of the right to live. If not, they will be opened again, and again, and again.
Not really. Before the US dropped two atom bombs on Japan they burned 150k alive using napalm. After the war they shifted to reconstruction and reconciliation. Now the Japan is the US’s most important ally in the region.
It can’t happen with the extremists in charge but it can. You need to set the foundation for peace. Sharon started moving towards it before he got sick and died. IMO the Israelis are in the position of greater power and need to make the push towards it. The region is exhausted by this conflict and want it to be over. The Saudis were even moving towards peace with the Israelis but now can’t because of recent events and how they’re viewed in the Middle East. The right leaders could make it happen but I’ll admit that the countries are currently moving in the opposite directions.
I think you hit the nail on the head. The allies reconciliation with axis powers started with complete domination. It was successful due to that domination followed by massive reconstruction. The same was seen with the US civil war and the reconstruction era that followed.
In contrast, Israel has previously achieved that absolute domination. To the point of complete control over food, water, medicine, and even travel. The failure is lack luster if any attempt at reconstruction has been made. In the 77 years of Israeli ownership. From lack of utilities, to proving up extremist elements, Israel has keeps the Palestinians disadvantaged, creating continuing animosity.
Unfortunately this is popular with Israel and it's allies. Polls of its people even show this is popular sentiment with its citizenry. A lasting peace will require more than signatures on paper but a change in the attitude of day to day interactions.
Yes exactly and I’m not sure where they think it will lead. They surely can’t be at war forever just to appease the extremists in their own ranks. It hasn’t made Israel safer or stronger either. War is expensive and they hurt themselves with the international community with the brutality of this response that has people examining the greater structure. That said, the right leader could pave the path to reconciliation and peace. Sharon could’ve been that guy as he was a strong man who was respected by the military. Not sure who that would be right now as Israel has shifted to the right in recent decades but I think it can be done.
No, that it! Violence without reconciliation breeds future violence. Future violence sells more weapons. It keeps the people in fear. That fear is the keys to maintaining control. Blowback isn't a bug, it a feature.
The key difference isn't reconstruction (you'd be surprised at the extent to which Israel built up the Palestinian territories during the latter half of the 20th century.) It's acceptance. Unlike in the case of Japan or Germany, in this case the losing side never accepted defeat but instead vowed to fight on until they conquered Israel as well as the Palestinian territories.
The allies decided to fight to unconditional surrender and caused an incredible amount of death and destruction until they got it. That wasn't the case in either the '48 or '67 wars. The '67 war was decisive but clean. There were *very* few civilian casualties and most of the soldiers were spared.
You’re being very generous and that hasn’t happened in the past two decades. Instead, the Palestinians are constantly subjugated to brutal occupation and the extremists are in charge- both in Israel and Gaza. Just go read opinions and essays from the likes of Ben Gvir, Smotrich, and Lieberman. They want conflict cause it feeds their desire for expansion. Lots of the funding for the Palestinian Territories comes from the outside, not from Israel. Israelis pushing peace like Perez have been assassinated and the rest marginalised.
Also acceptance is a two way street. The current government campaigned on there never being a Palestinian state and won. More international pressure, conditional funding, and a pathway to stability could move things in the other direction but it takes commitment. The rest of the Arabs got to a point where they want it and that is helpful. They’re busy modernising and this is an obstacle to the region advancing. MBS and the rest in power see that. UAE’s peace deal was a clue. The Egyptians and Jordanians still have peace. No other Arab country is significant politically right now. The Persians stand in the way, in fairness, but I think they can be countered with a unified front and strategic politics.
I will say I'm not an expert on Palestinian reconstruction. My knowledge of it is based on living condition in the late 20th and early 21st. Abhorently low access to clean water and electricity while under Israeli occupation.
Hasn't this happened already in other conflicts? Hundreds of years of wars between English and French.
Nazi Germany - denazified and reformed.
If it happened before on much larger scales why not IP?
Europe has its fair share of religious wars
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European\_wars\_of\_religion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wars_of_religion)
Israel made peace with Egypt and Jordan. The UAE, Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan have normalized relations. Saudi Arabia is very close as well.
We can argue whether the conflict is rooted in religion or not, but surely they can move past it and reach peace. Why would peace in Europe be possible but not the Middle East? Why all these Arab Muslim countries and not Palestine?
because the place is run by fundamentalist extremism in its government and Iran since they deposed the Shah the West installed to quell this back in the late 70s
Peace won't happen all at once - but gradually. First Egypt, then Jordan, then Saudi Arabia, then maybe Palestine.
Iran is in fact helping unite the region against it. The Sunnis agree to an alliance of interests with Israel in order to confront Iran.
Also the current leaders of Palestine and Israel won't be there forever. Eventually they'll be replaced, hopefully by more peace-loving ones. Even Iran's newest president is considered moderate.
Peace never just happened. It is never natural outcome. It is constant struggle. We have biggest war in Europe since WW2 right now. Ukraine and Russia had peace for 20 years until 2014 Crimea annexation. Peace not happening gradually, it starts in seconds after massive events, it ends in a seconds after sudden invasions. Only way to make long lasting peace is preparation, deterrence, military alliances, and a lot of stockpiled weapons.
Other interests in the middle east are counting on it. This is why the Palestinians in particular were never absorbed by surrounding nations unlike other displaced Arab populations. These other interests want the Palestinians to remain a thorn in the side of Israel regardless of whether it is good for the Palestinians.
Palestinians were welcomed into other countries or absored and those countries regretted it. Black September in Jordan; Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Hamas started in Lebanon. Went poorly each time.
Europeans accept territorial changes, Arabs/Muslims don't. They claim the territory is forever theres and will kill everyone who is not them until they get it back. That's the difference
You've got to stop seeing each side as a monolith. The people on both sides aren't the elite and government!
The only reason peace seems impossible is because you are looking at it from the point of view of a extremist minority. Most people on both sides are totally willing to find peace and are totally against their own leaders.
Get rid of bibi's government on one side, or Hamas on the other side and all the peace options will become possible.
Perhaps you're right, but sometimes I think to myself, is it truly the elites and those in power that want this violence? Or is it a sentiment echoed by people as well? The media may portray the former as being the problem, but what about the latter? We are being capable of prejudice after all.
As an Israeli, I can assure you (most of) us would love to have peace with neighbouring Arabs, including the Palestinians. Unfortunately there's a loud far right community which is currently in control of the government
How did this far-right government get democratically elected and how is Bibi the longest serving Prime Minister in Israel's history serving over 17 years if most of you would love peace with Palestinians? Bibi has always publicly been against a Palestinian state and pro settlements in the WB. He's known for weakening the diplomatic Palestinians faction and strengthening the militant Hamas. How did he get elected over and over?
Complicated question. You vote for representatives from a fairly wide variety of parties. In order to form a government though, you will typically need to form a coalition with some other parties, since no one party has the numbers to do it alone.
Bibi is good at making coalitions
At least he was, for most of his tenure. Now that he's moved onto desperation to stay in power, he is making awful bargains in exchange for their support with the most extremist groups. This is how Israel ended up with the current mess of a coalition, which includes "former" terrorist Ben Gvir as the minister of the interior, because that was the condition for his party's support.
The same way trump.got elected in the US. Normal people living their lives aren't aggressively monitoring their politicians every minute of the day. And decent human beings who are not power hungry, and just want a functioning bureaucracy, don't run for office
Well, in part, the Second Intifada. Bibi was elected in the 90s and then **quickly** voted out. And then the Second Intifada happened and totally delegitimized the left and the peace movement for a lot of people. It’s hard to be an idealist when terrorist attacks are constant and your security is very much in doubt. Enough people moved right that the method of creating a majority government in Israel has resulted in coalitions led by Bibi. The people are not directly selecting him, like we do in the States. They vote for a party and if their party ends up joining the coalition with Likud to have a stronger stay in the government, the voter is stuck with what their list chose to do.
Note that Bibi has had to reach further and further right to form a government. He didn’t previously align with these extremist religious groups, but he needs to do so now because people have shifted away from him and are moving towards the center and left.
Or they were, before October 7th. While Bibi is likely done, no center or left party will have any legitimacy right now if they suggest renewing peace talks. It’ll be seen as a reward for terrorism and useless because the polling of Palestinians shows pretty strong support for the October 7th attacks and little interest in a two state solution.
In America we were able to elect Trump even though a majority of Americans doesn't support most of the policies he endorses. Imagine if Trump were a better politician, and better at building coalitions.
About weakening diplomatic Palestinian faction and strengthening Hamas: At that time, Hamas was doing a lot of actually good public works. This was how the average random Palestinian would have had contact with them, not through their military wing, and they received broad public support for that amongst Palestinians. Meanwhile the diplomatic factions were (and really, still are) broadly seen as too corrupt to represent, let alone serve, the people. Does that mean Bibi didn't know what he was doing in supplying Hamas? No, and I'm not defending him, especially since Hamas appears to have almost completely abandoned those good public works in favor of militarization after some clandestine efforts by Israel. https://www.npr.org/2023/11/16/1198908227/throughline-11-16-2023
But this does mean that if I were a random moderate peacenik-leaning Israeli citizen or diaspora e.g. American Jew at the time Bibi was coming up, especially if I were just medium politically informed rather than super informed, what I would be seeing is that Bibi was 1. supporting a group in Palestine that was succeeding in getting aid where it was supposed to go while 2. being tough on suicide bombings. Given Bibi's ability to build coalitions and gather political support, that view of him wouldn't inspire the kind of strong resistance that would've been necessary to keep him from getting entrenched.
That doesn’t play out in surveys of both populations. Palestinians are not interested in a dual-state existence as an endgame according to the sentiments broadly expressed in surveys.
I’m all for freedom “From the river to the sea,” as long as we are talking about freedom for all religions and not just a new place to implement Sharia Law.
This region is the epicenter for almost all world religions, but I get a feeling that the “From the River to the sea” that they’re chanting about is purely free for Muslims.
People arnt going to like hearing about this but a devout Muslim population doesn’t want democracy or freedom of religion. That’s against their beliefs. Religious Muslims by and large don’t want secularism. Also taxing people specifically because they are a certain religion is discrimination. Minority faiths in Muslim countries often face other issues such as terrorism and a nasty habit of being forced to marry and convert. Most people in Muslim countries don’t want to give up the superiority they have over non Muslims. Palestinians are very devout Muslims and democracy isn’t something you should force on those who don’t want it.
Disclaimer not all Muslims are like this there are Muslims who see Jewish people as equals and are perfectly good people.
My question is, if islam openly states this is the goal, why do other nations tolerate them. If they had power the rest of the world wouldn't be tolerated. Like if you're a white supremacist it's seen as bad, but if you're an Islamic supremacist? Fine I guess, limit your beheadings to 2 a month.
That’s the thing. We really shouldn’t tolerate those who disrespect the cultures of the places they move to. If I move to Saudi Arabia I’m not gonna wear a bikini and drink. There are tons of people from Muslim countries who are gay or not homophobic we should accept them.
>
> This region is the epicenter for almost all world religions, but I get a feeling that the “From the River to the sea” that they’re chanting about is purely free for Muslims.
considering that a more accurate translation of that phrase is "from the river to the sea, palestine will be *arab*", I think you've got a point.
Well, there's about 4000 jews total in all the Arab countries combined, this is because the Arab countries force expulsion of over 850,000 jews from 48 to the early 70s.
Wonder why that might be. Is it because they’ve felt nothing but the shitty underbelly of dual-state existence for most of these commenter’s lifespans?
Wonder why what was allegedly *the status quo* despite constant encroachment no longer satisfies the people who keep *losing under the status quo*.
Suspect whatever you like about sharia law. The resentment to the de facto “solution” you’re describing has obvious sources. A complete failure to implement a reasonable version of it, or external enforcement of the two states’ defined boundaries *evenly*.
>I’m all for freedom “From the river to the sea,” as long as we are talking about freedom for all religions and not just a new place to implement Sharia Law.
I know a lot of Palestinians in the diaspora and they almost universally want a single state solution with rights and freedoms for all. But Palestinians who live in Gaza and the West Bank face extreme circumstances, and those forces tend to be radicalizing. If you're a 14 year old in a Muslim community and you watch your older brother get splattered by an Israeli missile your trauma is going to manifest as islamic extremists views. Undoing that is a generational project but it needs to be done.
I mean it’s not just Hamas that’s a factor. In the West Bank Abass has been in power for decades and cancelled planned elections. A political opponent who called him out on that was arrested by his security and died during that arrest mysteriously. Also there’s massive corruption in the PLO as well. He also supported a naval blockade of Gaza in 2014 I believe to hurt Hamas and he stopped paying Israel for the electricity they provided Gaza in 2017 resulting in an electricity crisis for the year and cut funding for workers in Gaza . At least there’s the possibility of Bibi losing an election in Israel and we see massive protest against him and the war. But be it in the West Bank or Gaza Palestinians don’t have free elections or easy ability to protest. I don’t see how much can change on that end if there’s no elections or freedoms . Though I don’t know who would be a replacement and some believe that having more voices would make it harder for Palestinians to push for statehood and create more chaos .
>He also supported a naval blockade of Gaza in 2014 I believe to hurt Hamas.
He actually threatened Israel that he would stop security ties if Israel removed the blockade. In May 2018.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20180525-pa-threatens-to-cut-security-ties-with-israel-if-gaza-blockade-lifted/
Wow didn’t know that. Also there’s the massive corruption of him and his sons. 80% of people in the West Bank want him gone and he cancelled planned elections for a reason . I think he worried Hamas would beat him . And that was before the war in Gaza. This is a major issue with post war Gaza. You get rid of Hamas and the only other Palestinian leadership is Abass who will be hated in Gaza and likely result in Hamas winning an election or coming back. Palestinians need a government that has authority but also the trust of the people. And the only reason Abass is in power is because Arafat died . But Arafat died with a personal wealth of 1.3 billion and massive corruption. The hard part is Palestinians haven’t had democracy and have had corrupt leaders, without education and freedoms democracy won’t be successful but for that there needs to be leaders who implement it best. I wonder if there’s any Palestinian leaders in the diaspora who could be options but without Abass allowing elections what then.The best bet might be a Bosnian style overseer that keeps the corruption down. Some will say it’s against self determination as Bosnia still has it but Bosnias been overall more peaceful for it .
>Wow didn’t know that
Because it's likely not true. The source is the "Palestine Information Centre" which is a [Hamas media outlet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Information_Center) and only cites "Hebrew media" - unnamed, of course. A political opposition group demeaning their competition with no evidence does not deserve much of an audience - especially when the claim is so substantial.
Thank you for informing me of that. That makes a major difference. Regardless his pressing of a continuing naval blockade of Gaza , cutting off payments of electricity to Gaza and of workers in Gaza is documented and known. And those actions as well as others mean I think it would be difficult for him to take over Gaza if he replaced Hamas. Without something to point to that they did the PA won’t get public support
>Get rid of bibi's government on one side, or Hamas on the other side and all the peace options will become possible.
The issue here is you're equating a democratically elected government (like 5 elections in 3 years) to an autocratic government that has widespread popular support.
Bibi is in power but so is Hamas. A democratic election on the Palestinian side would make things worse. Which is why the PA refused to have elections in the last few years (Abbas sitting on almost 20 years of a 4 year term). His Fatah would be consumed by Hamas in a likely 70/30 vote split.
What you're seeing in Israeli society is it being less willing to risk for peace with Palestinians after every time they've tried they've been attacked more.
You have generations of Israelis who know nothing other than failed peace processes and concessions
Wrong. A majority of Palestinians support continued resistance even with a two-state solution.
https://www.pcpsr.org/en/node/823
If Hamas were given the means tomorrow, everyone knows they world murder every Israeli. Israel has always had the means and pursues peace.
Palestinians are so radicalized that other Arab states want nothing to with them and have expelled them in the past for violence in their own territories.
Objectivly wrong, both governments were elected democratically.
Most gazans agree with hamas that Israel should be genocided while most Israelis agree that destroying hamas is vital to their safety.
Pretending that this war is waged just by the governments and not the people is ignorant, this conflict is waged by arabs and jews, not by secret cabals that their citizens hate.
Israelis hate bibi for his corruption and palestinians hate hamas for stealing all the aid to themselves, Israelis dont hate bibi for retaliating against hamas and palestinians dont hate hamas for committing terrorism.
The conflict will never be solved while people are virtue signaling that this conflict is actually a conspiracy of the shadow people to attack the lizard people and not the fault of anybody that lives here...
Not according to literally every single poll ever done on Palestinian support for Hamas.
I repeat EVERY SINGLE POLL EVER TAKEN on Palestinians support for Hamas, EVERY SINGLE ONE EVER has shown strong support from the population.
I mean this isn’t really true. Since Oct 7 they have gotten more support, but public opinion can get very influenced by a war. Earlier in 2023, though, [this poll](https://pcpsr.org/en/node/938) showed that only 26% of respondents said they thought that Hamas deserved to represent Palestine. 44% said that neither Hamas nor the PA deserved to represent Palestine.
That same poll shows that the only person with a popular mandate is Barghouti, who is currently serving 5 life sentences for murder, and has called for a third intifada.
There's a difference between believing that it WILL happen vs it being POSSIBLE to happen. I believe it is possible, even though I don't necessarily believe that it will happen (soon... I believe it will happen eventually). OP's CMV is about it not being an option at all. I agree with awakenedeyes' POV that with changes in leadership, it is absolutely possible (and, considering \*most\* people in the world want peace for their families/culture, chances are it will happen at some point in the future, even if it's a distant future).
I agree this seems like a naive take but I do believe peace is possible. Some things just take time. Some things take effort. And some things just sort of work out in ways we can't expect (USA nuking Japan turned into a pretty quick peace due to the public's awakening to the governments propaganda and eventually became a strong strategic and economic partner of the US).
Peace starts with believing peace is possible.
Israel is a democracy, their leadership is the direct result of what the people think. The majority of Jewish Israelis support going to war with Hezbollah, not just Hamas in Gaza. [Source](https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-806578).
Palestine is not a democracy, but public polling suggests that an election today would mean Hamas in charge in the West Bank and Gaza. Its understandable that the public in Jews don't feel comfortable with the people who did 10/7 being in charge on both sides of their country.
I’m not saying they’re right or wrong for supporting war, but the idea that the population doesn’t want a war that the elites are forcing on them is false.
Actually, most citizens in both Gaza and the West Bank support Hamas, so the notion of both sides are totally against their governments is false. Most citizens support the war, or for the most part support the independent rule of Hamas in Gaza.
Genuine question, not trying to antagonize, but do you really think that the Palestinian side wants peace?
I personally somewhat agree with OP because I don't think the Palestinians will ever accept that they're not going to have the land between the "River to the Sea". At least not the current population.
>Genuine question, not trying to antagonize, but do you really think that the Palestinian side wants peace?
Most people want peace. It is not fun to grow up in war, and I am sure the hundreds of thousands of displaced Palestinians would have preferred the extremists didn't instigate Israel. I also want to flip the script here; does Israel want peace? Why do you take each side's position on war for granted like this? They have been throwing violence at each other for decades. Pretty much no living person was there to 'throw the first stone' so to speak, but Israel definitely has better and more numerous ways to attack Palestine.
I really appreciate that sentiment, most of the people alive today were born into this conflict, they didn’t choose it. I try to empathize to the fact that the Palestinians can’t help what they were taught, but I really hope one day they will de-radicalize, and accept that there are Jews living next to them.
I actually do think most Israelis want peace. They accepted the partition in 47, and countless land splits after that, that the Palestinians declined. Their current government is shit though bibi and the far right wing freaks need to go.
I am half-Palestinian and we are constantly talking amongst ourselves and partners. Peace is achievable and we have floated around ideas of a one-state solution or fully equitable two-state solution. It feels like people often don't really have a lot of the basic knowledge or key facts and therefore it is very easy for people to throw opinions around especially deeply racist concepts at Palestinians when they don't really understand the level of horror Palestinians experience every day. So when there is daily harm and injustice, but you only pay attention when there is a larger explosion you will entirely miss that this is a political and land-based conflict that should be resolved through strictly fair, diplomatic means.
If it is as you say, then it's not being heard. People like me live far away from conflict zones. We don't understand nor care much about suffering until it starts to affect us more personally.
All people see and hear are explosions, crying, and campus students shouting anti-Israel slogans. They see and hear world leaders condemning and condemning without putting their condemnation into actions that resolve conflicts. They see the graves of long-dead Jews in both America and Europe being vandalized by protestors. But what they don't see nor hear is YOU.
Beyond the sensationalism and the suffering are millions of people who would rather just live their lives without concerning themselves with danger. In many parts of the world, that is a luxury. Pointing fingers is long past due. What matters now would be to come together and make a plan that both sides can use to prosper, even if it accepting it is hard due to all that's happened.
Barely anyone outside of your community knows who you are as a people. They don't know your story, your aspirations, your beliefs, your faith, and even your humanity. They'd rather see caricatures, hear false promises, and cry "peace" without knowing how and what it entails.
My grandfather's family were actually Christian Palestinians so Palestinians are definitely not a monolith. The thing that generally unifies Palestinians of all faiths and backgrounds is the desire for fairness, freedom, etc. I want my family to be equals in the land. That is currently not the case and I speak with Palestinians who live in Gaza, the West Bank, Israel-proper, and in the diaspora. We are not mindless savages and in general you will find many, many intellectuals as well. We love our families, the PLO actually advocated for a secular state (which shows no one was trying to seek an Islamic state), and there are many fantastic aspects of Palestinians the world does not know unfortunately because the propaganda machine works extremely hard to create a dehumanizing narrative. It is not unique. Antisemitism is a form of dehumanization and in the Holocaust it was the most extreme version of dehumanization by calling Jews "rats" and using propaganda to allow Europeans to commit mass atrocities. Same with black people and slavery. Dehumanization is a big necessity to commit nightmarish situations. You cannot commit horrors against other people without first thinking they are savages and incapable of being similar to the average bear.
I have both Christian and Muslim family members. No it is the same because Palestinians are discriminated against for being Palestinian versus their religion. A Christian Palestinian named Khalil on Twitter lost his young sister in Gaza and many Christian Palestinians were murdered in Saint Pophyrius' Church. Bethlehem also has a literal apartheid wall and the occupation has forced many Christian Palestinians out not including the original Nakba.
Also yes the erasure of us as a community was very purposeful and most people don't really know that Palestinians are known as a very highly educated population or that Israel was not a land without a people. My family owned a roastery in Safad when my grandma was forcibly kicked out of her home at two-years-old from the Nakba of 1948. Over half the population were displaced before the "Arab Armies" attacked. And because of the British occupation Palestinians already were not the most heavily armed population. The revolts resulted in them being essentially demilitarized and so the concept Palestinians "deserved" to be ethnically-cleansed never really was a fair analysis.
And here we have the problem of learning one sided history, a sin committed by both sides.
Did your family told you about the riots in 1929? how rioters stubbed women and children? or how about when in 1938 a father and his 3 children were stubbed?
Did they mention that Arab forces from January of 1948 to May attacked the Jewish population?
There is this idea on both sides that what happened it not there fault, The Palestinians ignore that attacks on Jewish settlement and the killing of civilians many years before 48, and the Jews ignore the terror attacks. displacement and massacres they committed.
In fairness, did it not take the threat that was complete annihilation to end WW2? Germany was on their last ropes from a complete takeover and their dictator had killed himself, Japan had 2 of their largest cities completely blown to rubble and made uninhabitable with the greatest military weapon in history. No country was completely annihilated, but the war didn’t end until complete annihilation or surrender were evidently the only 2 optjons.
Correction, Japan had virtually *all* major cities destroyed. The atomic bombs came after a year and a half of constant firebombing that destroyed like 90% of prewar Japanese structures in any urban area with a population above iirc 10,000.
Your example is bad because the issue here is that Israel and Palestine are fighting over the same land. Germany and France might have fought over specific areas, but in the grand scheme of things they were two separate entities. The geography of the Israel/Palestine area simply doesn't allow that.
That’s a poor analogy. France and Germany have been friends, they’ve been foes, they’ve even been the same “nation” at points, and WW2 was a pretty specific situation. You can’t compare that to two groups that have been fighting over the same plot of sand for thousands of years.
WW2 essentially ended with the death of Hitler, who is the one person that could end the generations of fighting between Israel and Palestine?
You are optimistic. I hope you are right. I think the analogy between Germany and France isn't the right one. A more apt analogy would be this:
1) Modern day France and 14th century Germany trying to get along, where due to lack of economic development, public institutions, literacy, education, and abundant religious and xenophobic indoctrination, Germany's citizens are devoutly motivated to hate France's population.
2) Germany's government is also unsophisticated in the art of statecraft, and essentially puts all its finite resources into guerrilla warfare against France and its citizens.
3) Further, 14th century Germany happens to exist in a 21st century world, and non-adjacent nation states provide Germany with 21st century arms, which Germany would not have the industrial or technological means to produce on its own, to attack France for their own foreign-policy aims.
4) Germany's citizens broadly are inculcated into a more-extreme form of religious belief that promotes waging righteous religious wars on France's population.
5) The constant barrage of small-scale attacks on France's population has cultivated a culture of fear and defensive posturing that has entrenched a strong right wing governing coalition with their own religious motivations that are unlikely to capitulate or cooperate on land claims.
In the above example, France and Germany are not going to co-exist peacefully for the foreseeable future.
>Entering the Second World War, one may have said the same of Germany and France. Today the countries are very close allies. Peace is always an option so long as there is a will for it.
And how did they reach that peace? Was it before Germany invaded France? Was it before the rest of the world crushed Nazi Germany for being a country that chose to kill people because they didn't care about other people.
Seems like, in this scenario, Palestine, (through Hamas) is Nazi Germany. You will never convince me that a terrorist state has the same rights as other peaceful countries. Get rid of all terrorist states and then we can have a conversation about peace.
I mean... not to point any fingers... but Hamas called for the genocide of Israel first and Israel is just better at the genocide.
When your government's official position is "exterminate them all" and then they suspend elections indefinitely... what exactly is the path to peace?
At no point did France ever claim the entirety of Germany or vice versa. Palestinians claim all of the land from the river to the sea, so there can be no peace with them.
My elderly mother was visiting the other day…my young daughter asked me “whose side are we on?” I told her we are on the side of the innocent which is on both. And then said, unfortunately, religion is at the heart of this conflict and “eternal souls win out to our temporary time here on earth” every time. My mom immediately chimed in, “the Jews are God’s chosen people and that is their land” to which I immediately followed up, “exhibit a to prove my point”.
War has turned me away from religion.
Your inability to sustain empathy for people experiencing a genocide is not a good reason to throw up your hands and give up.
If you think the Israel Palestine conflict has only been going on for “over half a decade” you should educate yourself.
There are many historical conflicts that seemed as intractable, but are now historical because people put in the work.
It was never officially declared that this is a genocide. This is particularly difficult to establish when the side who started this war masquerade their soldiers as civilians, and is also the sole source of information for the number of dead civilians.
Rwanda comes to mind. It's a miracle that communication and reconciliation have done much to bring that nation to peace. If only the forces that be could apply the same here.
firstly, while peace is not an option under current conditions, that's sort of a given.
peace isn't a very meaningful target on its own. everyone wants peace, down to the most radical terrorist. it's just that they want peace under THEIR conditions. the actual conversation is over what conditions that allow for peace are acceptable, and how can they be reached. if no acceptable conditions for peace are reachable, then peace isn't desirable.
conditions will change when one side loses enough that their conditions adjust to the reality imposed by the other side.
secondly, if it helps you you're already desensitized and Israel/Gaza has nothing to do with it.
there's a persistent massive famine in Yemen for over 20 years now as the country is breaking apart. tens of thousands of children are dying of starvation alone. Sudan is little better with its own civil war. of course you know of Syria and Russia-Ukraine, as well as all the human tragedies both conflicts have and are still generating.
that's just the more notorious conflicts going on, there're dozens of open conflicts happening around the world at all times, ever since before you were born
the truth is that you've always been desensitized to human suffering. many of the mentioned conflicts have been going on for decades, and you probably haven't been clutching at your chest and sobbing to sleep over them. the ones you knew of you probably didn't spend much time thinking about, and the ones you didn't know of you didn't care enough to seek out and learn of.
this isn't an indictment, it's natural. the fact is that we all have a pretty high tolerance to human suffering. it's just seeing it that we're not so tolerant of.
the only difference is that after a year of being inundated with propaganda your sensitivity to SEEING human suffering is starting to catch up to your ACTUAL sensitivity to human suffering happening.
It’s definitely not true that everyone wants peace. The reality of ongoing conflict is that it creates entrenched winners that benefit from the status quo of the ongoing conflict.
A few people have referenced the examples in Europe of countries like France and England, or Germany and France, etc, along with other examples elsewhere, like Japan going from invader to pacifist.
If you look at all those examples, a lot of it came down to removing certain elements from power (Japanese Emperor, German Nazis, various monarchies, etc), and integrating countries economically. This doesn't always work (see the attempts to integrate Russia economically into Europe), but it is still an approach with a high success rate, albeit over a lengthy timeframe.
I think there is a lot of reason for positivity as far as Israel goes, as you have seen the country integrate economically with a lot of the Middle East, and have seen a steady progression in relations. At first, Egypt was one of the biggest antagonists in relation to Israel. They had multiple wars and general hostility against each other for about 31 years after Israel declared statehood, and until peace was reached after the Yom Kippur War. That peace has lasted, and the countries have generally civil relations that have lasted for decades.
Several nations agreed to recognize Israel in the Abraham Accords, and the Saudis (another major long-term enemy of Israel) looked like it might be the next, until the current crisis. The current crisis can largely be seen as occurring specifically because Israel and the Saudis were close to reaching an agreement, which Iran and its proxies didn't want to see happen. That peace would have been unimaginable 50 years ago, but with a new younger ruler who doesn't care the same way about the grudges of the previous generation, and with economic interests pushing the countries together, the Saudis have warmed in their relations towards Israel.
It should also be remembered that a lot of Arabs live in Israel. There isn't an opposition on the Israeli side to working with the Arabs.
The difficulty on the Israeli side is that they are still a small nation with large enemies surrounding them, who are fueled by religious zealotry. This creates trust issues. If the Israelis could trust the Palestinians to be peaceful neighbours, there would likely be a basis for an agreement.
Unfortunately, the problem is geographic. The West Bank and the Golan Heights are the high ground that overlooks the core of Israel's heartland. The biggest part of Israel's population is in the Tel Aviv area, and that is low lying terrain just about a dozen kilometers from the border of the West Bank. The Israelis have next to no strategic depth, and can't realistically agree to give the high ground a dozen kilometers from their population core to a potentially hostile foreign force.
I get the idea of not wanting to take sides, but there needs to be some level of understanding of that strategic position. The Palestinians overplayed their hand in past negotiations, demanding more than Israel was ever realistically going to give (the right of return they have always insisted on). Israel's position has only grown over time. The deal they were eager to accept in 1948 when they were a weak fledgling nation is not what it is going to be willing to accept now that it has complete military superiority over Palestine, and is armed to nuclear weaponry to dissuade its larger neighbours.
As with the pre-WW2 rivalries in Europe and Asia, what needs to happen in Palestine is a change of leadership. There won't be any peace while Hamas is in charge of Gaza. A decade and a half of Hamas propaganda being fed to Palestinian youth has probably pushed back the possibility of peace by a generation. Palestine needs a leader who is willing and capable of getting the Palestinian people on board with the idea of peace with Israel. They need a leader who understands Israel's strategic position, understands Israel's need to feel safe, can push the Palestinian people towards an understanding of the realities needed for a peace deal, and who cracks down on the terrorist elements in Palestine.
A change in leadership in Israel won't do anything. The issue there is structural. There is no realistic leader who is going to give Palestine a right of return, and no Israeli leader who will compromise the safety of the Israeli people by giving up the strategically important high ground near the Israeli border.
I don't know if the necessary leadership will arise in Palestine, but during WW2, it was probably pretty doubtful that a necessary transition could occur in Japan or Germany, either. But, for the time being, the clear aspect is that the leadership has to change in Gaza, and probably the rest of Palestine, too. It is unfortunate that such a transition needs to be so bloody. But, then again, a lot of lives could have been saved if Israel had done this 15 years ago, instead of letting Hamas entrench. Putting it off just causes more problems in the long run.
People said the same thing about the Protestants and Catholics in Ireland
Or Israel and Egypt
Or Japan and China
Or [Britain and France](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Years%27_War)
Or [France and Britain](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Hundred_Years%27_War)
Or [France and Germany](https://www.britannica.com/event/Franco-German-War)
Or Britain and France and Germany
Or Germany and Britain and France
>going on for over half a decade
Half a decade? Pfft. The American Civil War was half a decade! How about wars that have [lasted for more](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgarian%E2%80%93Serbian_wars_(medieval)) than[ half a millennium](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman%E2%80%93Persian_Wars)!
Sure, some long-standing conflicts are resolved only when one civilization (or at least ruling government) is annihilated, and some of my examples are from a time when was were overall less deadly so the war's impacts were less severe to the society as a whole and could be continued for a longer period of time. But my point is that, especially in modern nation-states where stability is important, things can change, and they can change relatively quickly. Can in envision a circumstance where both sides will be like, allies, any time in the near future? No, but then again I bet 18th Century France and Britain probably couldn't envision a time they'd be allies, either. But can I imagine scenarios where they grow to tolerate each other, or accept the benefits that peace can bring? Maybe. The X-factors here are terrorism, which can't easily be controlled by nation-states, and Israel's territorial expansion, which seems to still be an issue. But if long-time rivals, who have hate not just politically but religiously or ethnically, can at least calm their differences, it's possible for Israel and Palestine to do so, too.
>Or Israel and Egypt
Notably it was when Israel surrounded the Egyptian 3rd Army in Sinai and could have wiped them out led to Egypt finally agreeing to eventual peace.
> Egyptian national security advisor Hafez Ismail sent Kissinger a stunning message—Egypt was willing to enter into direct talks with Israel, provided that it agree to allow non-military supplies to reach the Third Army and to a complete ceasefire.
Essentially when Israel is allowed to win the battles in wars it didn't start, peace occurs. When the world (US, USSR, EU) stop Israel from continuing to completion, we end up delaying the inevitable reengagment of war.
See:
Every 1948 Armistice Agreement instead of peace agreement
Every ceasefire in 1967, 1973, 2005 (Lebanon)
It's like stopping siblings from fighting with each other. You don't resolve the conflict, it will happen again. If you let things play out eventually they learn to live next to each other.
I'm intrigued by your use of the word "conflict" to describe a genocide.
Are you aware of the true history behind the situation? I think that needs to be established before your view can be addressed.
Edit: not sure why this was downvoted; it was a genuine question and I think it may have been misinterpreted as sarcastic. That's my bad - I genuinely wanted an idea of OP's pre-existing knowledge of the situation.
Objectively not a genocide and anyone who knows what's happening knows this. Don't bother with your articles about dead children or foolish international committees that have agreed it's a genocide. These people are delusional and have corrupted the term genocide. It's objectively not a genocide, because Israel isn't trying to systematically eliminate the Palestinian people, and isn't trying to eliminate Palestinian culture, unless you consider extremist Islam the culture of Palestine. If you believe that Israel is trying to systematically eliminate the Palestinian people, you're simply a ridiculous person who deserves to be ignored.
I can easily prove that you're wrong about it being a genocide, and that you have cognitive dissonance regarding this issue:
Do you believe that the Allied strategic bombing campaign of Germany, which was the overt Allied policy of specifically and intentionally killing as many civilians as possible in order to force the Nazis to the table, was genocide? Israel has no policy of this sort, so unless you believe the Allies to be genocidal against Germans, then you have no ground to stand on.
Additionally, do you believe that the erasure of Nazi culture from Germany was genocide? Israel never said they wish to erase Islam from Palestine, so unless you believe the Allies to be genocidal against Nazis, then you have no ground to stand on.
If you don't think the Allies genocided Germany, but Israel is genociding Palestine, you're probably just anti-semitic.
If you do think the Allies genocided Germany, I think it's pretty interesting that a country which was "genocided" is now a bonafide world leader of Western values not even 100 years after this "genocide"
The best case you have for genocide is settlers on the West Bank, which I offer no defense of and I believe to be a ridiculous and barbaric practice that must not be allowed to continue.
But I do. The Palestinians have been living in their land for generations. The Israelites, having returned post-WW2, have settled from lands they lost long ago. These two groups have been fighting each other for a long time.
Now the Palestinians face losing everything ever since the construction of the walls, having their settlements invaded by a-holes who really aren't supposed to be there. And while genocide keeps being thrown around, I still am skeptical of it. With how the media works, sensationalist news made it harder for me to take things at face value.
But if genocide means losing your ancestral homes, your cultureand even your lives, then yes, that is genocide.
Some of the comments here are genuinely scary and unhinged. So much hate, prejudice and misinformation.
I'm Israeli, yeah not a popular nationality these days, but let me share my opinion and sentiments on the matter as I see it.
Mid-war is not the time to speak of a true peace treaty. Even not during war, we don't have to fantasize about peace per se, but a truce and recognition of each side to exist.
I can tell you most Israelis knows the only solution for this decades old conflict is a 2 state solution. I won't get into what prevented it till now but I know that at least up until the current war, most of us were sure it will happen at one point.
It's bigger than being about Natanyahu or Hamas, it's not even about religion at this point.
I truly believe or want to believe at least, that we will see the day when the Palestinian people will bring to power a leader that will have his people's best interest at heart, will be smart enough and powerful enough to stand against the forces that work hard to instigate hate and war in this region.
The political map in Israel can change every year, the extremists are now in power because the stars of corruption have aligned but that won't be the situation forever, might not even last till the end of this year but definitely won't last after the war.
At some point a willing Israeli government and a willing Palestinian government will cross paths and decide to end this. Hopefully no PM will get murdered in the process.
Peace might not happen in the next decade or two. But it will happen, because there is no other option.
The last part about Isreal having extremists rise because of the war is so accurate and it's not only them. I have Palestinian family (I'm more naturally inclined to agree with Palestine because of this) and the hate a hear from some of them is crazy. When war happens it's so easy to hate and be cruel to the other side.
I agree, but not wanting to take sides is cowardly and in many eyes places you on the side of the Zionist occupiers. Restoring control to Palestinians is the only ethical way to restore peace to the Middle East. No puppetry, no outside interference. Let them govern themselves. If the Zionists don't like that, they can go back to their homes they came from.
Some people have an infantile mindset that Jews are rightfully there because it said they were exiled there in some mythology book thousands of years ago. If we use that same book, they're also meant to live in exile until their Messiah arrives. No sooner. The interference of western countries with only profit in mind has no business in any of the countries in which massacres and genocides like this happen.
Israel is a crime against humanity.
IRA/UK conflict went on for like 100 years, and Irish oppression far predates the IRA too so you can argue it was even longer. Just like Palestinian oppression predates Hamas or even the PLO. Neither is gone today, Ireland has it's state with Irish people existing and plenty living in the UK, and obviously English people and the UK exist too.
The Kurdish conflict with Turkey also started in the 20s after the creation of the Republic of Turkey. While that's still ongoing, it genuinely seems like things might end up in peace within my lifetime.
Time and time again in history peace has been made between warring nations. England and France, China and Japan (although they have their disputes, they aren't fighting each other), Germany and the rest of Europe, etc.
Listen, you're not wrong that there are bad actors who profit from continued war. But that doesn't mean we should also, as the general public, be siding with that. Otherwise we let countries like the US get away with another Vietnam / Iraq.
Just imagine it was your family in those images / videos. Your mother crying. Your child blown to bits or burnt to a crisp. If you were unfortunate enough to be born in a conflict zone instead of where you are now, that could easily be you and your family. Or if in the future someone decides to attack whatever (likely Western) nation you're in.
We should want peace for both the sakes of Israelis and Palestinians.
Where the disagreement is, at least with people who aren't hell-bent on destruction, lies with how people think peace is achieved. Some think Israel needs to conduct this excessive military campaign to achieve peace, and some think we need to end the military campaign to even start thinking about peace.
I personally think peace can only be achieved with a left wing government in Israel but also massive cultural changes on the Palestinian side, to the point they have to radically reconstruct their own culture which is centered around fighting Israel. Not only that but time and proving that they can run their own country. It doesn’t have to be a thriving country or a democracy. Just a place that doesn’t constantly attack a much stronger enemy, you know basic survival stuff. They have to move on from their defeats and build themselves up. That will take a lot of time. Unfortunately with climate change disasters looming over the horizon I don’t think that will be achieved entirely.
The pre-existing status quo is untenable, but paths to peace do exist. Many people wrongly assume that this is a religious conflict and so if can't be resolved like any other but it's **mostly** not about religion.
Palestine could tolerate Israel, but it it cannot tolerate Israel control over them. There are religious zealots who just hate Jews, but their ability to get traction amongst the downtrodden in Palestine is simply down to Israel's actions against them.
Plenty of people hate Israel or just Jews in general, but it's not religious hatred it's "You shot my uncle" or "You bulldozed my house when I went to work and then threatened to shoot me if I went back."
In short, it's a self-sustaining feedback loop. Someone blows up a bus. Israel responds by instituting new restrictions and guard check points and new military patrols which ultimately leads to some to the next incident that inspires the next person to blow up a bus.
The harder you squeeze the scorpion, the more it stings you. You have to simply let it go. Saying "I can't let it go because it will just sting me again" is ultimately the rationale that leads to being stung some more. To many, letting the scorpion go is "rewarding" it for stinging you. They'd rather hold it tightly and be stung than give the scorpion what it wants.
The solution is easy. The issue is overcoming human nature to implement it. Humans are vindictive and it's really hard for us take actions that benefit our "enemies" even if it's ultimately better for us as well. But it's 100% doable if some external arm twisting forces them to accept it. Perhaps it's more accurate to say It's not possible for them to come to peace on their own.
History of full if conflicts that have lasted literally centuries and now the countries or populations are closest friends or allies.
The question is what needs to happen in order for peace to be achievable.
Well there are two big changes that need to occur.
1. Palestinians need to not be lead by openly genocidal Islamic extremists. (I say openly because every leadership figure has publicly and explicitly stated their goal as the destruction of Israel and expulsion and/or destruction of all Jews from the region multiple times. Hamas, the Palestinian authority before Hamas, all the way back to the grand mufti of Jerusalem Amin al Husseini who literally worked in recruitment for Nazi SS divisions.
So Palestinians have to make this change and surrounding Islamic states have to recognise this and have to stop supporting these openly genocidal groups and instead condemn them and help support a different sort of leadership.
2. Israel has a parliamentary style government, but currently too large a portion of that governments seats are occupied by Jewish religious extremists and nationalists. This element of the Israeli government is the biggest barrier to sensible approaches to the very real problem Israel has of being surrounded by neighbours that want them destroyed.
Essentially while the left leaning elements of the government attempt to push solutions that would aim to build relationships. The religious fundamentalist and nationalist elements see no point.
They believe that the Palestinians and surrounding Islamist states and groups will only use Israeli attempts at peace as Trojan horse type situations in prefer to more quickly destroy Jews and Israel. So they view the only way forward as nullifying their neighbours ability to harm them.
So this view is obviously antithetical to the possibility of coexistence and peace. So this must change.
So peace is always possible but a lot has to change with both groups.
I'm sure someone could've said the same about the English and the French c. 1400 AD.
Obviously this isn't a perfect comparison (nothing is), but he point is everything ends/changes eventually. In the case of Israel/Palestine, since the founding of Israel the odds that either group would utterly destroy the other has decreased at a constant. At this point, with most of the most powerful nations in the world supporting them (however grudgingly and/or tacitly) Israel isn't going anywhere, and with a diaspora of millions around the world, the Israelis can't kill every Palestinian (I don't even think they want to/just want them somewhere else). I don't know how, but this can't last forever. At some point there's going to be some kind of compromise.
>I believe that the only lasting peace one side will accept is where the other is gone...forever.
Not much better but 'peace' doesn't require complete annihilation. There are many, many groups of people living under the boot of another people in perpetuity.
Are the countries of Indonesia, India, Pakistan, chile, etc. not at peace? They all have low intensity ethnic conflicts that are basically permanent. These conflicts won't ever get resolved, they will just be ignored forever. Israel/Palestine could easily be one of those conflicts.
Any scenario where conflict ends relies on being able to hope and work towards such a future.
A fatalistic acceptance of conflict will be a self fulfilling prophecy.
>At some point, I just stop caring.
If everyone were like you it would be a great situation for warmongers. If everyone cared, even a little, then it would be difficult to find the bodies to throw onto the pile.
I don't think any peace will come from one side eradicating the other. Peace will come from neither side fighting. That's all it will take.
I think that will only come from both sides deciding to recognise one another's pain.
What this would take is communication - which there's never been a better period in history to engage in.
I agree. The existence of Palestinians perpetually puts Israel’s legitimacy at risk on the global stage. Akin to many other countries that were established through colonial settlements at their root, their strategy relies on the eradication of the current ethnic population of the region. There can never be peace between the two, seventy years + of history reveals this.
I think probably some Palestinians want peace and some don't and the same is true in Israel. You don't need to wipe out one of the side, if you can to wipe out the war mongers on both side.
Peace is an option, but only if both parties choose it.
Peace is never an option between any countries. There is only a momentary break in war, there will ALWAYS be another war. The default state isn’t peace, the default state is war. Your life span just unfairly biases you toward thinking peace is normal, it is abnormal.
Ireland Scotland and Wales all hate England and rightfully so, now with Brexit Northern Ireland will reunite with Ireland and Scotland will become Independent. See you’d ask people “is it better being British or having your independence?” And because Britain was part of Europe they’d say “British” but now it’d make more financial sense to be Scottish or Irish than British because Ireland is already in the European Union and Scotland has been promised automatic membership in the EU if it leaves Britain. Wales should leave too I hope it does but I think it relies on England a lot because they are geographically the closest. It makes more sense to be European than British which is why reunification and independence will finally happen. Fuck England. TIOCFAIDH AR LA
You need to look at yourself and the way you're reacting to things. You're right, it is fucked up to become numb to thousands of children being massacred by bombs. But are you reacting this way because you *really* don't think it will ever end, or is your reaction just a subconscious way of giving yourself permission to blow this off because you're afraid of the consequences of picking a side and standing against it.
You name checked the military industrial complex, so you know that the US is funding and perpetuating this conflict and protecting perpetrators of mass murder. Assuming you're American, does your apathy come from the fact that both US parties support this? Are you repressing the idea that maybe you're complicit for participating in the political system that allows you to live in relative comfort while atrocities are committed in your name? Does it shake your faith in your country or even your identity as an American to witness what our government is actually doing?
I'm not trying to attack you with these questions. Over the last several decades, from Korea to Vietnam to Chile to Iran Contra to Iraq to now (including so much more between), every generation of Americans has to confront the violence that this country wields to maintain its hegemony. It's deeply uncomfortable to acknowledge it, and it requires you to seriously reorient your view of the world and your role in society, as well as to recognize just how relentlessly the government, regardless of party, lies to us all to make it seem like it's helpless to stop this violence or that its actions are just "mistakes" or "miscalculations" or "errors in judgement," with the assistance of a nearly-totally pliant, consolidated media owned by the same billionaires that profit from US hegemony.
Or you can just bury your head in the sand, like you are struggling to do now, and pretend all of this is natural, that nothing can stop it so there is no point in caring, but you'll never get rid of the nagging feeling that lead you to make this post.
1. This conflict has been going on for a lot longer than half a decade. The common start date given (aside from the people who insist that it's some kind of religious conflict going back thousands of years) is 1948, so \~75 years at the minimum.
2. Who is right and who is wrong is pretty clear in this case: Israel ethnically cleansed 750,000 Palestinians shortly after forming their state, they have corralled 2 million people into the open-air prison that is Gaza and deprived them of food, water, power, etc and the ability to provide those things for themselves with the blockade, and they have been building settlements in the West Bank in direct contravention of international law. Yes, Palestinians are fighting back against this oppression; yes, they are using unsavory tactics and targeting civilians. But if you go punching someone in the face every day for 75 years you don't get to be all high and mighty when they throw the occasional punch in your direction, and aren't terribly picky about the radical beliefs of anyone who punches back on their behalf. While I would obviously prefer that the Palestinians did not target civilians and kidnap/rape/etc, you fight with the weapons you have at hand and Israel has left them few options.
3. It's unfortunate that in your position of privilege you have become numb to the suffering of your fellow human beings, but that doesn't make their cause less just.
Peace has always been an option, it simply requires Israel to stop oppressing Palestinians and to be reasonable about the Palestinian expectations for that process. Israel has sabotaged the peace process on numerous occasions by making unreasonable demands (as, occasionally, has the PLO), but this is a one-sided conflict and peace requires the side with their boot on the others' neck to back down. Hamas could not wish for a more effective recruiting tool than Israeli bombs. Stop sending soldiers and planes full of bombs into Gaza and the West Bank, start treating them with basic human respect and dignity, help them get back on their feet, and support for Hamas will evaporate. Not overnight, not even quickly, but the only other hope Israel has for peace is the path they are currently pursuing which requires the genocide or ethnic cleansing of millions of Palestinians.
After living there for 14 months I would have to agree with you. The center on both sides( Arab, Israeli) wants peace. Unfortunately they’re a minority in comparison to the extremes on both sides, which in my opinion, will never compromise. Additionally, given the high birthrates in the Palestinian and Ultra Orthodox communities, the moderate center will continue to shrink, or emigrate. In a generation, it not sooner, it will be even more volatile than it already is. The children of Gaza and West Bank will remember, as will the children in Maale Adumim, Jerusalem. Climate change especially will ferment the conflict beyond recognition
We're a long way from peace in the region sadly. Two biggest hurdles imo:
1: Outside forces that oppose the west (Iran, North Korea, Russia, etc) don't want peace between Israel and Muslim nations. This is an existential war over way of life, similar in some ways to the cold war and communism. Tyrannical governments that oppress their people, especially fundamental Islamic ones, cannot let their nations slip into "liberal" ways, and trading and good relations with the west makes this happen. This is why Iran and Qatar are funneling money and support to Hamas, PIJ, and HazB. Simply put, Palestinians are being dragged away from peace for the benefit of the countries I mentioned. Proxy war.
2: Because of what I mentioned above AND continued bad actions by a small percentage of the Israeli population (criminal settlers and the politicians that enable them), combined with a long history of conflict in the region, Palestinians don't want peace with Israel. October 7 attack polls very well in both WB and Gaza. Hamas is popular. The PA, run by a dude with a phd in genocide denial, is the strongest link to peace with Israel. And their approval rating is like 1%.
I see generations of work ahead if there's ever to be peace. The outside push towards violence needs to stop, and the internal actions from both Palestine and Israel need to be focused on peace and building. I do think Israel can and will crush Likud in the next election and swing left, but I have no solution to my other problems.
Different cultural and religious groups that used to be fierce rivals can and have become very close allies or just generally normalize relations all the time throughout history. It just takes the desire on both sides, or occasionally something more terrifying to unify them, which is not ideal, but has historically worked very well to bring people of all sorts together.
the French and Germans used to absolutely despise each other, Same for the French and English. But changing views in the countries demographics, and bigger boogiemen made first the French and English, and then the French and Germans come together as close friends and allies.
The Japanese and Americans during and after ww2 absolutely hated each other, they had been filled with anger and resentment over 4 years of some of the most violent and ruthless warfare ever seen on the planet, and nowadays Japan and the United states are without exaggeration, two of the closest geopolitical allies in the world.
The United States and Vietnam also held extreme resentment for each other thanks to the Vietnam war, and now, while not exactly allies, we're on good terms with each other generally speaking.
Speaking more internally, there was extreme resentment in the southern united states following the American Civil war, I mean some really deep seeded hatred for the north, but after a while the two grew to come and see each other as one in the same again.
during and After Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait there was a lot of bad blood between the Iraq and Kuwait government, but nowadays the two have mostly normalized relations, even resolving border and maritime disputes in 2022
Those are all Cultural rivalries, so how about some religious ones?
The Japanese hated most of Europe during the 16th and 17th century (except the Dutch they were cool) mostly because of their tendency to push conversion and missionaries to those they traded with, this specifically applied to the Spanish and Portuguese, and now they're very good friends with each other.
The Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman empire were two of Europes most vicious rivals, having been locked in a struggle against each other for the better part of 500 years, but right before their disillusion they were brothers in arms, working together for the same goal.
The idea that two different people cant get along because of different cultures, religions, or accusations on both sides of wrongdoing is, at least in my opinion, very depressing to believe. I think its not only possible, but very achievable for any two groups of people who don't like each other to reconcile their differences, put aside their grievances with each other and come together.
Catholic-Protestant violence was the defining feature of European wars from 1414-1712; & even the later wars of the 1700s & 1800s had strong components of religious rivalry. Over 17 million deaths across 3+ centuries.
It's tricky to point to one thing that changed, but looking at the shifts in the Napoleonic Wars, then WW1 & WW2, one of the primary movers had to be that wars became about imperial struggles over colonial land to extract resources. Europe is less and less controlled by the divine right of kings, so the legitimacy of a church's approval of imperial rule became less central, and the economic & racial character of that rule became more directly the emphasis. This was unthinkable, then true. Of course, the economic aspect of war was always there - but it wasn't the way the majority of the warring populations *thought* about who their enemies were.
I can't tell you what the next world-changing shift will be that makes us recontextualize how we think about wars, allies, & enemies. I can't say when it will happen, or if Israel & Palestine will still exist at that point in anything resembling their current state.
But genocide is not the inevitable end of entrenched conflict. Ireland is an example - which is not to say the problems in Ireland are gone or that Ireland will necessarily remain stable. But Protestant-Catholic violence from the 1640s-1990s (& English conquest from the 1100s-today) have changed in form, & the problems have been repeatedly recontextualized. In the early 90s, the idea of religious & colonial violence in Ireland was the subject of science fiction - within a decade, it happened. Now with Brexit, there have even been speclations about the possibility of reunifying Ireland - it's far from a reality, but the shift in European politics & economics caused by Brexit made the unthinkable suddenly possible.
The change will come, & we probably won't see it coming (if it happens in our lifetimes. If not, the people who are alive probably won't see it coming either).
Peace isn’t possible until either all the Jews in Israel are driven out/subjugated or until the Arab populations in Gaza and Judea/Samaria aka West Bank are denazified.
When one side (the Arabs) wants as its best offer that the other side (the Jews) die, negotiation is premature.
I mean the entire Middle East is never at peace and never will be because, as far as I can tell, people just won’t share land and believe they’re entitled to things. I mean seriously…. You’re not entitled to anything based on something you believe in.
I think a full integration into a one state solution is the only way forward. 2 state won’t work and Palestinians and Israelis can contribute a lot to each other. Only problem is Islam doesn’t mix in with anything else so that is the real challenge.
One of my earliest memories is of seeing the news and there'd been more "trouble in gaza" I.e. dead on both sides.
I'm inclined to agree, totally incompatible religions fighting over their right to holy land. It will never end.
There isn't any conflict that ends in peace. "Life is struggle and peace only an accident". However there are situations that lead to _long "peace"_, if you call "peace" the lack of outright war and violent conflict.
Before Palestine that whole region was the Ottoman Empire. Arabs and Jews lived there back then as well but were ruled by Turks. Hatred between these groups existed back then too. There were [race](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1033_Fez_massacre) [riots](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1517_Hebron_attacks) [between](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1517_Safed_attacks) [Jews](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1660_destruction_of_Safed) and [Arabs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mawza_Exile) back then, too. But the Ottomans ruled over both, so there wasn't any open war nor any serious attempt at extermination because the ruling chaste would stop it.
It is possible that this war ends the same way. There were periods of peace in the Arab-Israeli conflict when Israel had military supremacy (like after their participation in the Lebanon Civil War and up to the First Intifada). It is possible that if the Arabs win the war we'll see, at least for some time, a similar arrangement with their ruling over Jews. Not immediate genocide but a slow and crushing oppression, up until they consider it feasible to finish them off without any serious geopolitical consequences.
So I think peace is possible, but it won't be a "everyone is happy and join hands together" sort of peace because that one doesn't and will never exist anywhere on Earth
I think it's possible if Palestinians stop educating their kids to commit terror attacks. It's kind of hard to raise a peaceful generation when kids between the ages of 12–22 are being radicalized to the point where they will risk their lives and their freedom if it means killing even 1 Jew. Many terror attacks in Israel are committed by young people who were radicalized by their communities and their families. For example, the 21-year-old Palestinian who murdered my cousin (18M) trained for months, had over $10k in guns and ammunition, and picked his 21st birthday to murder 3 people because he saw it as a "celebration." As for Gaza, it's common practice for UNRWA textbooks to contain things like, "If you have 7 Jews and you kill 3 of them, how many Jews do you still need to kill?"
In the early 2000s, Israelis had a very leftist "land for peace" stance, which is why they gave over Gaza—in the hopes that it would lead to peace. Instead it led to war, as Hamas took over and began lobbing rockets at Israel's population on a regular basis. Now, Israelis have shifted to a hard right stance, because they believe that they genuinely tried to have peace, for a long time, and Palestinians didn't want it. Now, I think it's the Palestinians' turn. As long as Israelis believe that diplomacy is useless, and as long as Palestinians continue re-enforcing that narrative, I do not see a peaceful solution emerging.
Half a decade you say, Hell it's been going on since the Israelites invaded Palestine under the leadership of Moses and Aaron. The so-called Promised Land is how the Old Testament refers to it.
> I'm going to speak my mind. Does anyone really believe that a lasting peace between the two sides can ever be achieved?
The abstract question is whether bitter "enemies" can ever find a peaceful coexistence. If so, how? There's historical precedents for that.
In 1944, the question, "Can Japan and the US co-exist peacefully?" would have seemed as ludacris. The flipside, can staunch allies ever be enemies? Saddam Hussein was backed by the CIA. Or "Could France and England ever coexist" would have been batshit crazy anywhere between say, the 1100s to the 1900s.
>but I believe that the only lasting peace one side will accept is where the other is gone...forever.
To this point, external factors like a greater enemy has made former enemies into allies. Internal factors like people marrying one another could lead to the divisions making less sense. That sort of analogy may be like Native Americans, who used to be managed by the US War Department, but now are full fledged citizens. Or say, African Americans.
> I just stop caring
Withdrawal is a coping mechanism for the anxiety it makes you feel. It's a normal coping mechanism. The anxiety/fear part of our brains are galvanized for action and there's little that we can do that makes a meaningful difference. The flip side of withdrawal might be donating to humanitarian relief.
I semi-agree with you in part because I don't believe the current process will ever bring peace. A two state solution just isn't working and will never work when Jerusalem is involved.
I find this entire premise flawed. The current head of Israel's position is that Palestine is not a sovereign state. They don't have control of their own borders, their airspace nor their waters. In it's current state Palestine is not a country, but a reservation for Palestinians who were displaces when Israel became a state in 1947. If Israel won't grant statehood and true independence to Palestine, then they have been waging war against their own citizens. You are framing them as a separate entity to Israel when they are not.
Us Versus Them doesn't apply when the person you are facing off was born in your country's borders. Imagine if in the 1800s you were humoring the idea that the only way to bring peace between the Cherokee and the United States was for one side to be destroyed; it was a popular opinion at the time but a monstrous one. It essentially always grants the benefit of the doubt to the most powerful side, and implicitly excuses colonialist projects and violence by the state.
But that is basically how peace was achieved with the native Americans, by America steadily growing in power and the natives being defeated so totally and utterly that they could never pose an existential threat to the American government ever again. It is certainly monstrous, but that's what happened.
I think you're attaching an intrinsic value to peace that just doesn't exist. Peace can and has been bought with the blood of the innocent.
But it is an option. It’s simple:
- Israel agrees to not attack Palestine.
- Palestine agrees to not attack Israel.
- There is a negotiation over land and an agreement is made, and that agreement is actioned.
Sorry to be so terse, but your post is quite basic.
‘Does anyone believe that a lasting peace can be achieved?’ Yes, everybody does. That’s why they are fighting, because there is something they want that they can’t have, that if they get they believe it will give them peace.
‘The only lasting peace one side will accept is where the other is gone…forever.’
This simply isn’t true. Israel doesn’t care about Palestine, Palestine doesn’t care about Israel. It’s about the land and where people live. If they each could have the land they wanted, they wouldn’t attack each other or wish for the removal of those people.
Obviously they don’t like each other - currently - because they’ve dehumanised them because of the history and how who has what land has what land they have.
But they don’t really care. Just like how Palestinians don’t go around the world finding Jews to murder, and Jews don’t intentionally go and find Palestinians or Muslims to murder.
Peace is an option. And peace is possible. It is just complicated and people are unwilling to let go of something they want. It’s taking so long because of how complicated it is, and because it is about changing an entire nation’s mindset.
I mean look at all the problems in colonised nations like America, Canada, Australia, with how they deal with their First Nations peoples. Imagine if in those countries instead of the First Nations peoples being nomadic and tribal based, they were actually conquering empires of their own right like the Ottomans or Romans; and the First Nations aren’t actually First Nations but there was also another empire before that, and it’s all mixed up. (Ottomans took it from the people there, modern Western nations took it from the Ottomans when the Ottoman Empire fell and following WWII. There’s religious significance for both people.) Occupation and colonisation isn’t a simple staining of everything. People remain. People retain their history.
Anyway, I don’t see how you can’t not agree and change your view on this, because simply and factually, your argument is incorrect. Peace is an option. There is a peace that would involve both Israel and Palestine existing. But at the moment it’s very difficult. It doesn’t mean it’s impossible.
I am a palestine supporter, but I do feel like palestine will be inevitably wiped off the map. They just don't have a chance largely because of the US.
Other countries just have no incentive to help Palestinians, the bordering ones are kind of forced to take them in. And if any of them get on the US's bad side, the US will give them consequences. The entire country of Yemen suffered consequences for the houthis attacking ships headed to Israel. US also put an embargo or something on Iran recently I think because of the soleimani thing. And then US put an embargo on Russian oil. Our country's government is a huge bully with a lot of power.
Palestine is almost wiped off sadly and offers no incentive for others to help it. Israel put an embargo on their economy. Other countries are far more threatened by the US and Israel than they are by the consequences for not helping palestinians. Jordan for example doesn't stand a chance. The king got criticized for shooting down hamas rockets that went over Jordan but not US rockets. If he shot down US rockets, Jordan would suffer consequences for sure. This massacre is on their door step. Hamas doesn't have that power.
I know this is cmv, but just wanted to put this out there. I don't come to this sub usually so idk how it works here.
The chance for peace was minuscule. Now with social media the chances have dropped social media. The information that 99 percent of people have about the conflict is 99 percent completely fabricated or exaggerated. The reality is there is massive antisemitism in the world. This conflict is a casualty of a deep and deliberate attack against the Jews. The fact that a country could be invaded by inhuman terrorists and have children and babies killed in the streets and then become the bad guy within a few weeks is beyond any conceivable logic. Unless you bring in the concept of racism. Every college has protests filled with "pro-Palestinian" protestors. These are 99 percent funded professional protestors and not even students at the university. Who is paying for this? It's not people from Gaza. This is a war of misinformation. Israel's biggest failing here is they lost control of the narrative by focusing all energy on a "retaliatory" military campaign when they've lost the publicity campaign by a defeating landslide. It's a sad deal for Palestinians and a sickening blow against Jewish people. The level of public racism has risen to a virtually European pre-holocaust level-and this is in modern woke first world countries. Mind blowing.
This conflict has been going on for much longer than half a decade. It's been going on since Israel was created. You're right, peace is unlikely in the short term with tensions so high on both sides. And many want to eliminate the other side, but many is not all. Or even a majority.
There have been countries with very bitter enmities which have managed to out aside their differences. Look at Northern Ireland. There were car bombs going off all the time. Yet now there's peace.
Or look at the UK and US. They hated each other during the Revolutionary War. Now they talk about the "special relationship" between the two countries.
Or more controversially, look at the US. They fought a Civil War between north and south. There are still distinct differences between the two states and political tensions. But it has been a war-free country for two centuries. That shows you can have peace without needing to completely forget the past.
There will always be hawks screaming for blood. But most people just want to live their lives. If peace returns (e.g. through a ceasefire), they can do that. At first, they'll tolerate each other and then they'll slowly forget as younger generations who never experienced the war grow up.
I get where you are coming from but peace is definitely possible. The world has had longer conflicts in the past, great nations have come and gone.
Israel largely has power because of US support and has no strategic need for peace at this stage given the asymmetrical power dynamic and widespread economic and military support Israel has at the behest of the US. They have essentially complete impunity for their actions. The US maintains this support so long as they have a vested interest in a geopolitical presence in the middle east (and also keeping rogue nations there under their control).
When US political interests shift or when it becomes less of a superpower, this power dynamic will shift and the Israeli government may see less need to maintain the blockade/occupation/conflict.
Extremists like Hamas only exist when there is something they perceive is worth fighting for, more valid political entities are likely to spring up in Palestine when people aren't being occupied/bombed repeatedly. It's important to know that local Arabs and local Jews didn't have a great deal of beef prior to the 1920s in the area.
You may think peace is far away, but far away is different from impossible
I think it's important for people who feel hopeless about Palestine to remember that Ireland was a colony of Great Britain for literally hundreds of years. The conflict over the occupation of Palestine has been going on for less than a century.
Sorry, u/el_valor777 – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B: > You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, as any entity other than yourself, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first read the list of soapboxing indicators and common mistakes in appeal**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_indicators_of_rule_b_violations), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal%20el_valor777&message=el_valor777%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1e004p8/-/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Sure, things are looking grim. But how does this conflict compare to other conflicts? Europe is filled with examples of long lasting conflicts: England and France has almost a millennium of wars: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-French\_Wars](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-French_Wars) France and Germany have been at it for hundreds of years, including two world wars: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French%E2%80%93German\_enmity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French%E2%80%93German_enmity) Japan has had grudge against the west since the 19th century, finally exploding during WW2. Today all the axis powers have been reformed. All the countries above live in peace. Doesn't the I-P conflict have hope then? Isn't it smaller and smaller in scale then the other ones?
I would argue that these conflicts are not really comparable. Sure they lasted for very long times but they werent really existential for either side and the involved factions werent competing for control of the same piece of land either. Fundamentally I have to agree with OP here, neither side of this conflict is willing or able to really coexist alongside the other and even in the west bank I dont see how youd bring about circumstances that would make normalization between the Isrealis and the Palestinians possible since the former will always view occupation of the west bank as a necessary security measure to ensure that a) No Iran-backed asymmetric fighting force similar to hamas can be established there and b) In the case of a war with Hizbolla or Jordan they have a geographic buffer alongside their northeastern border while the latter will thus always resent the occupation forces. I cannot, for the life of me, imagine a realistic way in which this dilemma could be resolved within our lifetimes
> Fundamentally I have to agree with OP here, neither side of this conflict is willing or able to really coexist alongside the other and even in the west bank I dont see how youd bring about circumstances that would make normalization between the Isrealis and the Palestinians possible since the former will always view occupation of the west bank as a necessary security measure to ensure that The same was basically said for Egypt, but peace was achieved when the times were right. Israel is normalizing relations with more and more Arab countries. The Palestinian state could be formed without a military (like post WW2 Germany). UN Peace-keeping forces can be put in the land. What you're describing are technical details, not the crux of the conflict.
Ww2 Germany was a conventional country where the army could be disbanded and civil servants could continue to work and then there was no real danger. In Palestine there is no “army” there are militant groups that are embedded in society. You cannot just occupy and disband the army like the allies did. And after that, you cannot let the civil service continue to work, as the militias are heavily embedded in it. Former Nazi collaborators could easily denazificaties and transform into normal west German officials. With Palestinian militias, this switch will be many times harder. Especially because they are part of an international conflict with countries like iran having incentive to destabilise the region
> The Palestinian state could be formed without a military (like post WW2 Germany) The Palestinians themselves won't support any solution that functionally leaves them at the mercy of Jews. Or really any solution that doesn't put the Jews at their mercy. The Nazis were only supported by about 25-30% of Germans (despite what their propaganda would have you believe). Hamas, an organization with functionally the same goals (kill the Jews to get living space for Arabs), enjoys north of *seventy percent support*. Actually creating peace between I-P is going to take some *serious* deprogramming. Mostly revolved around dissolving the Palestinian cultural identity which is defined by its antisemitism. Seriously, that's the only thing distinguishing Palestinians from other Arabs. Get rid of Hamas in a vacuum and the next militant Nazi group will replace them - like Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
They must get rid of Hamas, period point done. No UN peace keeping force is going to be a peace keeping force if the people they are coexisting with a militant group. You said it, formed without a military and that definitely includes Hamas.
The question is if that will make any difference. Hamas was elected and most Palestinians support it, according to recent polls. If you get rid of it, how long until something similar takes its place? The problem is the hateful ethno-nationalism (of both sides), not any particular organization or person. They're just a manifestation of the population's will.
The last sentence, they're just a manifestation of the populations will is very important.
>They must get rid of Hamas Yeah that is pretty much a given for any kind of possibility of lasting peace.
Sweden and Denmark has had more wars with each other than any other two countries, and today they get along. At least cordially - we still "hate" each other. But we work very well together economically and diplomatically.
From my understanding it's the same way with France and England. They'll shit on each other but if war comes they'd die for the other. Kinda like siblings in that regard. Please note I'm american so my perception could be wrong especially given our lovely education system.
It's broadly accurate I think, but I think the English and French feel like they have less in common with each other than the Danes feel like they have in common with the Swedes. There's a sort of Scandinavian unity that hasn't got an equivalent between England and France. A Brit in Denmark.
Southern Sweden and Denmark definetly is super similar. Plus our cultures are intertwined. The main dairy products sold in Sweden comes from a Danish company, Danish design is superior in sweden etc. The rivalry is definitely on a sibling level.
> It's broadly accurate I think, but I think the English and French feel like they have less in common with each other than the Danes feel like they have in common with the Swedes. Iirc, French used to be one of the (upper class) languages of England, and English nobility was, technically French descended.
Only post-1066! And, technically they were Normans. French speaking men of Norse descent that settled in Neustria (now Normandy) in exchange for an end to their brutal piracy and raids of coastal French towns. Culturally they were pretty much always distinct from the rest of the French. The influence this has is part of the reason why English is such a bastard language. There's a lot of roots from French - such as the reason why we call "beef" by that name (derived from the French "boeuf") and not "cowflesh", but there's a lot of roots from Old Norse too, like "skill", "bag", "gift", "ugly" and even "die."
[Obligatory Polandball ](https://www.reddit.com/r/polandball/comments/6pempo/a_tale_of_brotherhood/)
As an American that is definitely true even from my perspective.
I love the French (as a Brit) but not sure it’s reciprocated. Yes I’ll shit on them and they’ll shit on us, but I think there are just too many drunk-Brit-knobhead-stereotypes and I can’t blame them.
Makes sense, as an American, if Western Europe got attacked I'd put my life on the line for them. I wouldn't need to be asked because I'd take it personally. They're like my cousin. Canada is my sibling. But other countries? Their conflicts are sad, but sad from a distance.
Sports teams are now a great outlet for hating another country without wanting to kill them about it.
For real. Never seen more 9/11, COD lobby schools, bad teeth and dead Queen jokes at one time than during the England - US match during the WC
"Lizzy's in a box (in a box!) Lizzy's in a box" 🎶🎙️
There is no tooth fairy, there is no Easter bunny and...
You can’t compare it to the hatred Islam has garnered to Judaism which makes them unaccepting of Jews being equal to them in any part of what they deem Muslim land, this is a society that is built very differently than the west, it has beautiful sides and straight up bad stuff just as any culture but they are far more religious which means they are far less tolerant.. whatever hatred existed between Sweden and Denmark is not on the same scale.. Jews moved on from the holocaust and we today even love Germany, I myself visited there many times, it’s not Israel which is unwilling to let things be forgotten, we made peace with whoever wanted it, Egypt and Jordan are great examples.. maybe it’s not peace in the sense that the average citizens loves us but it’s enough to not be in flat out war..
In order for these to have happened, one side or the other needed to be completely dominated in a full scale war, to the point where there was a clear victor and loser. Japan, Germany, Italy. They surrendered. They didn't just decide for a permanent ceasefire. They lost and their people were told they lost. Then the victor came in for decades and force fed them culture change to prevent the events from occuring. And even now, Japan still does not take their atrocities seriously. There is a reason that China and Korea still REALLY don't like Japan. For Israel and Palestine to have this type of peace, Israel needs to win. Permanently. No ceasefire. No half gains. They go in, set up their own government and dictate the laws for the people. Any who disagree will be arrested or worse. But the way that the conflict is built up, no one wants Israel to do that, and even if they tried, there would be fighting non stop. Plus, there is a lot of external support in both sides keeping the conflict ongoing. Alot of people want one side or the other to win and are doing a lot of background work to keep their side in the fight. The large scale conflicts of the past weren't like this. This is closer to a proxy Cold war conflict then a World War or a war between two sovereign states. Till the other players stop helping the two sides, neither side has any reason to declare victory or surrender.
>For Israel and Palestine to have this type of peace, Israel needs to win. Permanently. No ceasefire. No half gains. They go in, set up their own government and dictate the laws for the people. Any who disagree will be arrested or worse. But... Israel doesn't want to do this. They do not want to give citizenship to 5 million Palestinians. That would turn Israel into an almost exactly 50/50 Jewish/Arab state. Israel wants to remain a majority Jewish ethnostate run by Jews as a safe homeland for Jews. They also don't want to just annex or occupy all the Palestinian land while oppressing a bunch of Palestinians (in this scenario they are not granted citizenship). This is a recipe for never-ending rebellion, and it would give even more credence to the claims of Apartheid. It's kind of what they are already doing in the West Bank, to a degree. Lastly, Israel also does not want a two state solution where there is a potentially unfriendly Palestinian country, armed and on their doorstep. What Israel wants is to have all that land to settle, ...but without the Palestinians.
> What Israel wants is to have all that land to settle, ...but without the Palestinians. I disagree. If Israel wanted more land, they wouldn’t have: 1. Given up the Sinai (including dismantling existing settlements), 1. Fully withdrawn from Gaza (including dismantling existing settlements). immediately after capturing the Golan, they offered to give it all back to Syria in return for a Peace Treaty. Syria insisted on the return of the land as a precondition to negotiations. Which was stupid on their part. Syria was saying, “Give up the only leverage you have, and then we’ll talk.” (Eventually they got tired of waiting for Syria to get serious, and the annexed the Golan.) Keep in mind that all the talk about a Palestinian State is to create something that never existed. Israel didn’t take Gaza or Judea or Samaria from Palestine. They took Gaza from Egypt and Judea & Samaria from Jordan. (And the Golan from Syria.)
Israel pulled out of Gaza to prevent the demographic problem that the comment you replied to described, according to [Ehud Olmert](https://www.haaretz.com/2003-11-13/ty-article/maximum-jews-minimum-palestinians/0000017f-ed37-ddba-a37f-ef7fefd10000)
Palestinians arnt capable of running a state. They’ve proven that through their extremely stupid decision making and constantly declaring war on someone much stronger while wasting resources given to them out of charity. While also refusing all peace deals which where historically generous considering the amount of damage Palestinians have caused.
They aren’t saying that Palestine should become part of Israel. Just like Germany didn’t become part of the UK in WW2. They’re saying that Israel should control the government of Palestine. This is a common thing that occurs after a war is over, eventually the government can be turned back over to the citizens.
>This is a common thing that occurs after a war is over, eventually the government can be turned back over to the citizens. They already did this. All of Palestinian lands (West Bank and Gaza) were under military occupation between 1967 and 1993. That didn't create peace but created more war and terrorism. Hell Arab Israeli villages were under military occupation till the 1980s. This has been tried already. Military occupation and control of the governance doesn't make peace happen. It pushes peace further way. The entire point of the failed 1993 Oslo Accords was turning the occupied land back over to the Palestinians, but the actual full transfer never happened and the illegal settlements continue to take more land and push more and more Palestinians into Area C of the West Bank, ie taking more land without taking the Palestinians. I feel like lots of people have suggestions that have already been tried in this conflict with knowing the history
>I feel like lots of people have suggestions that have already been tried in this conflict with knowing the history My reactions as I'm reading through these threads: "Oh, that's a good idea! Oh, never mind, that reply knows things. Oh wait! Maybe this could work! Ok, guess not." This region really is fucked, isn't it?
I don't think Palestinians want a two state solution either. I think the extreme right in Israel (and the current PM who needs to go) probably want a more homogenous society, but they are a minority. If you've talked to any Israeli's most aren't that racist, the concern with a United solution is the security concern that comes from the radicalized Palestinians (even if it is a minority of them). It's not all of them, but Hamas has had a solid 20 years of brainwashing, and obviously the settlements in the West Bank doesn't help either.
>In order for these to have happened, one side or the other needed to be completely dominated in a full scale war, to the point where there was a clear victor and loser. Japan, Germany, Italy. They surrendered. They didn't just decide for a permanent ceasefire. They lost and their people were told they lost. Then the victor came in for decades and force fed them culture change to prevent the events from occuring. I'm not sure that's either a necessary or sufficient condition. It doesn't seem to apply in the case of England/Britain and France, where the Napoleonic Wars were a clear win but no moreso than the Franco-Prussian War or WW1, both of which were followed by further war. Equally, while it does apply in the case of China and Japan (as you point out) it's hardly unthinkable that those two go to war again in the foreseeable future.
England and France though had common enemies and similar goals. Right now that doesn’t exist for Israel and Palestine
Yeah alot of people don’t understand why people are in conflict in the Middle East and just assume it’s always been like that.
> For Israel and Palestine to have this type of peace, Israel needs to win. Permanently. No ceasefire. No half gains. They go in, set up their own government and dictate the laws for the people. Any who disagree will be arrested or worse. But the way that the conflict is built up, no one wants Israel to do that, and even if they tried, there would be fighting non stop. Sure, we can go down that route. It might not be easy, but possible. Maybe the UN will rule Gaza. Maybe the Arab League. Maybe Israel. Israel seems to be very determined to continue the current war - so it might take Gaza. There is also another possibility. When strong leaders on both sides come there is a chance for peace. Netanyahu won't rule forever. Palestine is still waiting for its Sadat. No one thought peace with Egypt was possible - and then it happened.
Peace settlements bring more war. The UN ruling Gaza is not a clear loss for Hamas, and they will feel they can try again. Arab League ruling Gaza is basically a victory for Hamas, and they will try for more. The Treaty of Versailles did not end German dreams of conquering Europe, Soviet troops killing millions of Germans and raising their flag over Berlin did.
The issue is that the US didn't want to own the territory of Japan or Germany, and they had a strong incentive to get them back on their feet and on their side. Israel is small and has proven during peace time that they will back their settlers in just taking Palestinian land because they really do want the territory (plus obviously have no incentive to want the Palestinians on their feet).
I mean, the former Yugoslavia gave us the word "Balkanization." They haven't fought each other for over two decades now and there's no sign of violence resuming. And I do think the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is more analogous to the Balkans than anything else – both peoples are indigenous to the region, aren't going anywhere, and need to learn to coexist. If/when it happens, it will likely require a great deal of international pressure.
>I mean, the former Yugoslavia gave us the word "Balkanization." They haven't fought each other for over two decades now and there's no sign of violence resuming. Albanians and Croatians were chanting "Kill the Serb" at soccer games this summer. It's been relatively peaceful because the memory of NATO bombing them keeps it that way. If they aren't scared of US or NATO intervention you better believe there are plenty of leaders and people in the Balkans who would try to get revenge for something that happened 30, 100, or 300 years ago.
> It's been relatively peaceful because the memory of NATO bombing them keeps it that way. Not all the Balkan countries were bombed, only Serbia (or FR Yugoslavia at that time), and that was the only solution to stop a possible genocide like what happened in Bosnia. No one in the Balkans wants war, and everyone has learned a lesson in the Yugoslav wars that the only ones who benefit from war are politicians and criminals, the people will only suffer…
In the case of Yugoslavia there was a lot of ethnic cleansing. Serbian separatists in Croatia could be defeated once and for all only because majority of them fled after the Operation storm was conducted. Obviously, forcing people from their homes is not a great thing, but I fear that sometimes it is the only sollution. Someone has to go, or else get ready for an endless war.
I do think that both Palestinians and Israelis have a right to live there. For one thing, we have now reached a point where most Israeli Jews were born in Israel. And obviously the area is the birthplace of Judaism and the ancient Hebrews. But I do think it's a big big stretch to say that some American Jew of Polish ancestry, who has never set foot in Israel and neither have his ancestors going back 10 generations... is Indigenous to Israel. It's a bit like saying English speaking white Americans are Indigenous to England. I like your comparison to the Balkans though.
Why is it a stretch to say that Jews are indigenous to the land of Israel? What difference should it make if a Jew happens to be born in diaspora? Jews in Poland and the rest of Europe were told to “go back to Palestine” and those who couldn’t escape in time were exterminated *because* they “weren’t European”—and *definitely* not “white”. It didn’t matter that Jews had been living in Europe for many centuries. Now I’m supposed to believe the same people when they say, “actually no, you’re Polish after all and that’s where you belong. Go back to Poland, you don’t belong in Palestine” Look, no offense, but it really doesn’t matter to us whether or not you think we’re “too white” or where you think Jews should and should not be allowed to exist. You’re free to deny our history, heritage, and identity—you can believe whatever you want about us. But *we* know who we are, where we came from, and where we belong, and that is in our ancestral homeland of Eretz Israel, for as long as we exist.
Out of interest. What is a Jew of Polish ancestry? Do you mean a Jew whose ancestors were kicked out and they ended up in Poland and then wanted to return to their homeland. Jews came from 12 tribes all from that region. I'm a Toronto Jew with a South African mother and a father with European grandparents. I'm a Levi meaning from the tribe of Levi. My father's bloodline is literally dna traceable to that region. Unlike many local people living there now.
Jews are indigenous to Israel. period. Indigeneity speaks to the origin af a people, specifically the *where* Jews in Poland aren't of "polish ancestry" they are a different people from Poles that lived in the country Poland. The key thing is Jews are not *from* Poland and both Poles and Jews knew they were different. That's why jews had their own language that didn't even use the same alphabet
I am gonna say that there's an important difference between Germany - France and England/UK - France and Israel - Palestine. Germany, France and England is all contiguous areas of land (not counting Labourd, and even then England could sail there), while in all realistic views, Palestine won't be. This means that, in the short term, any peace proposal between Israel and Palestine requires Palestinian access to Israeli roads, as the West Bank don't have access to the ocean. Do you think that, keeping October 7th in mind, that Israel will allow Palestine to control a road dividing Israel? I don't. Do you think Palestine will trust Israel to not close the road? I don't. And if those 2 things don't happen, then any peace will very, very short
>England and France has almost a millennium of wars And they had a series of wars last almost a hundred years and eventually ending with England losing all of its mainland holdings (with the exception of calais but was lost in the Italian wars) >France and Germany have been at it for hundreds of years, including two world wars And peace was only installed after a crushing defeat to Germany with heavy regulations (and would have been total demilitarization if it weren't for the soviets existing) >Japan has had grudge against the west since the 19th century, finally exploding during WW2. And was only changed after a crushing defeat, total rework of their goverment, demilitarization, and forced american investment All your points only support OPs opinion lol.
the Nazis and Russians collectively killed 1/5th of Polands population 80 years ago. my wife's grandfather was a Polish soldier so this trauma is still within living memory. now my sister in law pops across the border from Szczecin to Germany every day to work and has drinks with her German friends at the end of the week. there's a bridge across the Oder that Polish and German cyclists pass each other on when going for a cycle. those that know where Szczecin was pre WW2 will know that it's amazing everyone is friendly with each other on both sides of the border. Russia, well, that's a very different story, but the EU really is an amazing peace project. so while things look dire now, Poland and Germany show that even the worst of enemies can find a path to peace, given time and both finding the will to do so.
I think we can acknowledge that France and England and the Danish and Swedes fought wars over reasons that were largely pride, Israel and Palestine are fighting a war of survival. It’s not the same thing that’s going to blow over in another century, especially with two religions that conflict so much
Comical to classify the Palestinian side as a war for survival when they were left entirely alone and at peace since Israel left Gaza. Israel is fighting a war for survival. Palestine is fighting a war of conquest.
Its almost like most of your examples needed a complete and devasting lose in a war, and that just will not happen again while others in the region benefit from their being turmoil
>Japan has had grudge against the west Forget Japan's grudge against the west, *Korea* and Japan get along these days.
Those other wars were between people of the same race over power, money, and territory. I/P is idealogy based between two very different races/cultures. Yes, all your examples. But there are just as many if not more conflicts that have ended because one group either eradicated or subjugated the other
I think the deck is stacked against them for a lasting peace currently. This is a long lasting blood feud that is made worse by an inflamed region where all the global powers want a piece of the pie with two diametrically opposed belief structures(somehow) that always give a reason to shoot first and hide behind hostages later. There's hope for peace in any situaton, but it wont be by the sword, and it won't be the west that figures it out. The only way we'll ever see peace in the ME is if the rest of the world stops interfering in literally everything that happens there.
it’s not about the scale of the conflict itself - it’s about the scale of the interested parties. israel has p much always been a military foothold for the west (but esp the united states) in the middle east, and the scale of the american military industrial complex means aipac has a disproportionate influence on american politics. in general, israel and america have a symbiotic relationship when it comes to weapons, policing, surveillance, etc. (gilee is one specific example, but the org deadly exchange has collected info about many more). and ofc non-nato countries would like to weaken america’s global military dominance, which is prob why hamas has had (iirc) some iranian, chinese, russian, etc. weapons (altho nothing compared to the tech the idf has). not saying it’s hopeless - just giving some context for why it’s more complicated than just israel and palestine alone
Wars with swords and catapults is a lot different than wars with rifles and missile launchers. If England and France started their wars in 2000 instead of the medieval era I think it would be a lot more like Israel v Palestine and made it a lot harder to make up, due to the huge amount of casualties and how much easy it is for people to just go and commit a massacre. More than likely it'd end up like the two Koreas than anything. No peace signed so technically still at war and both sides have thousands of artillery pieces aimed at each other.
This is totally different. This is more akin to what the United States and Canada did to its indigenous populations, what the UK did to Kenya and so and so forth because I could spend hours going over this. This is not two nation states battling for geopolitical superiority.
Not when the governing authority charter states they want to destroy Israel, teach children to kill people with an ethnic Jewish background, and are funded by Iran who sponsors terrorist activities throughout Israel and fund Hezbollah to the north.. there's no hope for peace in a situation like this. I also think comparing the culture of the Middle East to Europe is really a false equivalence, in the west we value de-escalation but in the middle east there's a hegemony led by Iran that values brutality and backs off when overwhelming force is used to demonstrate power.
External powers and influences will continue to prevent the situation in Gaza from resolving, rather there are just temporary cessation of hostilities. Imagine Japan/US relations today if some massive international organization forced a ceacefire after the battle of Iwo Jima. That war needed to conclude naturally in order for the relationship that Japan and the US have today to exist.
Apples and oranges. Palestine is a failed state where the original country borders dont even exist. Palestine lost the original Arab war in the first place which is why it is the way it is today. Gaza is a long standing outdoor prison, complete with walls on all sides trying to keep them in. Prior to this conflict even starting, youth in Gaza had absolutely no hope of ever escaping the country nor advancing in any meaningful way. Top that off with an extremist government whose primary goal is the eradication of jews (i.e. they're basically muslim nazis), and you've got a hellscape that can never be fixed without first dismantling everything and starting over. Even their muslim neighbors wont accept asylum seekers from there because they're all so radicalized. None of the nations you mentioned above are comparable to the failed state of Palestine. No place on Earth, probably even throughout history, is worse.
If there will be peace between I and P, the scars must heal thoroughly. A mutual understanding of the right to live. If not, they will be opened again, and again, and again.
Not really. Before the US dropped two atom bombs on Japan they burned 150k alive using napalm. After the war they shifted to reconstruction and reconciliation. Now the Japan is the US’s most important ally in the region. It can’t happen with the extremists in charge but it can. You need to set the foundation for peace. Sharon started moving towards it before he got sick and died. IMO the Israelis are in the position of greater power and need to make the push towards it. The region is exhausted by this conflict and want it to be over. The Saudis were even moving towards peace with the Israelis but now can’t because of recent events and how they’re viewed in the Middle East. The right leaders could make it happen but I’ll admit that the countries are currently moving in the opposite directions.
I think you hit the nail on the head. The allies reconciliation with axis powers started with complete domination. It was successful due to that domination followed by massive reconstruction. The same was seen with the US civil war and the reconstruction era that followed. In contrast, Israel has previously achieved that absolute domination. To the point of complete control over food, water, medicine, and even travel. The failure is lack luster if any attempt at reconstruction has been made. In the 77 years of Israeli ownership. From lack of utilities, to proving up extremist elements, Israel has keeps the Palestinians disadvantaged, creating continuing animosity. Unfortunately this is popular with Israel and it's allies. Polls of its people even show this is popular sentiment with its citizenry. A lasting peace will require more than signatures on paper but a change in the attitude of day to day interactions.
Yes exactly and I’m not sure where they think it will lead. They surely can’t be at war forever just to appease the extremists in their own ranks. It hasn’t made Israel safer or stronger either. War is expensive and they hurt themselves with the international community with the brutality of this response that has people examining the greater structure. That said, the right leader could pave the path to reconciliation and peace. Sharon could’ve been that guy as he was a strong man who was respected by the military. Not sure who that would be right now as Israel has shifted to the right in recent decades but I think it can be done.
No, that it! Violence without reconciliation breeds future violence. Future violence sells more weapons. It keeps the people in fear. That fear is the keys to maintaining control. Blowback isn't a bug, it a feature.
The key difference isn't reconstruction (you'd be surprised at the extent to which Israel built up the Palestinian territories during the latter half of the 20th century.) It's acceptance. Unlike in the case of Japan or Germany, in this case the losing side never accepted defeat but instead vowed to fight on until they conquered Israel as well as the Palestinian territories. The allies decided to fight to unconditional surrender and caused an incredible amount of death and destruction until they got it. That wasn't the case in either the '48 or '67 wars. The '67 war was decisive but clean. There were *very* few civilian casualties and most of the soldiers were spared.
You’re being very generous and that hasn’t happened in the past two decades. Instead, the Palestinians are constantly subjugated to brutal occupation and the extremists are in charge- both in Israel and Gaza. Just go read opinions and essays from the likes of Ben Gvir, Smotrich, and Lieberman. They want conflict cause it feeds their desire for expansion. Lots of the funding for the Palestinian Territories comes from the outside, not from Israel. Israelis pushing peace like Perez have been assassinated and the rest marginalised. Also acceptance is a two way street. The current government campaigned on there never being a Palestinian state and won. More international pressure, conditional funding, and a pathway to stability could move things in the other direction but it takes commitment. The rest of the Arabs got to a point where they want it and that is helpful. They’re busy modernising and this is an obstacle to the region advancing. MBS and the rest in power see that. UAE’s peace deal was a clue. The Egyptians and Jordanians still have peace. No other Arab country is significant politically right now. The Persians stand in the way, in fairness, but I think they can be countered with a unified front and strategic politics.
I will say I'm not an expert on Palestinian reconstruction. My knowledge of it is based on living condition in the late 20th and early 21st. Abhorently low access to clean water and electricity while under Israeli occupation.
Hasn't this happened already in other conflicts? Hundreds of years of wars between English and French. Nazi Germany - denazified and reformed. If it happened before on much larger scales why not IP?
Because it's rooted in religion and bolstered by presence in the area and on sacred land tied to the religion.
Europe has its fair share of religious wars [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European\_wars\_of\_religion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wars_of_religion) Israel made peace with Egypt and Jordan. The UAE, Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan have normalized relations. Saudi Arabia is very close as well. We can argue whether the conflict is rooted in religion or not, but surely they can move past it and reach peace. Why would peace in Europe be possible but not the Middle East? Why all these Arab Muslim countries and not Palestine?
because the place is run by fundamentalist extremism in its government and Iran since they deposed the Shah the West installed to quell this back in the late 70s
Peace won't happen all at once - but gradually. First Egypt, then Jordan, then Saudi Arabia, then maybe Palestine. Iran is in fact helping unite the region against it. The Sunnis agree to an alliance of interests with Israel in order to confront Iran. Also the current leaders of Palestine and Israel won't be there forever. Eventually they'll be replaced, hopefully by more peace-loving ones. Even Iran's newest president is considered moderate.
Peace never just happened. It is never natural outcome. It is constant struggle. We have biggest war in Europe since WW2 right now. Ukraine and Russia had peace for 20 years until 2014 Crimea annexation. Peace not happening gradually, it starts in seconds after massive events, it ends in a seconds after sudden invasions. Only way to make long lasting peace is preparation, deterrence, military alliances, and a lot of stockpiled weapons.
Other interests in the middle east are counting on it. This is why the Palestinians in particular were never absorbed by surrounding nations unlike other displaced Arab populations. These other interests want the Palestinians to remain a thorn in the side of Israel regardless of whether it is good for the Palestinians.
Palestinians were welcomed into other countries or absored and those countries regretted it. Black September in Jordan; Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Hamas started in Lebanon. Went poorly each time.
Europeans accept territorial changes, Arabs/Muslims don't. They claim the territory is forever theres and will kill everyone who is not them until they get it back. That's the difference
You've got to stop seeing each side as a monolith. The people on both sides aren't the elite and government! The only reason peace seems impossible is because you are looking at it from the point of view of a extremist minority. Most people on both sides are totally willing to find peace and are totally against their own leaders. Get rid of bibi's government on one side, or Hamas on the other side and all the peace options will become possible.
Perhaps you're right, but sometimes I think to myself, is it truly the elites and those in power that want this violence? Or is it a sentiment echoed by people as well? The media may portray the former as being the problem, but what about the latter? We are being capable of prejudice after all.
As an Israeli, I can assure you (most of) us would love to have peace with neighbouring Arabs, including the Palestinians. Unfortunately there's a loud far right community which is currently in control of the government
How did this far-right government get democratically elected and how is Bibi the longest serving Prime Minister in Israel's history serving over 17 years if most of you would love peace with Palestinians? Bibi has always publicly been against a Palestinian state and pro settlements in the WB. He's known for weakening the diplomatic Palestinians faction and strengthening the militant Hamas. How did he get elected over and over?
Complicated question. You vote for representatives from a fairly wide variety of parties. In order to form a government though, you will typically need to form a coalition with some other parties, since no one party has the numbers to do it alone. Bibi is good at making coalitions At least he was, for most of his tenure. Now that he's moved onto desperation to stay in power, he is making awful bargains in exchange for their support with the most extremist groups. This is how Israel ended up with the current mess of a coalition, which includes "former" terrorist Ben Gvir as the minister of the interior, because that was the condition for his party's support.
The same way trump.got elected in the US. Normal people living their lives aren't aggressively monitoring their politicians every minute of the day. And decent human beings who are not power hungry, and just want a functioning bureaucracy, don't run for office
Well, in part, the Second Intifada. Bibi was elected in the 90s and then **quickly** voted out. And then the Second Intifada happened and totally delegitimized the left and the peace movement for a lot of people. It’s hard to be an idealist when terrorist attacks are constant and your security is very much in doubt. Enough people moved right that the method of creating a majority government in Israel has resulted in coalitions led by Bibi. The people are not directly selecting him, like we do in the States. They vote for a party and if their party ends up joining the coalition with Likud to have a stronger stay in the government, the voter is stuck with what their list chose to do. Note that Bibi has had to reach further and further right to form a government. He didn’t previously align with these extremist religious groups, but he needs to do so now because people have shifted away from him and are moving towards the center and left. Or they were, before October 7th. While Bibi is likely done, no center or left party will have any legitimacy right now if they suggest renewing peace talks. It’ll be seen as a reward for terrorism and useless because the polling of Palestinians shows pretty strong support for the October 7th attacks and little interest in a two state solution.
In America we were able to elect Trump even though a majority of Americans doesn't support most of the policies he endorses. Imagine if Trump were a better politician, and better at building coalitions. About weakening diplomatic Palestinian faction and strengthening Hamas: At that time, Hamas was doing a lot of actually good public works. This was how the average random Palestinian would have had contact with them, not through their military wing, and they received broad public support for that amongst Palestinians. Meanwhile the diplomatic factions were (and really, still are) broadly seen as too corrupt to represent, let alone serve, the people. Does that mean Bibi didn't know what he was doing in supplying Hamas? No, and I'm not defending him, especially since Hamas appears to have almost completely abandoned those good public works in favor of militarization after some clandestine efforts by Israel. https://www.npr.org/2023/11/16/1198908227/throughline-11-16-2023 But this does mean that if I were a random moderate peacenik-leaning Israeli citizen or diaspora e.g. American Jew at the time Bibi was coming up, especially if I were just medium politically informed rather than super informed, what I would be seeing is that Bibi was 1. supporting a group in Palestine that was succeeding in getting aid where it was supposed to go while 2. being tough on suicide bombings. Given Bibi's ability to build coalitions and gather political support, that view of him wouldn't inspire the kind of strong resistance that would've been necessary to keep him from getting entrenched.
That doesn’t play out in surveys of both populations. Palestinians are not interested in a dual-state existence as an endgame according to the sentiments broadly expressed in surveys. I’m all for freedom “From the river to the sea,” as long as we are talking about freedom for all religions and not just a new place to implement Sharia Law. This region is the epicenter for almost all world religions, but I get a feeling that the “From the River to the sea” that they’re chanting about is purely free for Muslims.
People arnt going to like hearing about this but a devout Muslim population doesn’t want democracy or freedom of religion. That’s against their beliefs. Religious Muslims by and large don’t want secularism. Also taxing people specifically because they are a certain religion is discrimination. Minority faiths in Muslim countries often face other issues such as terrorism and a nasty habit of being forced to marry and convert. Most people in Muslim countries don’t want to give up the superiority they have over non Muslims. Palestinians are very devout Muslims and democracy isn’t something you should force on those who don’t want it. Disclaimer not all Muslims are like this there are Muslims who see Jewish people as equals and are perfectly good people.
My question is, if islam openly states this is the goal, why do other nations tolerate them. If they had power the rest of the world wouldn't be tolerated. Like if you're a white supremacist it's seen as bad, but if you're an Islamic supremacist? Fine I guess, limit your beheadings to 2 a month.
That’s the thing. We really shouldn’t tolerate those who disrespect the cultures of the places they move to. If I move to Saudi Arabia I’m not gonna wear a bikini and drink. There are tons of people from Muslim countries who are gay or not homophobic we should accept them.
People are so afraid of being labeled “xenophobic” they’re welcoming this bullshit.
[удалено]
> > This region is the epicenter for almost all world religions, but I get a feeling that the “From the River to the sea” that they’re chanting about is purely free for Muslims. considering that a more accurate translation of that phrase is "from the river to the sea, palestine will be *arab*", I think you've got a point.
How are Jews treated in every other Muslim nation? How and why would palatine be any different?
Well, there's about 4000 jews total in all the Arab countries combined, this is because the Arab countries force expulsion of over 850,000 jews from 48 to the early 70s.
Wonder why that might be. Is it because they’ve felt nothing but the shitty underbelly of dual-state existence for most of these commenter’s lifespans? Wonder why what was allegedly *the status quo* despite constant encroachment no longer satisfies the people who keep *losing under the status quo*. Suspect whatever you like about sharia law. The resentment to the de facto “solution” you’re describing has obvious sources. A complete failure to implement a reasonable version of it, or external enforcement of the two states’ defined boundaries *evenly*.
>I’m all for freedom “From the river to the sea,” as long as we are talking about freedom for all religions and not just a new place to implement Sharia Law. I know a lot of Palestinians in the diaspora and they almost universally want a single state solution with rights and freedoms for all. But Palestinians who live in Gaza and the West Bank face extreme circumstances, and those forces tend to be radicalizing. If you're a 14 year old in a Muslim community and you watch your older brother get splattered by an Israeli missile your trauma is going to manifest as islamic extremists views. Undoing that is a generational project but it needs to be done.
I mean it’s not just Hamas that’s a factor. In the West Bank Abass has been in power for decades and cancelled planned elections. A political opponent who called him out on that was arrested by his security and died during that arrest mysteriously. Also there’s massive corruption in the PLO as well. He also supported a naval blockade of Gaza in 2014 I believe to hurt Hamas and he stopped paying Israel for the electricity they provided Gaza in 2017 resulting in an electricity crisis for the year and cut funding for workers in Gaza . At least there’s the possibility of Bibi losing an election in Israel and we see massive protest against him and the war. But be it in the West Bank or Gaza Palestinians don’t have free elections or easy ability to protest. I don’t see how much can change on that end if there’s no elections or freedoms . Though I don’t know who would be a replacement and some believe that having more voices would make it harder for Palestinians to push for statehood and create more chaos .
>He also supported a naval blockade of Gaza in 2014 I believe to hurt Hamas. He actually threatened Israel that he would stop security ties if Israel removed the blockade. In May 2018. https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20180525-pa-threatens-to-cut-security-ties-with-israel-if-gaza-blockade-lifted/
Wow didn’t know that. Also there’s the massive corruption of him and his sons. 80% of people in the West Bank want him gone and he cancelled planned elections for a reason . I think he worried Hamas would beat him . And that was before the war in Gaza. This is a major issue with post war Gaza. You get rid of Hamas and the only other Palestinian leadership is Abass who will be hated in Gaza and likely result in Hamas winning an election or coming back. Palestinians need a government that has authority but also the trust of the people. And the only reason Abass is in power is because Arafat died . But Arafat died with a personal wealth of 1.3 billion and massive corruption. The hard part is Palestinians haven’t had democracy and have had corrupt leaders, without education and freedoms democracy won’t be successful but for that there needs to be leaders who implement it best. I wonder if there’s any Palestinian leaders in the diaspora who could be options but without Abass allowing elections what then.The best bet might be a Bosnian style overseer that keeps the corruption down. Some will say it’s against self determination as Bosnia still has it but Bosnias been overall more peaceful for it .
>Wow didn’t know that Because it's likely not true. The source is the "Palestine Information Centre" which is a [Hamas media outlet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Information_Center) and only cites "Hebrew media" - unnamed, of course. A political opposition group demeaning their competition with no evidence does not deserve much of an audience - especially when the claim is so substantial.
Thank you for informing me of that. That makes a major difference. Regardless his pressing of a continuing naval blockade of Gaza , cutting off payments of electricity to Gaza and of workers in Gaza is documented and known. And those actions as well as others mean I think it would be difficult for him to take over Gaza if he replaced Hamas. Without something to point to that they did the PA won’t get public support
>Get rid of bibi's government on one side, or Hamas on the other side and all the peace options will become possible. The issue here is you're equating a democratically elected government (like 5 elections in 3 years) to an autocratic government that has widespread popular support. Bibi is in power but so is Hamas. A democratic election on the Palestinian side would make things worse. Which is why the PA refused to have elections in the last few years (Abbas sitting on almost 20 years of a 4 year term). His Fatah would be consumed by Hamas in a likely 70/30 vote split. What you're seeing in Israeli society is it being less willing to risk for peace with Palestinians after every time they've tried they've been attacked more. You have generations of Israelis who know nothing other than failed peace processes and concessions
Wrong. A majority of Palestinians support continued resistance even with a two-state solution. https://www.pcpsr.org/en/node/823 If Hamas were given the means tomorrow, everyone knows they world murder every Israeli. Israel has always had the means and pursues peace. Palestinians are so radicalized that other Arab states want nothing to with them and have expelled them in the past for violence in their own territories.
Objectivly wrong, both governments were elected democratically. Most gazans agree with hamas that Israel should be genocided while most Israelis agree that destroying hamas is vital to their safety. Pretending that this war is waged just by the governments and not the people is ignorant, this conflict is waged by arabs and jews, not by secret cabals that their citizens hate. Israelis hate bibi for his corruption and palestinians hate hamas for stealing all the aid to themselves, Israelis dont hate bibi for retaliating against hamas and palestinians dont hate hamas for committing terrorism. The conflict will never be solved while people are virtue signaling that this conflict is actually a conspiracy of the shadow people to attack the lizard people and not the fault of anybody that lives here...
Not according to literally every single poll ever done on Palestinian support for Hamas. I repeat EVERY SINGLE POLL EVER TAKEN on Palestinians support for Hamas, EVERY SINGLE ONE EVER has shown strong support from the population.
I mean this isn’t really true. Since Oct 7 they have gotten more support, but public opinion can get very influenced by a war. Earlier in 2023, though, [this poll](https://pcpsr.org/en/node/938) showed that only 26% of respondents said they thought that Hamas deserved to represent Palestine. 44% said that neither Hamas nor the PA deserved to represent Palestine.
That same poll shows that the only person with a popular mandate is Barghouti, who is currently serving 5 life sentences for murder, and has called for a third intifada.
You don’t really believe that changing prime ministers will cause peace between Palestine and Israel, do you?
There's a difference between believing that it WILL happen vs it being POSSIBLE to happen. I believe it is possible, even though I don't necessarily believe that it will happen (soon... I believe it will happen eventually). OP's CMV is about it not being an option at all. I agree with awakenedeyes' POV that with changes in leadership, it is absolutely possible (and, considering \*most\* people in the world want peace for their families/culture, chances are it will happen at some point in the future, even if it's a distant future).
I agree this seems like a naive take but I do believe peace is possible. Some things just take time. Some things take effort. And some things just sort of work out in ways we can't expect (USA nuking Japan turned into a pretty quick peace due to the public's awakening to the governments propaganda and eventually became a strong strategic and economic partner of the US). Peace starts with believing peace is possible.
The point is that the people (who want peace) aren't in control.
Israel is a democracy, their leadership is the direct result of what the people think. The majority of Jewish Israelis support going to war with Hezbollah, not just Hamas in Gaza. [Source](https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-806578). Palestine is not a democracy, but public polling suggests that an election today would mean Hamas in charge in the West Bank and Gaza. Its understandable that the public in Jews don't feel comfortable with the people who did 10/7 being in charge on both sides of their country.
Israelis support war with Hezbollah because Hezbollah has been firing rockets and drones into Israel every day since oct 8th.
I’m not saying they’re right or wrong for supporting war, but the idea that the population doesn’t want a war that the elites are forcing on them is false.
Actually, most citizens in both Gaza and the West Bank support Hamas, so the notion of both sides are totally against their governments is false. Most citizens support the war, or for the most part support the independent rule of Hamas in Gaza.
Genuine question, not trying to antagonize, but do you really think that the Palestinian side wants peace? I personally somewhat agree with OP because I don't think the Palestinians will ever accept that they're not going to have the land between the "River to the Sea". At least not the current population.
>Genuine question, not trying to antagonize, but do you really think that the Palestinian side wants peace? Most people want peace. It is not fun to grow up in war, and I am sure the hundreds of thousands of displaced Palestinians would have preferred the extremists didn't instigate Israel. I also want to flip the script here; does Israel want peace? Why do you take each side's position on war for granted like this? They have been throwing violence at each other for decades. Pretty much no living person was there to 'throw the first stone' so to speak, but Israel definitely has better and more numerous ways to attack Palestine.
I really appreciate that sentiment, most of the people alive today were born into this conflict, they didn’t choose it. I try to empathize to the fact that the Palestinians can’t help what they were taught, but I really hope one day they will de-radicalize, and accept that there are Jews living next to them. I actually do think most Israelis want peace. They accepted the partition in 47, and countless land splits after that, that the Palestinians declined. Their current government is shit though bibi and the far right wing freaks need to go.
The idea that Hamas does not represent their people is simply false. Totally and simply false.
The Second Intifada didn’t begin under Bibi. It started in 2000 when Ehud Barak was prime minister.
I am half-Palestinian and we are constantly talking amongst ourselves and partners. Peace is achievable and we have floated around ideas of a one-state solution or fully equitable two-state solution. It feels like people often don't really have a lot of the basic knowledge or key facts and therefore it is very easy for people to throw opinions around especially deeply racist concepts at Palestinians when they don't really understand the level of horror Palestinians experience every day. So when there is daily harm and injustice, but you only pay attention when there is a larger explosion you will entirely miss that this is a political and land-based conflict that should be resolved through strictly fair, diplomatic means.
If it is as you say, then it's not being heard. People like me live far away from conflict zones. We don't understand nor care much about suffering until it starts to affect us more personally. All people see and hear are explosions, crying, and campus students shouting anti-Israel slogans. They see and hear world leaders condemning and condemning without putting their condemnation into actions that resolve conflicts. They see the graves of long-dead Jews in both America and Europe being vandalized by protestors. But what they don't see nor hear is YOU. Beyond the sensationalism and the suffering are millions of people who would rather just live their lives without concerning themselves with danger. In many parts of the world, that is a luxury. Pointing fingers is long past due. What matters now would be to come together and make a plan that both sides can use to prosper, even if it accepting it is hard due to all that's happened. Barely anyone outside of your community knows who you are as a people. They don't know your story, your aspirations, your beliefs, your faith, and even your humanity. They'd rather see caricatures, hear false promises, and cry "peace" without knowing how and what it entails.
My grandfather's family were actually Christian Palestinians so Palestinians are definitely not a monolith. The thing that generally unifies Palestinians of all faiths and backgrounds is the desire for fairness, freedom, etc. I want my family to be equals in the land. That is currently not the case and I speak with Palestinians who live in Gaza, the West Bank, Israel-proper, and in the diaspora. We are not mindless savages and in general you will find many, many intellectuals as well. We love our families, the PLO actually advocated for a secular state (which shows no one was trying to seek an Islamic state), and there are many fantastic aspects of Palestinians the world does not know unfortunately because the propaganda machine works extremely hard to create a dehumanizing narrative. It is not unique. Antisemitism is a form of dehumanization and in the Holocaust it was the most extreme version of dehumanization by calling Jews "rats" and using propaganda to allow Europeans to commit mass atrocities. Same with black people and slavery. Dehumanization is a big necessity to commit nightmarish situations. You cannot commit horrors against other people without first thinking they are savages and incapable of being similar to the average bear.
I really appreciate and respect your contributions here. I'm also half-Palestinian, first gen, and my family is also Christian.
Just out of curiosity, does your family’s view of the conflict as Palestinian Christians differ much from Palestinian Muslims?
I have both Christian and Muslim family members. No it is the same because Palestinians are discriminated against for being Palestinian versus their religion. A Christian Palestinian named Khalil on Twitter lost his young sister in Gaza and many Christian Palestinians were murdered in Saint Pophyrius' Church. Bethlehem also has a literal apartheid wall and the occupation has forced many Christian Palestinians out not including the original Nakba.
Also yes the erasure of us as a community was very purposeful and most people don't really know that Palestinians are known as a very highly educated population or that Israel was not a land without a people. My family owned a roastery in Safad when my grandma was forcibly kicked out of her home at two-years-old from the Nakba of 1948. Over half the population were displaced before the "Arab Armies" attacked. And because of the British occupation Palestinians already were not the most heavily armed population. The revolts resulted in them being essentially demilitarized and so the concept Palestinians "deserved" to be ethnically-cleansed never really was a fair analysis.
And here we have the problem of learning one sided history, a sin committed by both sides. Did your family told you about the riots in 1929? how rioters stubbed women and children? or how about when in 1938 a father and his 3 children were stubbed? Did they mention that Arab forces from January of 1948 to May attacked the Jewish population? There is this idea on both sides that what happened it not there fault, The Palestinians ignore that attacks on Jewish settlement and the killing of civilians many years before 48, and the Jews ignore the terror attacks. displacement and massacres they committed.
[удалено]
In fairness, did it not take the threat that was complete annihilation to end WW2? Germany was on their last ropes from a complete takeover and their dictator had killed himself, Japan had 2 of their largest cities completely blown to rubble and made uninhabitable with the greatest military weapon in history. No country was completely annihilated, but the war didn’t end until complete annihilation or surrender were evidently the only 2 optjons.
Correction, Japan had virtually *all* major cities destroyed. The atomic bombs came after a year and a half of constant firebombing that destroyed like 90% of prewar Japanese structures in any urban area with a population above iirc 10,000.
Your example is bad because the issue here is that Israel and Palestine are fighting over the same land. Germany and France might have fought over specific areas, but in the grand scheme of things they were two separate entities. The geography of the Israel/Palestine area simply doesn't allow that.
That’s a poor analogy. France and Germany have been friends, they’ve been foes, they’ve even been the same “nation” at points, and WW2 was a pretty specific situation. You can’t compare that to two groups that have been fighting over the same plot of sand for thousands of years. WW2 essentially ended with the death of Hitler, who is the one person that could end the generations of fighting between Israel and Palestine?
You are optimistic. I hope you are right. I think the analogy between Germany and France isn't the right one. A more apt analogy would be this: 1) Modern day France and 14th century Germany trying to get along, where due to lack of economic development, public institutions, literacy, education, and abundant religious and xenophobic indoctrination, Germany's citizens are devoutly motivated to hate France's population. 2) Germany's government is also unsophisticated in the art of statecraft, and essentially puts all its finite resources into guerrilla warfare against France and its citizens. 3) Further, 14th century Germany happens to exist in a 21st century world, and non-adjacent nation states provide Germany with 21st century arms, which Germany would not have the industrial or technological means to produce on its own, to attack France for their own foreign-policy aims. 4) Germany's citizens broadly are inculcated into a more-extreme form of religious belief that promotes waging righteous religious wars on France's population. 5) The constant barrage of small-scale attacks on France's population has cultivated a culture of fear and defensive posturing that has entrenched a strong right wing governing coalition with their own religious motivations that are unlikely to capitulate or cooperate on land claims. In the above example, France and Germany are not going to co-exist peacefully for the foreseeable future.
Germany was annihilated to an extent that makes the current Gaza situation look like a playground fight.
I’d say the situation outside of Germany was way worse, esp in Eastern Europe
>Entering the Second World War, one may have said the same of Germany and France. Today the countries are very close allies. Peace is always an option so long as there is a will for it. And how did they reach that peace? Was it before Germany invaded France? Was it before the rest of the world crushed Nazi Germany for being a country that chose to kill people because they didn't care about other people. Seems like, in this scenario, Palestine, (through Hamas) is Nazi Germany. You will never convince me that a terrorist state has the same rights as other peaceful countries. Get rid of all terrorist states and then we can have a conversation about peace.
I mean... not to point any fingers... but Hamas called for the genocide of Israel first and Israel is just better at the genocide. When your government's official position is "exterminate them all" and then they suspend elections indefinitely... what exactly is the path to peace?
At no point did France ever claim the entirety of Germany or vice versa. Palestinians claim all of the land from the river to the sea, so there can be no peace with them.
My elderly mother was visiting the other day…my young daughter asked me “whose side are we on?” I told her we are on the side of the innocent which is on both. And then said, unfortunately, religion is at the heart of this conflict and “eternal souls win out to our temporary time here on earth” every time. My mom immediately chimed in, “the Jews are God’s chosen people and that is their land” to which I immediately followed up, “exhibit a to prove my point”. War has turned me away from religion.
Your inability to sustain empathy for people experiencing a genocide is not a good reason to throw up your hands and give up. If you think the Israel Palestine conflict has only been going on for “over half a decade” you should educate yourself. There are many historical conflicts that seemed as intractable, but are now historical because people put in the work.
It was never officially declared that this is a genocide. This is particularly difficult to establish when the side who started this war masquerade their soldiers as civilians, and is also the sole source of information for the number of dead civilians.
Rwanda comes to mind. It's a miracle that communication and reconciliation have done much to bring that nation to peace. If only the forces that be could apply the same here.
They are still fighting just outside the borders of Rwanda. The 'forces that be' means ignorance.
It isn't a miracle, it's diplomacy, aid, and communication. If you can see a path there that isn't a miracle then you can see it anywhere else.
firstly, while peace is not an option under current conditions, that's sort of a given. peace isn't a very meaningful target on its own. everyone wants peace, down to the most radical terrorist. it's just that they want peace under THEIR conditions. the actual conversation is over what conditions that allow for peace are acceptable, and how can they be reached. if no acceptable conditions for peace are reachable, then peace isn't desirable. conditions will change when one side loses enough that their conditions adjust to the reality imposed by the other side. secondly, if it helps you you're already desensitized and Israel/Gaza has nothing to do with it. there's a persistent massive famine in Yemen for over 20 years now as the country is breaking apart. tens of thousands of children are dying of starvation alone. Sudan is little better with its own civil war. of course you know of Syria and Russia-Ukraine, as well as all the human tragedies both conflicts have and are still generating. that's just the more notorious conflicts going on, there're dozens of open conflicts happening around the world at all times, ever since before you were born the truth is that you've always been desensitized to human suffering. many of the mentioned conflicts have been going on for decades, and you probably haven't been clutching at your chest and sobbing to sleep over them. the ones you knew of you probably didn't spend much time thinking about, and the ones you didn't know of you didn't care enough to seek out and learn of. this isn't an indictment, it's natural. the fact is that we all have a pretty high tolerance to human suffering. it's just seeing it that we're not so tolerant of. the only difference is that after a year of being inundated with propaganda your sensitivity to SEEING human suffering is starting to catch up to your ACTUAL sensitivity to human suffering happening.
It’s definitely not true that everyone wants peace. The reality of ongoing conflict is that it creates entrenched winners that benefit from the status quo of the ongoing conflict.
A few people have referenced the examples in Europe of countries like France and England, or Germany and France, etc, along with other examples elsewhere, like Japan going from invader to pacifist. If you look at all those examples, a lot of it came down to removing certain elements from power (Japanese Emperor, German Nazis, various monarchies, etc), and integrating countries economically. This doesn't always work (see the attempts to integrate Russia economically into Europe), but it is still an approach with a high success rate, albeit over a lengthy timeframe. I think there is a lot of reason for positivity as far as Israel goes, as you have seen the country integrate economically with a lot of the Middle East, and have seen a steady progression in relations. At first, Egypt was one of the biggest antagonists in relation to Israel. They had multiple wars and general hostility against each other for about 31 years after Israel declared statehood, and until peace was reached after the Yom Kippur War. That peace has lasted, and the countries have generally civil relations that have lasted for decades. Several nations agreed to recognize Israel in the Abraham Accords, and the Saudis (another major long-term enemy of Israel) looked like it might be the next, until the current crisis. The current crisis can largely be seen as occurring specifically because Israel and the Saudis were close to reaching an agreement, which Iran and its proxies didn't want to see happen. That peace would have been unimaginable 50 years ago, but with a new younger ruler who doesn't care the same way about the grudges of the previous generation, and with economic interests pushing the countries together, the Saudis have warmed in their relations towards Israel. It should also be remembered that a lot of Arabs live in Israel. There isn't an opposition on the Israeli side to working with the Arabs. The difficulty on the Israeli side is that they are still a small nation with large enemies surrounding them, who are fueled by religious zealotry. This creates trust issues. If the Israelis could trust the Palestinians to be peaceful neighbours, there would likely be a basis for an agreement. Unfortunately, the problem is geographic. The West Bank and the Golan Heights are the high ground that overlooks the core of Israel's heartland. The biggest part of Israel's population is in the Tel Aviv area, and that is low lying terrain just about a dozen kilometers from the border of the West Bank. The Israelis have next to no strategic depth, and can't realistically agree to give the high ground a dozen kilometers from their population core to a potentially hostile foreign force. I get the idea of not wanting to take sides, but there needs to be some level of understanding of that strategic position. The Palestinians overplayed their hand in past negotiations, demanding more than Israel was ever realistically going to give (the right of return they have always insisted on). Israel's position has only grown over time. The deal they were eager to accept in 1948 when they were a weak fledgling nation is not what it is going to be willing to accept now that it has complete military superiority over Palestine, and is armed to nuclear weaponry to dissuade its larger neighbours. As with the pre-WW2 rivalries in Europe and Asia, what needs to happen in Palestine is a change of leadership. There won't be any peace while Hamas is in charge of Gaza. A decade and a half of Hamas propaganda being fed to Palestinian youth has probably pushed back the possibility of peace by a generation. Palestine needs a leader who is willing and capable of getting the Palestinian people on board with the idea of peace with Israel. They need a leader who understands Israel's strategic position, understands Israel's need to feel safe, can push the Palestinian people towards an understanding of the realities needed for a peace deal, and who cracks down on the terrorist elements in Palestine. A change in leadership in Israel won't do anything. The issue there is structural. There is no realistic leader who is going to give Palestine a right of return, and no Israeli leader who will compromise the safety of the Israeli people by giving up the strategically important high ground near the Israeli border. I don't know if the necessary leadership will arise in Palestine, but during WW2, it was probably pretty doubtful that a necessary transition could occur in Japan or Germany, either. But, for the time being, the clear aspect is that the leadership has to change in Gaza, and probably the rest of Palestine, too. It is unfortunate that such a transition needs to be so bloody. But, then again, a lot of lives could have been saved if Israel had done this 15 years ago, instead of letting Hamas entrench. Putting it off just causes more problems in the long run.
People said the same thing about the Protestants and Catholics in Ireland Or Israel and Egypt Or Japan and China Or [Britain and France](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Years%27_War) Or [France and Britain](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Hundred_Years%27_War) Or [France and Germany](https://www.britannica.com/event/Franco-German-War) Or Britain and France and Germany Or Germany and Britain and France >going on for over half a decade Half a decade? Pfft. The American Civil War was half a decade! How about wars that have [lasted for more](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgarian%E2%80%93Serbian_wars_(medieval)) than[ half a millennium](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman%E2%80%93Persian_Wars)! Sure, some long-standing conflicts are resolved only when one civilization (or at least ruling government) is annihilated, and some of my examples are from a time when was were overall less deadly so the war's impacts were less severe to the society as a whole and could be continued for a longer period of time. But my point is that, especially in modern nation-states where stability is important, things can change, and they can change relatively quickly. Can in envision a circumstance where both sides will be like, allies, any time in the near future? No, but then again I bet 18th Century France and Britain probably couldn't envision a time they'd be allies, either. But can I imagine scenarios where they grow to tolerate each other, or accept the benefits that peace can bring? Maybe. The X-factors here are terrorism, which can't easily be controlled by nation-states, and Israel's territorial expansion, which seems to still be an issue. But if long-time rivals, who have hate not just politically but religiously or ethnically, can at least calm their differences, it's possible for Israel and Palestine to do so, too.
>Or Israel and Egypt Notably it was when Israel surrounded the Egyptian 3rd Army in Sinai and could have wiped them out led to Egypt finally agreeing to eventual peace. > Egyptian national security advisor Hafez Ismail sent Kissinger a stunning message—Egypt was willing to enter into direct talks with Israel, provided that it agree to allow non-military supplies to reach the Third Army and to a complete ceasefire. Essentially when Israel is allowed to win the battles in wars it didn't start, peace occurs. When the world (US, USSR, EU) stop Israel from continuing to completion, we end up delaying the inevitable reengagment of war. See: Every 1948 Armistice Agreement instead of peace agreement Every ceasefire in 1967, 1973, 2005 (Lebanon) It's like stopping siblings from fighting with each other. You don't resolve the conflict, it will happen again. If you let things play out eventually they learn to live next to each other.
The fact that you think this has only been going on for half a decade shows your lack of knowledge about it. It’s been going on for like 70 years.
I'm intrigued by your use of the word "conflict" to describe a genocide. Are you aware of the true history behind the situation? I think that needs to be established before your view can be addressed. Edit: not sure why this was downvoted; it was a genuine question and I think it may have been misinterpreted as sarcastic. That's my bad - I genuinely wanted an idea of OP's pre-existing knowledge of the situation.
Objectively not a genocide and anyone who knows what's happening knows this. Don't bother with your articles about dead children or foolish international committees that have agreed it's a genocide. These people are delusional and have corrupted the term genocide. It's objectively not a genocide, because Israel isn't trying to systematically eliminate the Palestinian people, and isn't trying to eliminate Palestinian culture, unless you consider extremist Islam the culture of Palestine. If you believe that Israel is trying to systematically eliminate the Palestinian people, you're simply a ridiculous person who deserves to be ignored. I can easily prove that you're wrong about it being a genocide, and that you have cognitive dissonance regarding this issue: Do you believe that the Allied strategic bombing campaign of Germany, which was the overt Allied policy of specifically and intentionally killing as many civilians as possible in order to force the Nazis to the table, was genocide? Israel has no policy of this sort, so unless you believe the Allies to be genocidal against Germans, then you have no ground to stand on. Additionally, do you believe that the erasure of Nazi culture from Germany was genocide? Israel never said they wish to erase Islam from Palestine, so unless you believe the Allies to be genocidal against Nazis, then you have no ground to stand on. If you don't think the Allies genocided Germany, but Israel is genociding Palestine, you're probably just anti-semitic. If you do think the Allies genocided Germany, I think it's pretty interesting that a country which was "genocided" is now a bonafide world leader of Western values not even 100 years after this "genocide" The best case you have for genocide is settlers on the West Bank, which I offer no defense of and I believe to be a ridiculous and barbaric practice that must not be allowed to continue.
But I do. The Palestinians have been living in their land for generations. The Israelites, having returned post-WW2, have settled from lands they lost long ago. These two groups have been fighting each other for a long time. Now the Palestinians face losing everything ever since the construction of the walls, having their settlements invaded by a-holes who really aren't supposed to be there. And while genocide keeps being thrown around, I still am skeptical of it. With how the media works, sensationalist news made it harder for me to take things at face value. But if genocide means losing your ancestral homes, your cultureand even your lives, then yes, that is genocide.
You were likely downvoted for the use of the word "genocide," since that's not established fact at the current time.
This is a genuinely scary post OP
Some of the comments here are genuinely scary and unhinged. So much hate, prejudice and misinformation. I'm Israeli, yeah not a popular nationality these days, but let me share my opinion and sentiments on the matter as I see it. Mid-war is not the time to speak of a true peace treaty. Even not during war, we don't have to fantasize about peace per se, but a truce and recognition of each side to exist. I can tell you most Israelis knows the only solution for this decades old conflict is a 2 state solution. I won't get into what prevented it till now but I know that at least up until the current war, most of us were sure it will happen at one point. It's bigger than being about Natanyahu or Hamas, it's not even about religion at this point. I truly believe or want to believe at least, that we will see the day when the Palestinian people will bring to power a leader that will have his people's best interest at heart, will be smart enough and powerful enough to stand against the forces that work hard to instigate hate and war in this region. The political map in Israel can change every year, the extremists are now in power because the stars of corruption have aligned but that won't be the situation forever, might not even last till the end of this year but definitely won't last after the war. At some point a willing Israeli government and a willing Palestinian government will cross paths and decide to end this. Hopefully no PM will get murdered in the process. Peace might not happen in the next decade or two. But it will happen, because there is no other option.
The last part about Isreal having extremists rise because of the war is so accurate and it's not only them. I have Palestinian family (I'm more naturally inclined to agree with Palestine because of this) and the hate a hear from some of them is crazy. When war happens it's so easy to hate and be cruel to the other side.
The more I read on Reddit the smarter my dog seems.
I agree, but not wanting to take sides is cowardly and in many eyes places you on the side of the Zionist occupiers. Restoring control to Palestinians is the only ethical way to restore peace to the Middle East. No puppetry, no outside interference. Let them govern themselves. If the Zionists don't like that, they can go back to their homes they came from. Some people have an infantile mindset that Jews are rightfully there because it said they were exiled there in some mythology book thousands of years ago. If we use that same book, they're also meant to live in exile until their Messiah arrives. No sooner. The interference of western countries with only profit in mind has no business in any of the countries in which massacres and genocides like this happen. Israel is a crime against humanity.
IRA/UK conflict went on for like 100 years, and Irish oppression far predates the IRA too so you can argue it was even longer. Just like Palestinian oppression predates Hamas or even the PLO. Neither is gone today, Ireland has it's state with Irish people existing and plenty living in the UK, and obviously English people and the UK exist too. The Kurdish conflict with Turkey also started in the 20s after the creation of the Republic of Turkey. While that's still ongoing, it genuinely seems like things might end up in peace within my lifetime. Time and time again in history peace has been made between warring nations. England and France, China and Japan (although they have their disputes, they aren't fighting each other), Germany and the rest of Europe, etc. Listen, you're not wrong that there are bad actors who profit from continued war. But that doesn't mean we should also, as the general public, be siding with that. Otherwise we let countries like the US get away with another Vietnam / Iraq. Just imagine it was your family in those images / videos. Your mother crying. Your child blown to bits or burnt to a crisp. If you were unfortunate enough to be born in a conflict zone instead of where you are now, that could easily be you and your family. Or if in the future someone decides to attack whatever (likely Western) nation you're in. We should want peace for both the sakes of Israelis and Palestinians. Where the disagreement is, at least with people who aren't hell-bent on destruction, lies with how people think peace is achieved. Some think Israel needs to conduct this excessive military campaign to achieve peace, and some think we need to end the military campaign to even start thinking about peace.
I personally think peace can only be achieved with a left wing government in Israel but also massive cultural changes on the Palestinian side, to the point they have to radically reconstruct their own culture which is centered around fighting Israel. Not only that but time and proving that they can run their own country. It doesn’t have to be a thriving country or a democracy. Just a place that doesn’t constantly attack a much stronger enemy, you know basic survival stuff. They have to move on from their defeats and build themselves up. That will take a lot of time. Unfortunately with climate change disasters looming over the horizon I don’t think that will be achieved entirely.
The pre-existing status quo is untenable, but paths to peace do exist. Many people wrongly assume that this is a religious conflict and so if can't be resolved like any other but it's **mostly** not about religion. Palestine could tolerate Israel, but it it cannot tolerate Israel control over them. There are religious zealots who just hate Jews, but their ability to get traction amongst the downtrodden in Palestine is simply down to Israel's actions against them. Plenty of people hate Israel or just Jews in general, but it's not religious hatred it's "You shot my uncle" or "You bulldozed my house when I went to work and then threatened to shoot me if I went back." In short, it's a self-sustaining feedback loop. Someone blows up a bus. Israel responds by instituting new restrictions and guard check points and new military patrols which ultimately leads to some to the next incident that inspires the next person to blow up a bus. The harder you squeeze the scorpion, the more it stings you. You have to simply let it go. Saying "I can't let it go because it will just sting me again" is ultimately the rationale that leads to being stung some more. To many, letting the scorpion go is "rewarding" it for stinging you. They'd rather hold it tightly and be stung than give the scorpion what it wants. The solution is easy. The issue is overcoming human nature to implement it. Humans are vindictive and it's really hard for us take actions that benefit our "enemies" even if it's ultimately better for us as well. But it's 100% doable if some external arm twisting forces them to accept it. Perhaps it's more accurate to say It's not possible for them to come to peace on their own.
History of full if conflicts that have lasted literally centuries and now the countries or populations are closest friends or allies. The question is what needs to happen in order for peace to be achievable. Well there are two big changes that need to occur. 1. Palestinians need to not be lead by openly genocidal Islamic extremists. (I say openly because every leadership figure has publicly and explicitly stated their goal as the destruction of Israel and expulsion and/or destruction of all Jews from the region multiple times. Hamas, the Palestinian authority before Hamas, all the way back to the grand mufti of Jerusalem Amin al Husseini who literally worked in recruitment for Nazi SS divisions. So Palestinians have to make this change and surrounding Islamic states have to recognise this and have to stop supporting these openly genocidal groups and instead condemn them and help support a different sort of leadership. 2. Israel has a parliamentary style government, but currently too large a portion of that governments seats are occupied by Jewish religious extremists and nationalists. This element of the Israeli government is the biggest barrier to sensible approaches to the very real problem Israel has of being surrounded by neighbours that want them destroyed. Essentially while the left leaning elements of the government attempt to push solutions that would aim to build relationships. The religious fundamentalist and nationalist elements see no point. They believe that the Palestinians and surrounding Islamist states and groups will only use Israeli attempts at peace as Trojan horse type situations in prefer to more quickly destroy Jews and Israel. So they view the only way forward as nullifying their neighbours ability to harm them. So this view is obviously antithetical to the possibility of coexistence and peace. So this must change. So peace is always possible but a lot has to change with both groups.
I'm sure someone could've said the same about the English and the French c. 1400 AD. Obviously this isn't a perfect comparison (nothing is), but he point is everything ends/changes eventually. In the case of Israel/Palestine, since the founding of Israel the odds that either group would utterly destroy the other has decreased at a constant. At this point, with most of the most powerful nations in the world supporting them (however grudgingly and/or tacitly) Israel isn't going anywhere, and with a diaspora of millions around the world, the Israelis can't kill every Palestinian (I don't even think they want to/just want them somewhere else). I don't know how, but this can't last forever. At some point there's going to be some kind of compromise.
This has been going on for way longer than half a decade. More like half a century.
>I believe that the only lasting peace one side will accept is where the other is gone...forever. Not much better but 'peace' doesn't require complete annihilation. There are many, many groups of people living under the boot of another people in perpetuity. Are the countries of Indonesia, India, Pakistan, chile, etc. not at peace? They all have low intensity ethnic conflicts that are basically permanent. These conflicts won't ever get resolved, they will just be ignored forever. Israel/Palestine could easily be one of those conflicts.
Any scenario where conflict ends relies on being able to hope and work towards such a future. A fatalistic acceptance of conflict will be a self fulfilling prophecy. >At some point, I just stop caring. If everyone were like you it would be a great situation for warmongers. If everyone cared, even a little, then it would be difficult to find the bodies to throw onto the pile. I don't think any peace will come from one side eradicating the other. Peace will come from neither side fighting. That's all it will take. I think that will only come from both sides deciding to recognise one another's pain. What this would take is communication - which there's never been a better period in history to engage in.
I agree. The existence of Palestinians perpetually puts Israel’s legitimacy at risk on the global stage. Akin to many other countries that were established through colonial settlements at their root, their strategy relies on the eradication of the current ethnic population of the region. There can never be peace between the two, seventy years + of history reveals this.
I think probably some Palestinians want peace and some don't and the same is true in Israel. You don't need to wipe out one of the side, if you can to wipe out the war mongers on both side. Peace is an option, but only if both parties choose it.
Peace is never an option between any countries. There is only a momentary break in war, there will ALWAYS be another war. The default state isn’t peace, the default state is war. Your life span just unfairly biases you toward thinking peace is normal, it is abnormal.
Ireland Scotland and Wales all hate England and rightfully so, now with Brexit Northern Ireland will reunite with Ireland and Scotland will become Independent. See you’d ask people “is it better being British or having your independence?” And because Britain was part of Europe they’d say “British” but now it’d make more financial sense to be Scottish or Irish than British because Ireland is already in the European Union and Scotland has been promised automatic membership in the EU if it leaves Britain. Wales should leave too I hope it does but I think it relies on England a lot because they are geographically the closest. It makes more sense to be European than British which is why reunification and independence will finally happen. Fuck England. TIOCFAIDH AR LA
You need to look at yourself and the way you're reacting to things. You're right, it is fucked up to become numb to thousands of children being massacred by bombs. But are you reacting this way because you *really* don't think it will ever end, or is your reaction just a subconscious way of giving yourself permission to blow this off because you're afraid of the consequences of picking a side and standing against it. You name checked the military industrial complex, so you know that the US is funding and perpetuating this conflict and protecting perpetrators of mass murder. Assuming you're American, does your apathy come from the fact that both US parties support this? Are you repressing the idea that maybe you're complicit for participating in the political system that allows you to live in relative comfort while atrocities are committed in your name? Does it shake your faith in your country or even your identity as an American to witness what our government is actually doing? I'm not trying to attack you with these questions. Over the last several decades, from Korea to Vietnam to Chile to Iran Contra to Iraq to now (including so much more between), every generation of Americans has to confront the violence that this country wields to maintain its hegemony. It's deeply uncomfortable to acknowledge it, and it requires you to seriously reorient your view of the world and your role in society, as well as to recognize just how relentlessly the government, regardless of party, lies to us all to make it seem like it's helpless to stop this violence or that its actions are just "mistakes" or "miscalculations" or "errors in judgement," with the assistance of a nearly-totally pliant, consolidated media owned by the same billionaires that profit from US hegemony. Or you can just bury your head in the sand, like you are struggling to do now, and pretend all of this is natural, that nothing can stop it so there is no point in caring, but you'll never get rid of the nagging feeling that lead you to make this post.
1. This conflict has been going on for a lot longer than half a decade. The common start date given (aside from the people who insist that it's some kind of religious conflict going back thousands of years) is 1948, so \~75 years at the minimum. 2. Who is right and who is wrong is pretty clear in this case: Israel ethnically cleansed 750,000 Palestinians shortly after forming their state, they have corralled 2 million people into the open-air prison that is Gaza and deprived them of food, water, power, etc and the ability to provide those things for themselves with the blockade, and they have been building settlements in the West Bank in direct contravention of international law. Yes, Palestinians are fighting back against this oppression; yes, they are using unsavory tactics and targeting civilians. But if you go punching someone in the face every day for 75 years you don't get to be all high and mighty when they throw the occasional punch in your direction, and aren't terribly picky about the radical beliefs of anyone who punches back on their behalf. While I would obviously prefer that the Palestinians did not target civilians and kidnap/rape/etc, you fight with the weapons you have at hand and Israel has left them few options. 3. It's unfortunate that in your position of privilege you have become numb to the suffering of your fellow human beings, but that doesn't make their cause less just. Peace has always been an option, it simply requires Israel to stop oppressing Palestinians and to be reasonable about the Palestinian expectations for that process. Israel has sabotaged the peace process on numerous occasions by making unreasonable demands (as, occasionally, has the PLO), but this is a one-sided conflict and peace requires the side with their boot on the others' neck to back down. Hamas could not wish for a more effective recruiting tool than Israeli bombs. Stop sending soldiers and planes full of bombs into Gaza and the West Bank, start treating them with basic human respect and dignity, help them get back on their feet, and support for Hamas will evaporate. Not overnight, not even quickly, but the only other hope Israel has for peace is the path they are currently pursuing which requires the genocide or ethnic cleansing of millions of Palestinians.
After living there for 14 months I would have to agree with you. The center on both sides( Arab, Israeli) wants peace. Unfortunately they’re a minority in comparison to the extremes on both sides, which in my opinion, will never compromise. Additionally, given the high birthrates in the Palestinian and Ultra Orthodox communities, the moderate center will continue to shrink, or emigrate. In a generation, it not sooner, it will be even more volatile than it already is. The children of Gaza and West Bank will remember, as will the children in Maale Adumim, Jerusalem. Climate change especially will ferment the conflict beyond recognition
We're a long way from peace in the region sadly. Two biggest hurdles imo: 1: Outside forces that oppose the west (Iran, North Korea, Russia, etc) don't want peace between Israel and Muslim nations. This is an existential war over way of life, similar in some ways to the cold war and communism. Tyrannical governments that oppress their people, especially fundamental Islamic ones, cannot let their nations slip into "liberal" ways, and trading and good relations with the west makes this happen. This is why Iran and Qatar are funneling money and support to Hamas, PIJ, and HazB. Simply put, Palestinians are being dragged away from peace for the benefit of the countries I mentioned. Proxy war. 2: Because of what I mentioned above AND continued bad actions by a small percentage of the Israeli population (criminal settlers and the politicians that enable them), combined with a long history of conflict in the region, Palestinians don't want peace with Israel. October 7 attack polls very well in both WB and Gaza. Hamas is popular. The PA, run by a dude with a phd in genocide denial, is the strongest link to peace with Israel. And their approval rating is like 1%. I see generations of work ahead if there's ever to be peace. The outside push towards violence needs to stop, and the internal actions from both Palestine and Israel need to be focused on peace and building. I do think Israel can and will crush Likud in the next election and swing left, but I have no solution to my other problems.
Different cultural and religious groups that used to be fierce rivals can and have become very close allies or just generally normalize relations all the time throughout history. It just takes the desire on both sides, or occasionally something more terrifying to unify them, which is not ideal, but has historically worked very well to bring people of all sorts together. the French and Germans used to absolutely despise each other, Same for the French and English. But changing views in the countries demographics, and bigger boogiemen made first the French and English, and then the French and Germans come together as close friends and allies. The Japanese and Americans during and after ww2 absolutely hated each other, they had been filled with anger and resentment over 4 years of some of the most violent and ruthless warfare ever seen on the planet, and nowadays Japan and the United states are without exaggeration, two of the closest geopolitical allies in the world. The United States and Vietnam also held extreme resentment for each other thanks to the Vietnam war, and now, while not exactly allies, we're on good terms with each other generally speaking. Speaking more internally, there was extreme resentment in the southern united states following the American Civil war, I mean some really deep seeded hatred for the north, but after a while the two grew to come and see each other as one in the same again. during and After Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait there was a lot of bad blood between the Iraq and Kuwait government, but nowadays the two have mostly normalized relations, even resolving border and maritime disputes in 2022 Those are all Cultural rivalries, so how about some religious ones? The Japanese hated most of Europe during the 16th and 17th century (except the Dutch they were cool) mostly because of their tendency to push conversion and missionaries to those they traded with, this specifically applied to the Spanish and Portuguese, and now they're very good friends with each other. The Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman empire were two of Europes most vicious rivals, having been locked in a struggle against each other for the better part of 500 years, but right before their disillusion they were brothers in arms, working together for the same goal. The idea that two different people cant get along because of different cultures, religions, or accusations on both sides of wrongdoing is, at least in my opinion, very depressing to believe. I think its not only possible, but very achievable for any two groups of people who don't like each other to reconcile their differences, put aside their grievances with each other and come together.
Catholic-Protestant violence was the defining feature of European wars from 1414-1712; & even the later wars of the 1700s & 1800s had strong components of religious rivalry. Over 17 million deaths across 3+ centuries. It's tricky to point to one thing that changed, but looking at the shifts in the Napoleonic Wars, then WW1 & WW2, one of the primary movers had to be that wars became about imperial struggles over colonial land to extract resources. Europe is less and less controlled by the divine right of kings, so the legitimacy of a church's approval of imperial rule became less central, and the economic & racial character of that rule became more directly the emphasis. This was unthinkable, then true. Of course, the economic aspect of war was always there - but it wasn't the way the majority of the warring populations *thought* about who their enemies were. I can't tell you what the next world-changing shift will be that makes us recontextualize how we think about wars, allies, & enemies. I can't say when it will happen, or if Israel & Palestine will still exist at that point in anything resembling their current state. But genocide is not the inevitable end of entrenched conflict. Ireland is an example - which is not to say the problems in Ireland are gone or that Ireland will necessarily remain stable. But Protestant-Catholic violence from the 1640s-1990s (& English conquest from the 1100s-today) have changed in form, & the problems have been repeatedly recontextualized. In the early 90s, the idea of religious & colonial violence in Ireland was the subject of science fiction - within a decade, it happened. Now with Brexit, there have even been speclations about the possibility of reunifying Ireland - it's far from a reality, but the shift in European politics & economics caused by Brexit made the unthinkable suddenly possible. The change will come, & we probably won't see it coming (if it happens in our lifetimes. If not, the people who are alive probably won't see it coming either).
Peace isn’t possible until either all the Jews in Israel are driven out/subjugated or until the Arab populations in Gaza and Judea/Samaria aka West Bank are denazified. When one side (the Arabs) wants as its best offer that the other side (the Jews) die, negotiation is premature.
I mean the entire Middle East is never at peace and never will be because, as far as I can tell, people just won’t share land and believe they’re entitled to things. I mean seriously…. You’re not entitled to anything based on something you believe in.
I think a full integration into a one state solution is the only way forward. 2 state won’t work and Palestinians and Israelis can contribute a lot to each other. Only problem is Islam doesn’t mix in with anything else so that is the real challenge.
One of my earliest memories is of seeing the news and there'd been more "trouble in gaza" I.e. dead on both sides. I'm inclined to agree, totally incompatible religions fighting over their right to holy land. It will never end.
There isn't any conflict that ends in peace. "Life is struggle and peace only an accident". However there are situations that lead to _long "peace"_, if you call "peace" the lack of outright war and violent conflict. Before Palestine that whole region was the Ottoman Empire. Arabs and Jews lived there back then as well but were ruled by Turks. Hatred between these groups existed back then too. There were [race](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1033_Fez_massacre) [riots](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1517_Hebron_attacks) [between](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1517_Safed_attacks) [Jews](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1660_destruction_of_Safed) and [Arabs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mawza_Exile) back then, too. But the Ottomans ruled over both, so there wasn't any open war nor any serious attempt at extermination because the ruling chaste would stop it. It is possible that this war ends the same way. There were periods of peace in the Arab-Israeli conflict when Israel had military supremacy (like after their participation in the Lebanon Civil War and up to the First Intifada). It is possible that if the Arabs win the war we'll see, at least for some time, a similar arrangement with their ruling over Jews. Not immediate genocide but a slow and crushing oppression, up until they consider it feasible to finish them off without any serious geopolitical consequences. So I think peace is possible, but it won't be a "everyone is happy and join hands together" sort of peace because that one doesn't and will never exist anywhere on Earth
I think it's possible if Palestinians stop educating their kids to commit terror attacks. It's kind of hard to raise a peaceful generation when kids between the ages of 12–22 are being radicalized to the point where they will risk their lives and their freedom if it means killing even 1 Jew. Many terror attacks in Israel are committed by young people who were radicalized by their communities and their families. For example, the 21-year-old Palestinian who murdered my cousin (18M) trained for months, had over $10k in guns and ammunition, and picked his 21st birthday to murder 3 people because he saw it as a "celebration." As for Gaza, it's common practice for UNRWA textbooks to contain things like, "If you have 7 Jews and you kill 3 of them, how many Jews do you still need to kill?" In the early 2000s, Israelis had a very leftist "land for peace" stance, which is why they gave over Gaza—in the hopes that it would lead to peace. Instead it led to war, as Hamas took over and began lobbing rockets at Israel's population on a regular basis. Now, Israelis have shifted to a hard right stance, because they believe that they genuinely tried to have peace, for a long time, and Palestinians didn't want it. Now, I think it's the Palestinians' turn. As long as Israelis believe that diplomacy is useless, and as long as Palestinians continue re-enforcing that narrative, I do not see a peaceful solution emerging.
Half a decade you say, Hell it's been going on since the Israelites invaded Palestine under the leadership of Moses and Aaron. The so-called Promised Land is how the Old Testament refers to it.
> I'm going to speak my mind. Does anyone really believe that a lasting peace between the two sides can ever be achieved? The abstract question is whether bitter "enemies" can ever find a peaceful coexistence. If so, how? There's historical precedents for that. In 1944, the question, "Can Japan and the US co-exist peacefully?" would have seemed as ludacris. The flipside, can staunch allies ever be enemies? Saddam Hussein was backed by the CIA. Or "Could France and England ever coexist" would have been batshit crazy anywhere between say, the 1100s to the 1900s. >but I believe that the only lasting peace one side will accept is where the other is gone...forever. To this point, external factors like a greater enemy has made former enemies into allies. Internal factors like people marrying one another could lead to the divisions making less sense. That sort of analogy may be like Native Americans, who used to be managed by the US War Department, but now are full fledged citizens. Or say, African Americans. > I just stop caring Withdrawal is a coping mechanism for the anxiety it makes you feel. It's a normal coping mechanism. The anxiety/fear part of our brains are galvanized for action and there's little that we can do that makes a meaningful difference. The flip side of withdrawal might be donating to humanitarian relief.
I semi-agree with you in part because I don't believe the current process will ever bring peace. A two state solution just isn't working and will never work when Jerusalem is involved.
I find this entire premise flawed. The current head of Israel's position is that Palestine is not a sovereign state. They don't have control of their own borders, their airspace nor their waters. In it's current state Palestine is not a country, but a reservation for Palestinians who were displaces when Israel became a state in 1947. If Israel won't grant statehood and true independence to Palestine, then they have been waging war against their own citizens. You are framing them as a separate entity to Israel when they are not. Us Versus Them doesn't apply when the person you are facing off was born in your country's borders. Imagine if in the 1800s you were humoring the idea that the only way to bring peace between the Cherokee and the United States was for one side to be destroyed; it was a popular opinion at the time but a monstrous one. It essentially always grants the benefit of the doubt to the most powerful side, and implicitly excuses colonialist projects and violence by the state.
But that is basically how peace was achieved with the native Americans, by America steadily growing in power and the natives being defeated so totally and utterly that they could never pose an existential threat to the American government ever again. It is certainly monstrous, but that's what happened. I think you're attaching an intrinsic value to peace that just doesn't exist. Peace can and has been bought with the blood of the innocent.
But it is an option. It’s simple: - Israel agrees to not attack Palestine. - Palestine agrees to not attack Israel. - There is a negotiation over land and an agreement is made, and that agreement is actioned. Sorry to be so terse, but your post is quite basic. ‘Does anyone believe that a lasting peace can be achieved?’ Yes, everybody does. That’s why they are fighting, because there is something they want that they can’t have, that if they get they believe it will give them peace. ‘The only lasting peace one side will accept is where the other is gone…forever.’ This simply isn’t true. Israel doesn’t care about Palestine, Palestine doesn’t care about Israel. It’s about the land and where people live. If they each could have the land they wanted, they wouldn’t attack each other or wish for the removal of those people. Obviously they don’t like each other - currently - because they’ve dehumanised them because of the history and how who has what land has what land they have. But they don’t really care. Just like how Palestinians don’t go around the world finding Jews to murder, and Jews don’t intentionally go and find Palestinians or Muslims to murder. Peace is an option. And peace is possible. It is just complicated and people are unwilling to let go of something they want. It’s taking so long because of how complicated it is, and because it is about changing an entire nation’s mindset. I mean look at all the problems in colonised nations like America, Canada, Australia, with how they deal with their First Nations peoples. Imagine if in those countries instead of the First Nations peoples being nomadic and tribal based, they were actually conquering empires of their own right like the Ottomans or Romans; and the First Nations aren’t actually First Nations but there was also another empire before that, and it’s all mixed up. (Ottomans took it from the people there, modern Western nations took it from the Ottomans when the Ottoman Empire fell and following WWII. There’s religious significance for both people.) Occupation and colonisation isn’t a simple staining of everything. People remain. People retain their history. Anyway, I don’t see how you can’t not agree and change your view on this, because simply and factually, your argument is incorrect. Peace is an option. There is a peace that would involve both Israel and Palestine existing. But at the moment it’s very difficult. It doesn’t mean it’s impossible.
I am a palestine supporter, but I do feel like palestine will be inevitably wiped off the map. They just don't have a chance largely because of the US. Other countries just have no incentive to help Palestinians, the bordering ones are kind of forced to take them in. And if any of them get on the US's bad side, the US will give them consequences. The entire country of Yemen suffered consequences for the houthis attacking ships headed to Israel. US also put an embargo or something on Iran recently I think because of the soleimani thing. And then US put an embargo on Russian oil. Our country's government is a huge bully with a lot of power. Palestine is almost wiped off sadly and offers no incentive for others to help it. Israel put an embargo on their economy. Other countries are far more threatened by the US and Israel than they are by the consequences for not helping palestinians. Jordan for example doesn't stand a chance. The king got criticized for shooting down hamas rockets that went over Jordan but not US rockets. If he shot down US rockets, Jordan would suffer consequences for sure. This massacre is on their door step. Hamas doesn't have that power. I know this is cmv, but just wanted to put this out there. I don't come to this sub usually so idk how it works here.
The chance for peace was minuscule. Now with social media the chances have dropped social media. The information that 99 percent of people have about the conflict is 99 percent completely fabricated or exaggerated. The reality is there is massive antisemitism in the world. This conflict is a casualty of a deep and deliberate attack against the Jews. The fact that a country could be invaded by inhuman terrorists and have children and babies killed in the streets and then become the bad guy within a few weeks is beyond any conceivable logic. Unless you bring in the concept of racism. Every college has protests filled with "pro-Palestinian" protestors. These are 99 percent funded professional protestors and not even students at the university. Who is paying for this? It's not people from Gaza. This is a war of misinformation. Israel's biggest failing here is they lost control of the narrative by focusing all energy on a "retaliatory" military campaign when they've lost the publicity campaign by a defeating landslide. It's a sad deal for Palestinians and a sickening blow against Jewish people. The level of public racism has risen to a virtually European pre-holocaust level-and this is in modern woke first world countries. Mind blowing.
This conflict has been going on for much longer than half a decade. It's been going on since Israel was created. You're right, peace is unlikely in the short term with tensions so high on both sides. And many want to eliminate the other side, but many is not all. Or even a majority. There have been countries with very bitter enmities which have managed to out aside their differences. Look at Northern Ireland. There were car bombs going off all the time. Yet now there's peace. Or look at the UK and US. They hated each other during the Revolutionary War. Now they talk about the "special relationship" between the two countries. Or more controversially, look at the US. They fought a Civil War between north and south. There are still distinct differences between the two states and political tensions. But it has been a war-free country for two centuries. That shows you can have peace without needing to completely forget the past. There will always be hawks screaming for blood. But most people just want to live their lives. If peace returns (e.g. through a ceasefire), they can do that. At first, they'll tolerate each other and then they'll slowly forget as younger generations who never experienced the war grow up.
I get where you are coming from but peace is definitely possible. The world has had longer conflicts in the past, great nations have come and gone. Israel largely has power because of US support and has no strategic need for peace at this stage given the asymmetrical power dynamic and widespread economic and military support Israel has at the behest of the US. They have essentially complete impunity for their actions. The US maintains this support so long as they have a vested interest in a geopolitical presence in the middle east (and also keeping rogue nations there under their control). When US political interests shift or when it becomes less of a superpower, this power dynamic will shift and the Israeli government may see less need to maintain the blockade/occupation/conflict. Extremists like Hamas only exist when there is something they perceive is worth fighting for, more valid political entities are likely to spring up in Palestine when people aren't being occupied/bombed repeatedly. It's important to know that local Arabs and local Jews didn't have a great deal of beef prior to the 1920s in the area. You may think peace is far away, but far away is different from impossible
i don’t think there would even be peace between Gaza and the West Bank if they both get to become independent countries
I think it's important for people who feel hopeless about Palestine to remember that Ireland was a colony of Great Britain for literally hundreds of years. The conflict over the occupation of Palestine has been going on for less than a century.