|
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 June 01 2024 05:31 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2024 03:14 Mohdoo wrote: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.
There's no chance this is going to happen. Neither a Palestinian leadership nor the Israeli leadership is going to let that happen. On both sides the leaders want a total religious/ethnic stranglehold, and nothing is going to change that over the next few centuries.
|
On June 01 2024 05:45 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2024 05:31 Yurie wrote:On June 01 2024 03:14 Mohdoo wrote: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. There's no chance this is going to happen. Neither a Palestinian leadership nor the Israeli leadership is going to let that happen. On both sides the leaders want a total religious/ethnic stranglehold, and nothing is going to change that over the next few centuries.
A few centuries is a rather long time, lol. I wouldn't even bet on that not happening for a few decades. If there were any way to collect on it, I'd bet that you're wrong. Probably because something will come out of left field to make the whole question irrelevant.
|
On June 01 2024 05:31 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2024 03:14 Mohdoo wrote: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.
What? Palestinians just kinda accepting the entire thing being a Jewish state? Pure Israel bordering Jordan and Egypt?
|
On June 01 2024 06:23 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2024 05:31 Yurie wrote:On June 01 2024 03:14 Mohdoo wrote: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. What? Palestinians just kinda accepting the entire thing being a Jewish state? Pure Israel bordering Jordan and Egypt?
Well it wouldn't be a Jewish state if all Palestinians got the vote now, would it. That's why this hasn't happened.
|
Norway28738 Posts
If they get full citizenship and voting rights then the arabs would be a slight majority is my understanding. Very much doubt that is acceptable to the jewish population.
|
I also don't think for a moment that the Palestinians would trust Israeli to honour that deal...
|
Canada11404 Posts
I also don't think either side wants a one state solution- Palestinian nor Israeli. At least not the majority of the population. (Well, unless by one state we meant one state without the other side in it.)
|
Tbh I think 1 state is even more dead than 2 state. I don't see value in the discussion.
The reason I brought up "which borders does Hamas say will mean 0 violence" is that I want to make sure we are all working under the same understanding. People generally just make up their own idea in their head of what Palestinians would accept, and then apply that to discussions as if it is fact.
I think there is value in not letting our fan fiction writing get out of hand. We should stick to what the leadership of both factions have said.
|
|
|
Finally! Lets hope the involved parties don't mess this up again. There are far too many lives at stake for the deal to fail.
|
Apparently not. Netanyahu basically said Biden lied about it being Israel's proposal and that he can shove his ceasefire deal up his ass.
|
Why even get our hopes up, right? Don't know why the BBC would report it the way they did when Netanyahu is still so demonstrably pro-war.
Wait, does that imply Hamas is now less pro-war than Netanyahu?
|
On June 02 2024 01:47 Magic Powers wrote:
Why even get our hopes up, right? Don't know why the BBC would report it the way they did when Netanyahu is still so demonstrably pro-war.
Wait, does that imply Hamas is now less pro-war than Netanyahu?
Less pro-murdering-Palestinians, for obvious reasons.
|
Israel has never suggested anything else but "2 weeks of cease-fire for all hostages and then we continue flattening you".
Regardless of what you think of Hamas, I can not imagine anyone ever accepting those terms.
|
On June 02 2024 02:07 mahrgell wrote:
Israel has never suggested anything else but "2 weeks of cease-fire for all hostages and then we continue flattening you".
Regardless of what you think of Hamas, I can not imagine anyone ever accepting those terms.
For real? I think I've missed a few details, can someone confirm this?
|
On June 02 2024 03:31 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2024 02:07 mahrgell wrote:
Israel has never suggested anything else but "2 weeks of cease-fire for all hostages and then we continue flattening you".
Regardless of what you think of Hamas, I can not imagine anyone ever accepting those terms. For real? I think I've missed a few details, can someone confirm this?
This is correct. Israel has always been firm that allowing Hamas to serve as a government of any territory will never be tolerated. Israel has said if Hamas surrendered and released all hostages, they would agree to a long-term/permanent ceasefire. But there has never been any agreement which includes Hamas continuing to serve as a government
|
If you mean the 'complete destruction of Hamas' line it's exactly what he has been saying since the war started.
Biden would know it's just one of many impossible demands so they were moved to 'stage 2' of talks.
But cease-fire and restarting negotiations are still part of the 1st stage, meaning they have a chance of actually taking place.
|
On June 02 2024 13:42 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2024 03:31 Magic Powers wrote:On June 02 2024 02:07 mahrgell wrote:
Israel has never suggested anything else but "2 weeks of cease-fire for all hostages and then we continue flattening you".
Regardless of what you think of Hamas, I can not imagine anyone ever accepting those terms. For real? I think I've missed a few details, can someone confirm this? This is correct. Israel has always been firm that allowing Hamas to serve as a government of any territory will never be tolerated. Israel has said if Hamas surrendered and released all hostages, they would agree to a long-term/permanent ceasefire. But there has never been any agreement which includes Hamas continuing to serve as a government
Thank you, that's very important information. I think this sufficiently explains why Hamas is unwilling to accept Israel's demands. If Netanyahu doesn't tolerate any scenario with Hamas in power, then it's obvious that Hamas would reject every single offer, in part because the ones fighting in Gaza wouldn't have any means of escaping justice. It means that Netanyahu's argument is that the hostages' lives are not worth the potential of a future attack by Hamas (regardless of how demonstrably stupid such an attack would be). It implies that Netanyahu views Hamas not only as extremists, but as very stupid extremists.
|
On June 02 2024 18:51 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2024 13:42 Mohdoo wrote:On June 02 2024 03:31 Magic Powers wrote:On June 02 2024 02:07 mahrgell wrote:
Israel has never suggested anything else but "2 weeks of cease-fire for all hostages and then we continue flattening you".
Regardless of what you think of Hamas, I can not imagine anyone ever accepting those terms. For real? I think I've missed a few details, can someone confirm this? This is correct. Israel has always been firm that allowing Hamas to serve as a government of any territory will never be tolerated. Israel has said if Hamas surrendered and released all hostages, they would agree to a long-term/permanent ceasefire. But there has never been any agreement which includes Hamas continuing to serve as a government Thank you, that's very important information. I think this sufficiently explains why Hamas is unwilling to accept Israel's demands. If Netanyahu doesn't tolerate any scenario with Hamas in power, then it's obvious that Hamas would reject every single offer, in part because the ones fighting in Gaza wouldn't have any means of escaping justice. It means that Netanyahu's argument is that the hostages' lives are not worth the potential of a future attack by Hamas (regardless of how demonstrably stupid such an attack would be). It implies that Netanyahu views Hamas not only as extremists, but as very stupid extremists.
Not necessarily, imo it's more that Netanyahou is very invested in the war not ending, so he's not going to agree to any terms that have a chance of being accepted by Hamas, on the offchance that they do and then the war ends. Biden tried to force his hand by publicly presenting a scenario as "the ceasefire terms that had been accepted/offered by Israel", and Netanyahou still rebuked it, so we know the continuation of the conflict is the main priority for him.
|
I think this is more of a good cop/bad cop situation tbh. I think despite all of the appearances of Netanyahu being isolated and prioritizing his own self-preservation above all else, Israel is heavily incentivized to do as much as they possibly can as quickly as they can. While keeping up best appearances to whatever extent possible.
I forgot if I've mentioned this here before, but I think we can learn a lot about how the world responded to Crimea being taken by Russia. Despite sanctions and whatnot, Crimea being under Russian control was still a huge net-benefit overall.
1: Redefining the "current situation" is amazingly valuable in world politics where momentum is essentially king. The current situation in any conflict will always have enormous advantage over any kind of change. The world eventually comes to accept land grabs and whatnot.
2: Israel taking and holding the Rafah crossing puts Hamas on a timer. Egypt was the one resource Hamas had to make sure they could receive all the supplies they need to operate as a functional, powerful entity within Gaza. As the situation continues to deteriorate for Gaza, the same will also be true of Hamas as they continue to be more and more resource-limited.
Here's my overall prediction: Israel will refuse to give up the Rafah crossing. They will allow for this or that ceasefire or rebuilding and whatnot, but all within the confines of "but we will continue to hold the Egypt border because we can point to tons of tunnels Egypt did jack shit to prevent". Eventually, Saudi Arabia will reach a deal with the US and Egypt to be some kinda intermediary between Israel and Palestinians. Saudi Arabia will dump insane money into Gaza while allowing Israel to retain military control of the borders and whatnot to keep Hamas weak and allow Saudi Arabia to replace Hamas through overwhelming financial investment.
This will end up being a part of how Saudi Arabia's leadership pitches the idea of normalizing relations with Israel. Saudi Arabia will market themselves as the ones who saved Palestinians from Israel to the Arab world and solidify their position as the cultural/diplomatic capital of the Muslim world. The overwhelming momentum of the situation will crystallize Israel's borders and allow the situation as a whole to be redefined. Israel will be able to move past the whole Palestinian oppression situation by letting Saudi Arabia handle it, which will allow them an easy means of repairing their international image and whatnot. With the conflict resolved, politicians around the world will have sufficient "cover" to be like "its time to move on" and ease up on all their Israel criticisms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
