|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
On May 29 2024 18:50 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2024 16:18 Harris1st wrote:
If Palestine becomes a state and Hamas is the governing body we will have the same thing that we have now only then there are officialy 2 countries at war instead of the one and a half that we have now.
You need a government that is less extreme or you will always have war. I'm not saying you need a western puppet government. Just some people who think with their head instead of their AKs If we look globally at the conflicts that have been going on, then the commonality is that the more powerful of the two parties must be benevolent. That's the main factor that determines whether or not the conflict turns from cold to hot. Israel becoming benevolent has a very high chance of ending the hot conflict permanently. Palestine becoming benevolent would change absolutely nothing.
Also, favorability of Hamas before Israel's response to the October 7th attack was much lower than it is now.
|
On May 30 2024 07:58 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2024 18:50 Magic Powers wrote:On May 29 2024 16:18 Harris1st wrote:
If Palestine becomes a state and Hamas is the governing body we will have the same thing that we have now only then there are officialy 2 countries at war instead of the one and a half that we have now.
You need a government that is less extreme or you will always have war. I'm not saying you need a western puppet government. Just some people who think with their head instead of their AKs If we look globally at the conflicts that have been going on, then the commonality is that the more powerful of the two parties must be benevolent. That's the main factor that determines whether or not the conflict turns from cold to hot. Israel becoming benevolent has a very high chance of ending the hot conflict permanently. Palestine becoming benevolent would change absolutely nothing. Also, favorability of Hamas before Israel's response to the October 7th attack was much lower than it is now.
If Palestinians overwhelmingly support Hamas, determining the root-cause and assigning blame for Palestinian anger does not change who they will vote for. It also does not impact the negative consequences of having a sham election where Hamas isn't allowed to participate.
|
Canada11607 Posts
Perhaps the recognition of Palestine can lead to further steps that could then put more pressure on Israel to turn the war cold. I'm not sure if such steps can be taken. Any ideas?
No shot. The stockpiling of rockets will begin as soon as Israel lets off. And then rockets will start flying again. The current and historic leadership among the Palestinians seems not able to help themselves. The war could have turned cold many times over by now but for Palestinian insistence to keep attacking. There are many justifications one can bring forward to defend Palestinians keeping the war hot, but nonetheless they have kept it hot. October 7 was just a more extreme example. We often talk about how Israel's actions have radicalized the Palestinians, which is true. But by the same measure, Palestinian actions have also produced a much more hardline Israeli government in the present than they had in the past.
However, I think Israel can walk back from their hardline position more easily as they are functioning democracy. They do need a serious peace partner on the Palestinian side to take the first step in moving from hot to cold though. Then that gives space for Israeli parties willing to compromise for peace. However, it's pretty tough to make that case when your 'give peace a chance' hippies are getting shot up at music concerts. I do not see any movement ever happening with Hamas' leadership, however.
|
I keep seeing this 'Israel can't make the first step towards peace because Hamas keeps attacking them so Palestinians have to stop being so violent before peace can happen' line and it just... doesn't make sense. Israel has killed an order of magnitude more Palestinians than the other way around, and don't even get me started on property destruction and general mayhem. You can wax poetic all you want about 'right to defend' and 'regrettable collateral damage' and whatever other bullshit Israel comes up with to justify their actions, but at the end of the day, in Israel you're significantly more likely to die in a traffic accident than in a Hamas attack.
This position is illogical. You're expecting a desperate, oppressed, and thoroughly radicalized population to make more reasonable and logical choices than a supposedly liberal, progressive democracy. It's an unrealistic demand.
Besides, it's not as if 'give peace a chance' hippies are saying Israel has to disband their military and let Hamas do as they please. But maybe not slaughtering civilians wholesale and not occupying foreign land could be a start? Israel has been responding to Palestinian violence with overwhelming violence of their own for decades, and it clearly hasn't gotten them any closer to their stated goal of making Israel safer. But I guess if we just go a bit harder on the murder and destruction, this time it'll work...?
|
On May 30 2024 09:27 Salazarz wrote:
I keep seeing this 'Israel can't make the first step towards peace because Hamas keeps attacking them so Palestinians have to stop being so violent before peace can happen' line and it just... doesn't make sense. Israel has killed an order of magnitude more Palestinians than the other way around, and don't even get me started on property destruction and general mayhem. You can wax poetic all you want about 'right to defend' and 'regrettable collateral damage' and whatever other bullshit Israel comes up with to justify their actions, but at the end of the day, in Israel you're significantly more likely to die in a traffic accident than in a Hamas attack.
This position is illogical. You're expecting a desperate, oppressed, and thoroughly radicalized population to make more reasonable and logical choices than a supposedly liberal, progressive democracy. It's an unrealistic demand.
Besides, it's not as if 'give peace a chance' hippies are saying Israel has to disband their military and let Hamas do as they please. But maybe not slaughtering civilians wholesale and not occupying foreign land could be a start? Israel has been responding to Palestinian violence with overwhelming violence of their own for decades, and it clearly hasn't gotten them any closer to their stated goal of making Israel safer. But I guess if we just go a bit harder on the murder and destruction, this time it'll work...?
I think you’re entirely right Palestinians shouldn't be expected to “make the first step” towards peace because the current situation makes it completely insane to expect them to. However I think you’re wrongly labeling how reasonable it is to ask for Israel to “make the first step” towards peace.
The key thing is that even if we assume Israel is entirely to blame for the existing situation, they are clearly rightly interested in eliminating attacks on them. Even if we assume Israel started it etc it doesn’t mean the people living there today will ever in a million years consider trusting Hamas. The current state of the conflict doesn’t allow for any realistic leap of faith or trust in either direction.
I think the whole thing is totally stuck in war in the absence of being forced to stop by outside influence. There’s a point of no return and they are definitely there now.
|
On May 30 2024 13:47 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2024 09:27 Salazarz wrote:
I keep seeing this 'Israel can't make the first step towards peace because Hamas keeps attacking them so Palestinians have to stop being so violent before peace can happen' line and it just... doesn't make sense. Israel has killed an order of magnitude more Palestinians than the other way around, and don't even get me started on property destruction and general mayhem. You can wax poetic all you want about 'right to defend' and 'regrettable collateral damage' and whatever other bullshit Israel comes up with to justify their actions, but at the end of the day, in Israel you're significantly more likely to die in a traffic accident than in a Hamas attack.
This position is illogical. You're expecting a desperate, oppressed, and thoroughly radicalized population to make more reasonable and logical choices than a supposedly liberal, progressive democracy. It's an unrealistic demand.
Besides, it's not as if 'give peace a chance' hippies are saying Israel has to disband their military and let Hamas do as they please. But maybe not slaughtering civilians wholesale and not occupying foreign land could be a start? Israel has been responding to Palestinian violence with overwhelming violence of their own for decades, and it clearly hasn't gotten them any closer to their stated goal of making Israel safer. But I guess if we just go a bit harder on the murder and destruction, this time it'll work...? I think you’re entirely right Palestinians shouldn't be expected to “make the first step” towards peace because the current situation makes it completely insane to expect them to. However I think you’re wrongly labeling how reasonable it is to ask for Israel to “make the first step” towards peace. The key thing is that even if we assume Israel is entirely to blame for the existing situation, they are clearly rightly interested in eliminating attacks on them. Even if we assume Israel started it etc it doesn’t mean the people living there today will ever in a million years consider trusting Hamas. The current state of the conflict doesn’t allow for any realistic leap of faith or trust in either direction. I think the whole thing is totally stuck in war in the absence of being forced to stop by outside influence. There’s a point of no return and they are definitely there now.
If Israel (or at least Israel's leadership) is genuinely interested in stopping the attacks on them, they should start considering other options than violent reprisals, because violent reprisals have not stopped the attacks for several generations. There's no reason whatsoever to believe that the attacks continue because they simply didn't kill enough Palestinians just yet, and that killing more Palestinians will result in attacks ceasing for any meaningful length of time. Repeating the same action and expecting a different result is insanity, doubly so when the action in question causes immense suffering to millions of people.
But then again, why would Israel's leadership even want the attacks to stop? It's what allowed them to reject Palestinian sovereignty and to expand their colonization project for decades. Seems more like they're okay trading some Israeli and a whole bunch of Palestinian lives for this.
|
Northern Ireland27464 Posts
A decent start would be to halt the expansion of settlements.
I mean as much as I disagree with the form it takes, Israel does have some absolutely legitimate security concerns to deal with.
In the absence of some engaged higher power to bash some heads together, which can work but looks unlikely here, then yes mutual enmity can become somewhat intractable and seemingly irresolvable.
As first steps go though ceasing an active policy of territorial expansion seems entirely the place to at least get the ball rolling. And if one is unwilling too well it seems pretty indicative that said expansion is valued above carving some nascent pathway to more cordial relations.
|
|
|
On May 30 2024 14:09 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2024 13:47 Mohdoo wrote:On May 30 2024 09:27 Salazarz wrote:
I keep seeing this 'Israel can't make the first step towards peace because Hamas keeps attacking them so Palestinians have to stop being so violent before peace can happen' line and it just... doesn't make sense. Israel has killed an order of magnitude more Palestinians than the other way around, and don't even get me started on property destruction and general mayhem. You can wax poetic all you want about 'right to defend' and 'regrettable collateral damage' and whatever other bullshit Israel comes up with to justify their actions, but at the end of the day, in Israel you're significantly more likely to die in a traffic accident than in a Hamas attack.
This position is illogical. You're expecting a desperate, oppressed, and thoroughly radicalized population to make more reasonable and logical choices than a supposedly liberal, progressive democracy. It's an unrealistic demand.
Besides, it's not as if 'give peace a chance' hippies are saying Israel has to disband their military and let Hamas do as they please. But maybe not slaughtering civilians wholesale and not occupying foreign land could be a start? Israel has been responding to Palestinian violence with overwhelming violence of their own for decades, and it clearly hasn't gotten them any closer to their stated goal of making Israel safer. But I guess if we just go a bit harder on the murder and destruction, this time it'll work...? I think you’re entirely right Palestinians shouldn't be expected to “make the first step” towards peace because the current situation makes it completely insane to expect them to. However I think you’re wrongly labeling how reasonable it is to ask for Israel to “make the first step” towards peace. The key thing is that even if we assume Israel is entirely to blame for the existing situation, they are clearly rightly interested in eliminating attacks on them. Even if we assume Israel started it etc it doesn’t mean the people living there today will ever in a million years consider trusting Hamas. The current state of the conflict doesn’t allow for any realistic leap of faith or trust in either direction. I think the whole thing is totally stuck in war in the absence of being forced to stop by outside influence. There’s a point of no return and they are definitely there now. If Israel (or at least Israel's leadership) is genuinely interested in stopping the attacks on them, they should start considering other options than violent reprisals, because violent reprisals have not stopped the attacks for several generations. There's no reason whatsoever to believe that the attacks continue because they simply didn't kill enough Palestinians just yet, and that killing more Palestinians will result in attacks ceasing for any meaningful length of time. Repeating the same action and expecting a different result is insanity, doubly so when the action in question causes immense suffering to millions of people. But then again, why would Israel's leadership even want the attacks to stop? It's what allowed them to reject Palestinian sovereignty and to expand their colonization project for decades. Seems more like they're okay trading some Israeli and a whole bunch of Palestinian lives for this.
I don’t think the two things you are saying are compatible. The extent of Israel’s generations of violence giving Palestinians no reason to extend an olive branch goes further than that. Stopping settlements would not lead to forgiveness or something. It’s not reasonable. No one actually thinks that would happen. You’re pretending changing what they are doing be more likely to work but it’s not true. I don’t think anyone here thinks Palestinians would suddenly feel inspired to ease up if Israel stopped settlements.
I’m not saying Israel’s settlements are justified or moral. I am saying no olive branch would ever compel Palestinians to trust Israel. That ship sailed a very long time ago. If nothing else, the response to October 7 welded that door shut forever. The conflict is entirely permanent in the absence of an outside power forcing peace.
|
On May 30 2024 22:03 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2024 14:09 Salazarz wrote:On May 30 2024 13:47 Mohdoo wrote:On May 30 2024 09:27 Salazarz wrote:
I keep seeing this 'Israel can't make the first step towards peace because Hamas keeps attacking them so Palestinians have to stop being so violent before peace can happen' line and it just... doesn't make sense. Israel has killed an order of magnitude more Palestinians than the other way around, and don't even get me started on property destruction and general mayhem. You can wax poetic all you want about 'right to defend' and 'regrettable collateral damage' and whatever other bullshit Israel comes up with to justify their actions, but at the end of the day, in Israel you're significantly more likely to die in a traffic accident than in a Hamas attack.
This position is illogical. You're expecting a desperate, oppressed, and thoroughly radicalized population to make more reasonable and logical choices than a supposedly liberal, progressive democracy. It's an unrealistic demand.
Besides, it's not as if 'give peace a chance' hippies are saying Israel has to disband their military and let Hamas do as they please. But maybe not slaughtering civilians wholesale and not occupying foreign land could be a start? Israel has been responding to Palestinian violence with overwhelming violence of their own for decades, and it clearly hasn't gotten them any closer to their stated goal of making Israel safer. But I guess if we just go a bit harder on the murder and destruction, this time it'll work...? I think you’re entirely right Palestinians shouldn't be expected to “make the first step” towards peace because the current situation makes it completely insane to expect them to. However I think you’re wrongly labeling how reasonable it is to ask for Israel to “make the first step” towards peace. The key thing is that even if we assume Israel is entirely to blame for the existing situation, they are clearly rightly interested in eliminating attacks on them. Even if we assume Israel started it etc it doesn’t mean the people living there today will ever in a million years consider trusting Hamas. The current state of the conflict doesn’t allow for any realistic leap of faith or trust in either direction. I think the whole thing is totally stuck in war in the absence of being forced to stop by outside influence. There’s a point of no return and they are definitely there now. If Israel (or at least Israel's leadership) is genuinely interested in stopping the attacks on them, they should start considering other options than violent reprisals, because violent reprisals have not stopped the attacks for several generations. There's no reason whatsoever to believe that the attacks continue because they simply didn't kill enough Palestinians just yet, and that killing more Palestinians will result in attacks ceasing for any meaningful length of time. Repeating the same action and expecting a different result is insanity, doubly so when the action in question causes immense suffering to millions of people. But then again, why would Israel's leadership even want the attacks to stop? It's what allowed them to reject Palestinian sovereignty and to expand their colonization project for decades. Seems more like they're okay trading some Israeli and a whole bunch of Palestinian lives for this. I don’t think the two things you are saying are compatible. The extent of Israel’s generations of violence giving Palestinians no reason to extend an olive branch goes further than that. Stopping settlements would not lead to forgiveness or something. It’s not reasonable. No one actually thinks that would happen. You’re pretending changing what they are doing be more likely to work but it’s not true. I don’t think anyone here thinks Palestinians would suddenly feel inspired to ease up if Israel stopped settlements.I’m not saying Israel’s settlements are justified or moral. I am saying no olive branch would ever compel Palestinians to trust Israel. That ship sailed a very long time ago. If nothing else, the response to October 7 welded that door shut forever. The conflict is entirely permanent in the absence of an outside power forcing peace.
Underlined part: says who?
If Israel stopped the settlement expansion, that'd be a complete reversal of their policies for the last decades.
It'd be like Palestinians no longer voting for the most extremist groups such as Hamas. That'd be a complete reversal of a continuous trend.
If Israel stopped the expansion and returned parts of the land, it'd have the same effect as Gazans voting for a more moderate leadership. Do you think Israelis wouldn't take note of such a huge change in Gaza? I bet they'd be thrilled. Why would Gazans not be equally thrilled to hear that the West bank finally has a future?
I think you're making a very, very strange assumption.
|
I don’t think you are acknowledging the psychological and cultural impacts of this amount of time of occupation. For Palestinians in both Gaza and West Bank, this situation is the only identity Israel has to them. Generations of this situation does not allow for the kind of forgiveness being described. There is no historical precedent for what you are describing. If anything history paints the opposite pictute
|
On May 30 2024 22:39 Mohdoo wrote:
I don’t think you are acknowledging the psychological and cultural impacts of this amount of time of occupation. For Palestinians in both Gaza and West Bank, this situation is the only identity Israel has to them. Generations of this situation does not allow for the kind of forgiveness being described. There is no historical precedent for what you are describing. If anything history paints the opposite pictute
There's no historical precedent for the sort of hatred you're describing, plenty of precedent for the opposite. There's been far worse violence and atrocities committed by various peoples in the past, and more often than not the hatreds diminish if not outright disappear at most one generation later, and often even faster than that.
Take Japanese occupation of Korea for example. It was no less cruel and oppressive than what Israel has done to the Palestinians, and had lasted for a similar amount of time. There was of course plenty of lingering resentment and friction once the occupation ended, but most 'normal' people moved on very quickly, and interstate diplomacy between the nations has been functioning just fine despite plenty of painful issues that remain unresolved to this day.
Besides, it doesn't matter if Palestine doesn't trust Israel. All that needs to happen is a belief for Palestinian people that they might have a future that worth living for, and radical terrorism will have a far more difficult time gathering martyrs to their bloody cause.
|
On May 30 2024 23:35 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2024 22:39 Mohdoo wrote:
I don’t think you are acknowledging the psychological and cultural impacts of this amount of time of occupation. For Palestinians in both Gaza and West Bank, this situation is the only identity Israel has to them. Generations of this situation does not allow for the kind of forgiveness being described. There is no historical precedent for what you are describing. If anything history paints the opposite pictute There's no historical precedent for the sort of hatred you're describing, plenty of precedent for the opposite. There's been far worse violence and atrocities committed by various peoples in the past, and more often than not the hatreds diminish if not outright disappear at most one generation later, and often even faster than that. Take Japanese occupation of Korea for example. It was no less cruel and oppressive than what Israel has done to the Palestinians, and had lasted for a similar amount of time. There was of course plenty of lingering resentment and friction once the occupation ended, but most 'normal' people moved on very quickly, and interstate diplomacy between the nations has been functioning just fine despite plenty of painful issues that remain unresolved to this day. Besides, it doesn't matter if Palestine doesn't trust Israel. All that needs to happen is a belief for Palestinian people that they might have a future that worth living for, and radical terrorism will have a far more difficult time gathering martyrs to their bloody cause. That last part is, imo, the important part.
Palestinians need to have a future, some hope of a better tomorrow and something worth living for. The fact that they don't is what allows Hamas to thrive and why they are seemingly supported by the people. When you have no future a terrorist organisation that supposedly fights for your future is all you have.
If Israel wants to get rid of Hamas they need to give Palestinians a future worth living for, not blow up their homes and family some more.
|
On May 30 2024 23:35 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2024 22:39 Mohdoo wrote:
I don’t think you are acknowledging the psychological and cultural impacts of this amount of time of occupation. For Palestinians in both Gaza and West Bank, this situation is the only identity Israel has to them. Generations of this situation does not allow for the kind of forgiveness being described. There is no historical precedent for what you are describing. If anything history paints the opposite pictute There's no historical precedent for the sort of hatred you're describing, plenty of precedent for the opposite. There's been far worse violence and atrocities committed by various peoples in the past, and more often than not the hatreds diminish if not outright disappear at most one generation later, and often even faster than that. Take Japanese occupation of Korea for example. It was no less cruel and oppressive than what Israel has done to the Palestinians, and had lasted for a similar amount of time. There was of course plenty of lingering resentment and friction once the occupation ended, but most 'normal' people moved on very quickly, and interstate diplomacy between the nations has been functioning just fine despite plenty of painful issues that remain unresolved to this day. Besides, it doesn't matter if Palestine doesn't trust Israel. All that needs to happen is a belief for Palestinian people that they might have a future that worth living for, and radical terrorism will have a far more difficult time gathering martyrs to their bloody cause.
Both are occupations but the specifics make the comparison difficult to apply. Consider what the occupation was defined as for Koreans. Now consider the extent to which that occupation was ended.
Apply that same thought process to Israel and Palestinians. Israel’s entire existence is defined as an occupation to Palestinians. Stopping settlements does not come close to what Palestinians would view the same way as Koreans viewed Japanese withdrawal. You are taking 2 wildly different situations and applying different solutions while saying the result would be the same. It’s not a good comparison at all.
|
On May 30 2024 23:53 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2024 23:35 Salazarz wrote:On May 30 2024 22:39 Mohdoo wrote:
I don’t think you are acknowledging the psychological and cultural impacts of this amount of time of occupation. For Palestinians in both Gaza and West Bank, this situation is the only identity Israel has to them. Generations of this situation does not allow for the kind of forgiveness being described. There is no historical precedent for what you are describing. If anything history paints the opposite pictute There's no historical precedent for the sort of hatred you're describing, plenty of precedent for the opposite. There's been far worse violence and atrocities committed by various peoples in the past, and more often than not the hatreds diminish if not outright disappear at most one generation later, and often even faster than that. Take Japanese occupation of Korea for example. It was no less cruel and oppressive than what Israel has done to the Palestinians, and had lasted for a similar amount of time. There was of course plenty of lingering resentment and friction once the occupation ended, but most 'normal' people moved on very quickly, and interstate diplomacy between the nations has been functioning just fine despite plenty of painful issues that remain unresolved to this day. Besides, it doesn't matter if Palestine doesn't trust Israel. All that needs to happen is a belief for Palestinian people that they might have a future that worth living for, and radical terrorism will have a far more difficult time gathering martyrs to their bloody cause. That last part is, imo, the important part. Palestinians need to have a future, some hope of a better tomorrow and something worth living for. The fact that they don't is what allows Hamas to thrive and why they are seemingly supported by the people. When you have no future a terrorist organisation that supposedly fights for your future is all you have. If Israel wants to get rid of Hamas they need to give Palestinians a future worth living for, not blow up their homes and family some more. This also isn't a revelation. The phrasing most people will probably be familiar with is "winning hearts and minds".
Granted the history of such "hearts and minds" campaigns have consistently been largely inadequate counterweights of sorts to the mass murdering of civilians by the people ostensibly trying to run them. Still, even Bush knew you had to at least pretend.
Netanyahu and Biden have made Bush look like a bleeding heart liberal by comparison on this front.
|
United Kingdom10011 Posts
On May 30 2024 23:53 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2024 23:35 Salazarz wrote:On May 30 2024 22:39 Mohdoo wrote:
I don’t think you are acknowledging the psychological and cultural impacts of this amount of time of occupation. For Palestinians in both Gaza and West Bank, this situation is the only identity Israel has to them. Generations of this situation does not allow for the kind of forgiveness being described. There is no historical precedent for what you are describing. If anything history paints the opposite pictute There's no historical precedent for the sort of hatred you're describing, plenty of precedent for the opposite. There's been far worse violence and atrocities committed by various peoples in the past, and more often than not the hatreds diminish if not outright disappear at most one generation later, and often even faster than that. Take Japanese occupation of Korea for example. It was no less cruel and oppressive than what Israel has done to the Palestinians, and had lasted for a similar amount of time. There was of course plenty of lingering resentment and friction once the occupation ended, but most 'normal' people moved on very quickly, and interstate diplomacy between the nations has been functioning just fine despite plenty of painful issues that remain unresolved to this day. Besides, it doesn't matter if Palestine doesn't trust Israel. All that needs to happen is a belief for Palestinian people that they might have a future that worth living for, and radical terrorism will have a far more difficult time gathering martyrs to their bloody cause. That last part is, imo, the important part. Palestinians need to have a future, some hope of a better tomorrow and something worth living for. The fact that they don't is what allows Hamas to thrive and why they are seemingly supported by the people. When you have no future a terrorist organisation that supposedly fights for your future is all you have. If Israel wants to get rid of Hamas they need to give Palestinians a future worth living for, not blow up their homes and family some more.
I'm not sure the Israeli government ideology allows for differentiation between 'Palestinians' and 'Hamas'.
I'm not trying to be funny or anything, I genuinely don't think it does.
|
On May 31 2024 01:15 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2024 23:35 Salazarz wrote:On May 30 2024 22:39 Mohdoo wrote:
I don’t think you are acknowledging the psychological and cultural impacts of this amount of time of occupation. For Palestinians in both Gaza and West Bank, this situation is the only identity Israel has to them. Generations of this situation does not allow for the kind of forgiveness being described. There is no historical precedent for what you are describing. If anything history paints the opposite pictute There's no historical precedent for the sort of hatred you're describing, plenty of precedent for the opposite. There's been far worse violence and atrocities committed by various peoples in the past, and more often than not the hatreds diminish if not outright disappear at most one generation later, and often even faster than that. Take Japanese occupation of Korea for example. It was no less cruel and oppressive than what Israel has done to the Palestinians, and had lasted for a similar amount of time. There was of course plenty of lingering resentment and friction once the occupation ended, but most 'normal' people moved on very quickly, and interstate diplomacy between the nations has been functioning just fine despite plenty of painful issues that remain unresolved to this day. Besides, it doesn't matter if Palestine doesn't trust Israel. All that needs to happen is a belief for Palestinian people that they might have a future that worth living for, and radical terrorism will have a far more difficult time gathering martyrs to their bloody cause. Both are occupations but the specifics make the comparison difficult to apply. Consider what the occupation was defined as for Koreans. Now consider the extent to which that occupation was ended. Apply that same thought process to Israel and Palestinians. Israel’s entire existence is defined as an occupation to Palestinians. Stopping settlements does not come close to what Palestinians would view the same way as Koreans viewed Japanese withdrawal. You are taking 2 wildly different situations and applying different solutions while saying the result would be the same. It’s not a good comparison at all.
I don't believe even for a moment that any significant percentage of now living Palestinians genuinely cares about or believes in the 'extended occupation' being the existence of Israel as a state. There aren't any Palestinians alive today who were there for the creation of Israel, and it's not as if a unified Palestinian identity or national spirit even existed back then. Even Hamas has toned down their rhetoric somewhat and is stepping away from the 'necessity' of complete destruction of Israel. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that the struggle against Israel's oppression is a more significant portion of Palestinian national identity than any particular land they dwell on. If the oppression were to end, you would create a large number of Palestinians who would see any attacks against Israel as a betrayal of their hard-earned nationhood, as something that endangers their way of life and risks throwing what freedom they finally gained back into the fire of senseless violence. Right now, such attitude simply cannot exist.
As for Korea's occupation by Japan not being the same, well sure. It wasn't the same. But you claimed that there is simply too much pain and violence between the two sides for them to ever heal, that such past simply cannot be moved on from. And I just disagree with that entirely. People move on from violence and hate incredibly quickly once the most acute triggers of said hate are gone. History is full of examples of that, and frankly I struggle to think of places where the opposite is true the way you claim it is.
|
On May 31 2024 01:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
Granted the history of such "hearts and minds" campaigns have consistently been largely inadequate counterweights of sorts to the mass murdering of civilians by the people ostensibly trying to run them. Still, even Bush knew you had to at least pretend.
Netanyahu and Biden have made Bush look like a bleeding heart liberal by comparison on this front.
This situation is long past any "hearts and minds" or "deprograming" pretenses.
After this Gaza will be radicalized for at least a generation and by now nothing can change that.
That's why the current US/Israeli strategy is to make sure they can do no worse than hurl rocks.
|
On May 31 2024 10:05 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2024 01:15 Mohdoo wrote:On May 30 2024 23:35 Salazarz wrote:On May 30 2024 22:39 Mohdoo wrote:
I don’t think you are acknowledging the psychological and cultural impacts of this amount of time of occupation. For Palestinians in both Gaza and West Bank, this situation is the only identity Israel has to them. Generations of this situation does not allow for the kind of forgiveness being described. There is no historical precedent for what you are describing. If anything history paints the opposite pictute There's no historical precedent for the sort of hatred you're describing, plenty of precedent for the opposite. There's been far worse violence and atrocities committed by various peoples in the past, and more often than not the hatreds diminish if not outright disappear at most one generation later, and often even faster than that. Take Japanese occupation of Korea for example. It was no less cruel and oppressive than what Israel has done to the Palestinians, and had lasted for a similar amount of time. There was of course plenty of lingering resentment and friction once the occupation ended, but most 'normal' people moved on very quickly, and interstate diplomacy between the nations has been functioning just fine despite plenty of painful issues that remain unresolved to this day. Besides, it doesn't matter if Palestine doesn't trust Israel. All that needs to happen is a belief for Palestinian people that they might have a future that worth living for, and radical terrorism will have a far more difficult time gathering martyrs to their bloody cause. Both are occupations but the specifics make the comparison difficult to apply. Consider what the occupation was defined as for Koreans. Now consider the extent to which that occupation was ended. Apply that same thought process to Israel and Palestinians. Israel’s entire existence is defined as an occupation to Palestinians. Stopping settlements does not come close to what Palestinians would view the same way as Koreans viewed Japanese withdrawal. You are taking 2 wildly different situations and applying different solutions while saying the result would be the same. It’s not a good comparison at all. I don't believe even for a moment that any significant percentage of now living Palestinians genuinely cares about or believes in the 'extended occupation' being the existence of Israel as a state. There aren't any Palestinians alive today who were there for the creation of Israel, and it's not as if a unified Palestinian identity or national spirit even existed back then. Even Hamas has toned down their rhetoric somewhat and is stepping away from the 'necessity' of complete destruction of Israel. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that the struggle against Israel's oppression is a more significant portion of Palestinian national identity than any particular land they dwell on. If the oppression were to end, you would create a large number of Palestinians who would see any attacks against Israel as a betrayal of their hard-earned nationhood, as something that endangers their way of life and risks throwing what freedom they finally gained back into the fire of senseless violence. Right now, such attitude simply cannot exist. As for Korea's occupation by Japan not being the same, well sure. It wasn't the same. But you claimed that there is simply too much pain and violence between the two sides for them to ever heal, that such past simply cannot be moved on from. And I just disagree with that entirely. People move on from violence and hate incredibly quickly once the most acute triggers of said hate are gone. History is full of examples of that, and frankly I struggle to think of places where the opposite is true the way you claim it is.
This post helped me understand where our difference in understanding may be. I think it would be helpful for both of us to clearly state what we believe the maximum amount of Israel existing that Palestinians can accept long term.
Here is what I think: borders prior to the 6 day war will never be acceptable long term to Palestinians. I think it’s possible they could eventually accept Israel existing. But at the very least, borders prior to 6 day war will always lead to some form of persistent violence by Palestinians towards Israel.
What do you think? What do you think is the ’maximum allowable Israel existence for Palestinians to be long term satisfied? Assuming in some world where Israel stopped settlements and whatnot. What borders do you think would be long term stable for Palestinians such that violence can stop?
You mentioned you believe Hamas is open to Israel existing. Can you clarify where you are reading that? Where is this belief coming from? I am not aware of that.
|
On June 01 2024 03:14 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2024 10:05 Salazarz wrote:On May 31 2024 01:15 Mohdoo wrote:On May 30 2024 23:35 Salazarz wrote:On May 30 2024 22:39 Mohdoo wrote:
I don’t think you are acknowledging the psychological and cultural impacts of this amount of time of occupation. For Palestinians in both Gaza and West Bank, this situation is the only identity Israel has to them. Generations of this situation does not allow for the kind of forgiveness being described. There is no historical precedent for what you are describing. If anything history paints the opposite pictute There's no historical precedent for the sort of hatred you're describing, plenty of precedent for the opposite. There's been far worse violence and atrocities committed by various peoples in the past, and more often than not the hatreds diminish if not outright disappear at most one generation later, and often even faster than that. Take Japanese occupation of Korea for example. It was no less cruel and oppressive than what Israel has done to the Palestinians, and had lasted for a similar amount of time. There was of course plenty of lingering resentment and friction once the occupation ended, but most 'normal' people moved on very quickly, and interstate diplomacy between the nations has been functioning just fine despite plenty of painful issues that remain unresolved to this day. Besides, it doesn't matter if Palestine doesn't trust Israel. All that needs to happen is a belief for Palestinian people that they might have a future that worth living for, and radical terrorism will have a far more difficult time gathering martyrs to their bloody cause. Both are occupations but the specifics make the comparison difficult to apply. Consider what the occupation was defined as for Koreans. Now consider the extent to which that occupation was ended. Apply that same thought process to Israel and Palestinians. Israel’s entire existence is defined as an occupation to Palestinians. Stopping settlements does not come close to what Palestinians would view the same way as Koreans viewed Japanese withdrawal. You are taking 2 wildly different situations and applying different solutions while saying the result would be the same. It’s not a good comparison at all. I don't believe even for a moment that any significant percentage of now living Palestinians genuinely cares about or believes in the 'extended occupation' being the existence of Israel as a state. There aren't any Palestinians alive today who were there for the creation of Israel, and it's not as if a unified Palestinian identity or national spirit even existed back then. Even Hamas has toned down their rhetoric somewhat and is stepping away from the 'necessity' of complete destruction of Israel. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that the struggle against Israel's oppression is a more significant portion of Palestinian national identity than any particular land they dwell on. If the oppression were to end, you would create a large number of Palestinians who would see any attacks against Israel as a betrayal of their hard-earned nationhood, as something that endangers their way of life and risks throwing what freedom they finally gained back into the fire of senseless violence. Right now, such attitude simply cannot exist. As for Korea's occupation by Japan not being the same, well sure. It wasn't the same. But you claimed that there is simply too much pain and violence between the two sides for them to ever heal, that such past simply cannot be moved on from. And I just disagree with that entirely. People move on from violence and hate incredibly quickly once the most acute triggers of said hate are gone. History is full of examples of that, and frankly I struggle to think of places where the opposite is true the way you claim it is. This post helped me understand where our difference in understanding may be. I think it would be helpful for both of us to clearly state what we believe the maximum amount of Israel existing that Palestinians can accept long term. Here is what I think: borders prior to the 6 day war will never be acceptable long term to Palestinians. I think it’s possible they could eventually accept Israel existing. But at the very least, borders prior to 6 day war will always lead to some form of persistent violence by Palestinians towards Israel. What do you think? What do you think is the ’maximum allowable Israel existence for Palestinians to be long term satisfied? Assuming in some world where Israel stopped settlements and whatnot. What borders do you think would be long term stable for Palestinians such that violence can stop? You mentioned you believe Hamas is open to Israel existing. Can you clarify where you are reading that? Where is this belief coming from? I am not aware of that.
I think Palestinians would accept annexation by Isreal with full citizenship, rights and language acceptance at this point. Basically making Israel much bigger than any of the scenarios you describe. But it would also give Palestinians the right to vote, having homes, education and jobs. Basically living a decent life.
Of course that would not apply to 100% of the people. It would likely apply to 95%+ of the people though.
I think there is no political will in Israel for it though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
