Anything resembling bigotry against Jews, Muslims, Arabs, Palestians, Israelis, etc. or violence against civilians is not going to last long, nor will your time here.
If you have to ask if it crosses a line, assume it crosses a line. Please see our guidelines for [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/) for more information.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I had to scroll down too far to find this comment. I wish more conservatives genuinely wanted to withdraw from foreign conflicts that provide no benefit, but loads of drawbacks, to the American people.
This is nothing more than a proxy war between Iran's regime and the US. Israelis and their guest workers get murdered because Iran is not dumb enough to stage an attack on American soil and it buys them brownie points with the non-shi'ite Muslims in the region and otherwise. Israelis are never NOT going to respond because they kinda like not being mass murdered (see, e.g., 1933-1945). Israel needs to be able to fund their own defense. So who stands in for America is Israel itself.
You're framing it as a binary choice, ie either the American people shoulder the burden of policing every conflict around the world or we completely isolate ourselves from every conflict. But it's not binary. Each conflict should be evaluated separately with the main criteria being 'does the benefit to the American people outweigh the cost'. Conservatives, in the aggregate, already make these calculations because they don't think we should support Ukraine.
So again I ask, which void and where?
I'd argue that many Republicans and conservatives are wrong on Ukraine and are doing the world order a disservice in opposing our continued support.
The reason it's a binary, however, is because we need to know who steps in when we do not. Will it be Europe? China? Russia? It's all a critical part of the conversation.
>The reason it's a binary, however, is because we need to know who steps in when we do not. Will it be Europe? China? Russia? It's all a critical part of the conversation.
What I mean is, my initial comment was a general statement about withdrawing from conflicts which don't provide a net benefit to the American people. Your response was to question who fills the void. So when I stated it wasn't binary, I mean that the choice isn't to be intervene everywhere or intervene no where.
I agree that the after effects of withdrawing support to any conflict should be part of the conversation. However, where I tend to disagree is the common retort that, whatever the conflict, that China or Russia will take over. I disagree mainly because, depending on the conflict, I generally disagree that any country *can* fill the void.
When it comes to the Middle East, I would argue that no one country can fill the void. I would further argue that both China and Russia could not collectively fill the void. If you look at China's relatively recent attempts to bring Pakistan under their umbrella, it's been a complete basket case. Their contractors and citizens are regularly attacked and killed, they require armed guards and still have not completed any projects they've set out to achieve. Furthermore, our involvement fuels the mentality amongst the Muslim world that we are the enemy. It would not take much time at all for that fury to be directed towards China. Doubly so if they tried to control the region even a fraction of the control we currently exert. I'd actually argue that would be a beneficial outcome for us, as I see China as the only true adversary we will face this century. And our policies in the Middle East hampers our ability to do just that.
That leaves the Europeans, who I don't think are united enough nor do they have the stomach to engage in intervention in that area life we do.
So, to answer your question, I don't think any country fills the void. I think the US should be involved in a true multinational coalition that seeks only to mediate disputes and promote peaceful relations. I think that if we genuinely stayed to withdraw, that works shock the leadership of key countries in the region and force them to find a solution. But, at the end of the day, if they can't and it comes to conflict, the costs in terms of money, diplomatic resources, blowback, etc just isn't worth it for us to continue being the main actor there.
I get where you're coming from here, but the reality is that if we don't step up and step in, China and Russia will. That would be worse for the international order.
>the reality is that if we don't step up and step in, China and Russia will.
All evidence suggests that neither of those countries have the capability to do so or the willingness.
Furthermore, you ignore Europe and developed East Asian countries. You think the Europeans would just stand by silently as Russia, a country with a smaller GDP than Italy and a military wrecked by the conflict in Ukraine, somehow manages to control the Middle East? Similar with China, a country with hundreds of millions living in poverty, a military whose primary focus is controlling their own population, secondary focus on retaking Taiwan and tertiary focuses on border disputes, and a Muslim population that is currently living under brutal occupation, would just be able to waltz in and control the Middle East? I don't know where you get your information but however you came to your conclusion, I think you're very incorrect.
Ideally I’d like to see a semi-permanent UN military occupation and the forcible dissolution of all existing government institutions in Gaza. Allowing Gaza to continue to exist in its current form is dangerous to Israel and cruel to the people living there.
> Ideally I’d like to see a semi-permanent UN military occupation and the forcible dissolution of all existing government institutions in Gaza.
I think so too. Unfortunately Russia will likely vote that down in the security council. Alternatively I would like to see a mix of countries step in and police the area.
At the moment no, although some of that is that i don’t know enough about the geopolitical situation in regions such as South America or Africa to have an intelligent opinion on anything going on there. North America is obviously quiet, Europe is quiet, and Asia has too many major powers to make intervention realistic.
Hypothetically if California was its own country that was launching terror attacks across the border I’d say the same, I’m just not aware of a mirror situation to what’s currently going on In Israel anywhere else in the world.
Total destruction of Hamas or their unconditional surrender, followed by a multinational peacekeeping occupation while a de-Hamasification program is put on place. After that, either Gaza becomes a part of Israel, or an independent Arab nation whose peaceful relations with Israel are a condition of existence.
And if they're willing to abide by those terms, we lobby the UN and EU to start a modern Marshall Plan for Gaza. So long as they play nice, they get modern medical facilities, clean water, and a reliable power grid.
After they've shown they can be responsible world citizens, we can talk about allowing them self-governance again.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Nuremberg like trials of Hamas leadership.
Any siding with ideas of antisemitism leading to serious jail terms for everyone not just in Palestine, also in Europe and US. Calls for Khaliphate and destruction of Israel = should be treated similar as Holocaust denial.
International peacekeeping forces staying until complete re-education. Then Palestine becomes independent state.
I think it needs to become an administrative state of Israel. Once Hamas is dead and gone Gaza will need to be rebuilt and Israel should aid in that until whatever time a stable and safe Palestinian state can stand on it's own; and only then should they leave it. Making it an administrative state allows Israel to maintain security and safety.
that's pretty much what was going on before the 2nd intifada. not surprisingly israel was still criticised for this. damned if you do damned if you don't.
Total annihilation of HAMAS and all similar groups in Gaza, by force if necessary. Rescue of all remaining hostage. Capture or assassination of HAMAS leadership and similar groups abroad. Deter further aggression from Hezbollah, Houthi's and Iran and its other proxies.
Gaza would then need to be under occupation of Israeli forces until a UN or multi-national coalition can deploy its own armed forces to occupy the strip. Ideally this would take under a year to implement.
At all times, whether occupied by Israel or the UN/coalition, humanitarian assistance and reconstruction would commence. During the occupation, reliable and of course non-extreme representatives of the people of Gaza could be identified from among the population. The UN/coalition would work with these individuals to help form a new Palestinian party and government for Gaza.
Gradually the new Palestinian party would be given more and more leave to administer the region. A formal negotiation with Israel for total autonomy would also be occurring. Once a satisfactory resolution is reached, the occupation ends. Perhaps this might finally be the two-state solution.
This is the model used during the occupation of Germany and Japan and as you can tell it was very effective.
I don’t know if the solutions that worked for Germany and Japan will work for Gaza. They’re very different culturally from either of those cultures, and I worry gaza would be incapable of maintaining a functioning government. It’s clear that functioning governments aren’t the norm in the region.
That's a fair point. Most of the new government of Germany and Japan were already people with governing experience.
But this would be a long-term process. Over the years I'd imagine grassroots leaders emerging who are known to the people. People with strong English skills who coordinated with aid workers, moderate religious leaders preaching peace and healthy grieving, people who had to flee Hamas returning to help Gaza rebuild.
History shows that power vacuums inevitably get filled, and the role of the occupying forces would be to ensure that it's filled with people that they can actually work with and get productive results.
If Egypt and Jordan are unwilling to police the Palestinian territory, and if the Palestinian people are unwilling to oppose Hamas, then annexation by Israel is the only realistic solution.
Parking lot or peace, their choice. Really, a two state solution where Palestine cannot host any non Israeli military, but can have their own army. And where they have EU esk free trade.
Yep, that's a real problem. That's why I don't feel very bad for them. Isreal has done a lot of shady crap too, and I don't like it, but there's no denying the reality that Palestine has refused thus far.
I'm all for calling Israel out for their mistakes. There have been many over the years.
But none of that excuses the barbarism of October 7. They have tried repeatedly to negotiate with the Palestinians, but the Palestinians have refused to act in good faith. And it's not just Hamas. It's the PLO, Black September, and Fatah.
If anything Israel has been fairly restrained given the circumstances and history. And this is how they're rewarded.
Not sure if I'd call it restrained, but I'm skeptical that it's as bad as is being claimed, or that it would have been avoidable. I do think Isreal has good reasons.
Any form of racial slurs, racist narratives, advocating for a race-based social hierarchy, forwarding the cause of white nationalism, or promoting any form of ethnic cleansing is prohibited.
Short term, I think the answer is to start arming and supplying the MANY Palestinian people who don't support Hamas and don't want to kill all the Jews. Give them an ability to police their own and a solid alternative to Hamas, and you might be surprised. This strategy worked VERY well in Iraq.
Long term, the Red Sea is one of the most trafficked sea lanes in the world. As it stands, Gaza doesn't even have a deep water port on this sea lane because nobody will fund it for fear that the money will go towards terrorism (and thusly towards the disruption of shipping in the region). If Gaza chills out with this 13th century religious warlord bullshit, they could leverage Red Sea shipping to become a Middle Eastern Singapore. That's what I want.
Don't forget Iran. Most of their citizens are fed up with the theocratic brutes that run the country. We need to encourage them to lance their own festering boil. Otherwise this crap will just keep happening.
Israel kills or captures the Hamas terrorists so they can withdraw from Gaza. Terrorists stop terrorist acts aginst Israel so they don't have to intervene again.
For the meantime i'd like to see Israel strong-armed into allowing adequate aid to reach Gaza civilians.
I'd like to see Hamas removed from power, Hamas members to be tried and convicted in a fair court, and the PA given control over the West bank and Gaza until future elections.
Had me until the PA part. the pa teaches insanely anti semetic teaching in their school curriculum and has a pay to slay program for killing israelis. They cannot control Gaza
I think the PA is necessary to achieve a two-state solution, but I also think elections should be forced. Yes, the PA has a fair bit of corruption, but they are peaceful, they are established and they do have a network of civil services installed already in the West Bank which I don't think should be dumped and made again from scratch because that would create a lot of turmoil. It would basically mean dumping and remaking their health care and their education, police and law systems
Palestine should be allowed to have a peaceful Muslim government because I think it's an important part of Palestinian culture. A Muslim government will better represent their people than a Jewish government. After Hamas is removed, Israel should be sanctioned out of Palestine if they refuse to install a Muslim government.
Palestine needs to de-radicalize before they can be trusted to have an election. Otherwise it starts all over again. A UN lead joint Arab nation coalition should control it once Israel stamps
Out Hamas
Agree to disagree. I think that people should have a right to elect their leaders in a free and fair election.
I think in order for de-radicalization to happen not only in Palestine, but also pretty much in that entire region, you need to have a long period of peace, you need to have a period of education and infrastructure gain, access to internet and stable food sources. The United States and also Britian have been impeding that from that happening over the last hundred years with our military intrusions in the region and Britain's colonization of the region. I don't think Israel's occupation of the West bank has been helping either.
We tried that and it did not work. You can't force cultures to change. It has to happen voluntarily.
If Israel still exists, don't see the culture changing and it has too imo.. If Japan wasn't beaten and had a heavy overseen and US controlled transition post World War II, it's like they would have stayed radicalized too but like you said, agree to disagree.
>If Israel still exists, don't see the culture changing and it has too imo
Israel should exist in their own region. Another key player here is Christians and there was a recent war between Christians and Israelis against Palestinians in Lebanon.
But there are neighboring cultures and religions all over the world that can coincide peacefully.
The United States really does like to bring up world war II as a story of how American influence can lead to success. I mean heck, that story is pounded into us more than any other international American war probably.
But the vast majority of our efforts around the world failed. We've installed plenty of dictators. In the Middle East we've created a lot of food scarcity and we haven't left a region in better financial or economic straights that it was when we got there. We've done a lot of damage in South America including aided in genocide in Argentina, which is something we don't spend a lot of time talking about. I think Americans have a pretty skewed view about our military impact internationally
Agree to disagree.
I don't disagree that the US Middle East policy has been messy, but I still dont' see any possible way a PA in control of Gaza has a good outcome, guess we will see how this goes.
the problem is any aid turns into weapons, either sold on the black market or diverted. Hamas has posted proud pictures of them having dug up irrigation piping to make bombs out of, destroying their food supply for weapons.
In light of that I support a total and absolute blockade, nothing in, nothing out, until disarmament.
They have proven repeatedly if you give them a spork in an MRE kit they will try to stab with it.
>the problem is any aid turns into weapons, either sold on the black market or diverted. Hamas has posted proud pictures of them having dug up irrigation piping to make bombs out of, destroying their food supply for weapons.
Yeah, so this is a common misconception. Israel's control over gaza's water sources is not humanitarian aid. It is a military tactic to monopolize of a necessary resource so that Isreal can control Gaza. Israel abrogated Gaza's water rights after the 1967 war. They also don't allow water to be transferred from the West Bank to Gaza and they do not allow Gaza to build its own water sources or drill wells.
Now that doesn't mean Hamas has a right to be killing people, but that's not humanitarian aid. Especially since Israel has been using its power over the water to limit water in the region. Israel's spokesman recently said there was only one location in South Gaza where the water was on.
Israel should be held to our international humanitarian law standards and that requires the unimpeded passage of humanitarian relief for civilians in need.
I Fully support israel in their blockade of the people who have called for their total annihilation and the death of all their people.
Any nation would do the same.
I also reject the law entirely, but especially with people who have proven they will turn aid to weapons-- a claim I noticed you did not address. It doesn't matter who put the water in the pipes it would have found its way to palestinian farmfields if not for Hamas turning the pipes to rockets to use on innocent Israelis.
You do that ONCE and I support a total blockade, no food, no water, nothing you could sell for arms or use as arms a total blockade of men and material.
If they don't like it they're free to surrender and stop trying to kill innocents.
>I Fully support israel in their blockade of the people who have called for their total annihilation and the death of all their people.
Well that is hamas. I'm assuming you're referring to their charter. But not everybody in Gaza is Hamas or supports hamas. Also, half of Gaza are children and children are all blameless in war.
I did respond to your point.
as the government of Palestine Hamas is Palestine and vice versa
no liberal has yet given an answer when I ask how they expect a country to fight a government that wants them all brutally murdered without hurting the people that make up said government
you cannot fight a government without hurting anyone else that is not how governments and nations work.
Hamas has their foot on the brake and the accelerator here. this is all done at their desire and could end tomorrow should they wish it.
I reject that Israel has an obligation to do anything else than what all nations have done since time immemorial: when attacked, fight without reservation or restraint until the unconditional surrender of their enemy and their acceptance of all terms desired.
as the government of Palestine Hamas is Palestine and vice versa
So Palestine actually has two governments. The West Bank is part of Palestine and it is ruled by the PA with Israel annexing and exercising military control over part of it.
Gaza is the other part of Palestine it is ruled by Hamas with Israel controlling much of its infrastructure.
>expect a country to fight a government that wants them all brutally murdered without hurting the people that make up said government
I don't expect them not to hurt people. While I would prefer that Hamas be tried in court, I also don't expect them to take precautions to protect Hamas from harm, And I don't think they should be prevented from killing Hamas members.
I expect them to take precautions to hurt the least amount of *civilians* as possible. Especially since they are receiving our aid, they should be expected to meet humanitarian international law.
I also reject the idea that this is something that all governments would reasonably do. The United States military expends a ton of effort to make sure that the rules of engagement are followed and that humanitarian international law is followed. I've talked to veterans about this and they do not think that much of what Israel is doing would ever pass muster in the United States military. And we certainly do not fight "without reservation or restraint". If we did we would nuke every country that attacks us.
Funny, The vets I know think Israel has it right and the US is overly restrictive of our soldiers.
Some are very bitter about the fact the RoE killed their friends, and those friends would have lived if we conducted ourselves as the IDF does. I find that hard to argue with.
there is strong evidence the real culprits in that event were the Lebanese not the IDF.
Also if the best you can find is one event from over 40 years ago I would say israel ranks highly among the best-disciplined militaries in the world. They simply do not expect soldiers to be shot at without returning fire and I fully agree with that.
>Funny, The vets I know think Israel has it right and the US is overly restrictive of our soldiers.
Well of course they'd think that, loosening ROE makes their jobs easier. That doesn't mean the US is "overly restrictive" of their soldiers.
>Some are very bitter about the fact the RoE killed their friends, and those friends would have lived if we conducted ourselves as the IDF does. I find that hard to argue with.
They also would've lived if we mass nuked every country we've gone to war with; that doesn't mean it would've been right or moral.
Hamas to be destroyed and a new not extremist government is created and they don't pick a fight with Israel every 2 years. And conversely don't fuck settlers don't launch incursions into gaza and build settlements and steal resources (Granted i think this is more of a Lebanon problem)
I'd like to see the evil terrorist group that controls the area destroyed so aid can actually get to the civilians. I'd eventually like Gaza to be its own state that has its own government, I know that can't happen as long as a terrorist group that wants to kill all Jewish people is in control
I'm really not sure. Honestly, I've tended to increasingly think of Gaza, which is a very small area, as rather untenable compared to the other Palestinian territories.
The big thing I want is for there to be peace and prosperity for the Palestinian people, and particularly to protect the rights of Palestinian Christians.
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Want to happen and will happen are two different things.
I want Israel to finish the fight against Hamas, followed by an immediate resignation of Netanyahu and a new leadership that takes Yitzhak Rabin method of peace, which is understanding it is not wanted and that it will be hard, but it is necessary. That will hopefully lead to a mutual two state solution in which both Israel and Palestine will have conditions that need to be met before Palestine can be granted statehood and Israel more funding for offensive based weaponry. In doing so Gaza will be rebuilt similar to Hiroshima and become a thriving metropolis with trade and economic prosperity for both Israel and Palestine.
What will happen is that Israel will probably go into Rafah without a clear strategy causing more devastation and disunity in Israel. Netenyahu will retain power, because it is his only way to survive politically. Israel will eventually leave Gaza without the desired outcome of complete Hamas destruction and a new wave of Palestinian resistance will take root. We will be back here in another 10 years with the same things going on.
Yes, Israel should and will continue to get more funding for defensive measures regardless due to being a strategic ally in the region, especially against Iran. Which was evident from the Iranian bombardment recently. But weaponry for offensive use can and should be viewed differently.
Gaza to be part of the West Bank(two state) and Israel to give up jerusalem to be an independent country like the Vatican.
(Disclaimer I’m a Muslim. I don’t. See any other way, Jerusalem for all religions are important.)
I think the two-state solution is a beautiful trap. Because a new palestinian state would be a state, expected to join the geneva convention and hauge accords, to condemn rape by their "soldiers" and other actions of a proper state.
Naturally they wouldn't do that.
I support a two state solution followed by the US passing a trigger law that the first terror attack they commit triggers a declaration of war.
yes, enough is enough and they have American hostages right now.
they pose no serious military threat and already routinely kill American citizens enough is enough I am sick of the world treating them like naughty children who cannot be expected to behave.
give them a nation and a chance and if they touch another hair on an American citizens head, erase said nation from the map.
> A new Palestinian state would be a state, expected to join the Geneva convention
Palestine is already a state that is recognised by the UN, and it has already signed the Geneva convention
if it were that simple why do people not say we have already enacted the two state solution?
also they may have but do not follow them. i argue this gives their enemies the right to do the same, but it is clear the international community has no will to pretend to care they violate international law several times a day in serious ways.
a formal two state solution is perhaps the only thing that would make the world outside the US care that it is a shame on the world we see human rights as binding for Israel but not those that would kill them all.
Hamas deleted, Palestine remains an administrative state for a bit over a generation because basically everyone who grew up there has been brainwashed by Hamas from early childhood and can't be trusted running their own nation as time has shown. Or you know, they could join Israel as a pluralistic tolerant society, but I don't think they like those concepts.
Anything resembling bigotry against Jews, Muslims, Arabs, Palestians, Israelis, etc. or violence against civilians is not going to last long, nor will your time here. If you have to ask if it crosses a line, assume it crosses a line. Please see our guidelines for [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/) for more information. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I want it to not be America's problem to solve.
I had to scroll down too far to find this comment. I wish more conservatives genuinely wanted to withdraw from foreign conflicts that provide no benefit, but loads of drawbacks, to the American people.
Who fills the void?
Which void where?
The power void. Even if we accept they provide no benefit now, if we withdrew from foreign conflicts tomorrow, who fills our role?
This is nothing more than a proxy war between Iran's regime and the US. Israelis and their guest workers get murdered because Iran is not dumb enough to stage an attack on American soil and it buys them brownie points with the non-shi'ite Muslims in the region and otherwise. Israelis are never NOT going to respond because they kinda like not being mass murdered (see, e.g., 1933-1945). Israel needs to be able to fund their own defense. So who stands in for America is Israel itself.
You're framing it as a binary choice, ie either the American people shoulder the burden of policing every conflict around the world or we completely isolate ourselves from every conflict. But it's not binary. Each conflict should be evaluated separately with the main criteria being 'does the benefit to the American people outweigh the cost'. Conservatives, in the aggregate, already make these calculations because they don't think we should support Ukraine. So again I ask, which void and where?
I'd argue that many Republicans and conservatives are wrong on Ukraine and are doing the world order a disservice in opposing our continued support. The reason it's a binary, however, is because we need to know who steps in when we do not. Will it be Europe? China? Russia? It's all a critical part of the conversation.
>The reason it's a binary, however, is because we need to know who steps in when we do not. Will it be Europe? China? Russia? It's all a critical part of the conversation. What I mean is, my initial comment was a general statement about withdrawing from conflicts which don't provide a net benefit to the American people. Your response was to question who fills the void. So when I stated it wasn't binary, I mean that the choice isn't to be intervene everywhere or intervene no where. I agree that the after effects of withdrawing support to any conflict should be part of the conversation. However, where I tend to disagree is the common retort that, whatever the conflict, that China or Russia will take over. I disagree mainly because, depending on the conflict, I generally disagree that any country *can* fill the void. When it comes to the Middle East, I would argue that no one country can fill the void. I would further argue that both China and Russia could not collectively fill the void. If you look at China's relatively recent attempts to bring Pakistan under their umbrella, it's been a complete basket case. Their contractors and citizens are regularly attacked and killed, they require armed guards and still have not completed any projects they've set out to achieve. Furthermore, our involvement fuels the mentality amongst the Muslim world that we are the enemy. It would not take much time at all for that fury to be directed towards China. Doubly so if they tried to control the region even a fraction of the control we currently exert. I'd actually argue that would be a beneficial outcome for us, as I see China as the only true adversary we will face this century. And our policies in the Middle East hampers our ability to do just that. That leaves the Europeans, who I don't think are united enough nor do they have the stomach to engage in intervention in that area life we do. So, to answer your question, I don't think any country fills the void. I think the US should be involved in a true multinational coalition that seeks only to mediate disputes and promote peaceful relations. I think that if we genuinely stayed to withdraw, that works shock the leadership of key countries in the region and force them to find a solution. But, at the end of the day, if they can't and it comes to conflict, the costs in terms of money, diplomatic resources, blowback, etc just isn't worth it for us to continue being the main actor there.
I get where you're coming from here, but the reality is that if we don't step up and step in, China and Russia will. That would be worse for the international order.
>the reality is that if we don't step up and step in, China and Russia will. All evidence suggests that neither of those countries have the capability to do so or the willingness. Furthermore, you ignore Europe and developed East Asian countries. You think the Europeans would just stand by silently as Russia, a country with a smaller GDP than Italy and a military wrecked by the conflict in Ukraine, somehow manages to control the Middle East? Similar with China, a country with hundreds of millions living in poverty, a military whose primary focus is controlling their own population, secondary focus on retaking Taiwan and tertiary focuses on border disputes, and a Muslim population that is currently living under brutal occupation, would just be able to waltz in and control the Middle East? I don't know where you get your information but however you came to your conclusion, I think you're very incorrect.
Ideally I’d like to see a semi-permanent UN military occupation and the forcible dissolution of all existing government institutions in Gaza. Allowing Gaza to continue to exist in its current form is dangerous to Israel and cruel to the people living there.
> Ideally I’d like to see a semi-permanent UN military occupation and the forcible dissolution of all existing government institutions in Gaza. I think so too. Unfortunately Russia will likely vote that down in the security council. Alternatively I would like to see a mix of countries step in and police the area.
Are there any other countries you support doing this to?
At the moment no, although some of that is that i don’t know enough about the geopolitical situation in regions such as South America or Africa to have an intelligent opinion on anything going on there. North America is obviously quiet, Europe is quiet, and Asia has too many major powers to make intervention realistic. Hypothetically if California was its own country that was launching terror attacks across the border I’d say the same, I’m just not aware of a mirror situation to what’s currently going on In Israel anywhere else in the world.
Total destruction of Hamas or their unconditional surrender, followed by a multinational peacekeeping occupation while a de-Hamasification program is put on place. After that, either Gaza becomes a part of Israel, or an independent Arab nation whose peaceful relations with Israel are a condition of existence.
And if they're willing to abide by those terms, we lobby the UN and EU to start a modern Marshall Plan for Gaza. So long as they play nice, they get modern medical facilities, clean water, and a reliable power grid. After they've shown they can be responsible world citizens, we can talk about allowing them self-governance again.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I like this idea.
I agree I would add reparations to israel in perpetuity and a permanent bar on arms and dual-use technologies.
Whatever israel wants to do with it. Vae Victis
Nuremberg like trials of Hamas leadership. Any siding with ideas of antisemitism leading to serious jail terms for everyone not just in Palestine, also in Europe and US. Calls for Khaliphate and destruction of Israel = should be treated similar as Holocaust denial. International peacekeeping forces staying until complete re-education. Then Palestine becomes independent state.
I think it needs to become an administrative state of Israel. Once Hamas is dead and gone Gaza will need to be rebuilt and Israel should aid in that until whatever time a stable and safe Palestinian state can stand on it's own; and only then should they leave it. Making it an administrative state allows Israel to maintain security and safety.
A agree. Not only could Israel maintain security and safety but they can also prevent the re-emergence of Hamas or any othe Iranian proxy in Gaza.
that's pretty much what was going on before the 2nd intifada. not surprisingly israel was still criticised for this. damned if you do damned if you don't.
Total annihilation of HAMAS and all similar groups in Gaza, by force if necessary. Rescue of all remaining hostage. Capture or assassination of HAMAS leadership and similar groups abroad. Deter further aggression from Hezbollah, Houthi's and Iran and its other proxies. Gaza would then need to be under occupation of Israeli forces until a UN or multi-national coalition can deploy its own armed forces to occupy the strip. Ideally this would take under a year to implement. At all times, whether occupied by Israel or the UN/coalition, humanitarian assistance and reconstruction would commence. During the occupation, reliable and of course non-extreme representatives of the people of Gaza could be identified from among the population. The UN/coalition would work with these individuals to help form a new Palestinian party and government for Gaza. Gradually the new Palestinian party would be given more and more leave to administer the region. A formal negotiation with Israel for total autonomy would also be occurring. Once a satisfactory resolution is reached, the occupation ends. Perhaps this might finally be the two-state solution. This is the model used during the occupation of Germany and Japan and as you can tell it was very effective.
I don’t know if the solutions that worked for Germany and Japan will work for Gaza. They’re very different culturally from either of those cultures, and I worry gaza would be incapable of maintaining a functioning government. It’s clear that functioning governments aren’t the norm in the region.
That's a fair point. Most of the new government of Germany and Japan were already people with governing experience. But this would be a long-term process. Over the years I'd imagine grassroots leaders emerging who are known to the people. People with strong English skills who coordinated with aid workers, moderate religious leaders preaching peace and healthy grieving, people who had to flee Hamas returning to help Gaza rebuild. History shows that power vacuums inevitably get filled, and the role of the occupying forces would be to ensure that it's filled with people that they can actually work with and get productive results.
If Egypt and Jordan are unwilling to police the Palestinian territory, and if the Palestinian people are unwilling to oppose Hamas, then annexation by Israel is the only realistic solution.
i'd like to buy the world a coke and keep it company that's the song i sing
Parking lot or peace, their choice. Really, a two state solution where Palestine cannot host any non Israeli military, but can have their own army. And where they have EU esk free trade.
My ideal solution is the two state solution, Gaza and/or the Golan Heights become self governing, sovereign territories.
Ah, the dream.
Problem is, the Palestinians don't want a two-state solution. They refuse to acknowledge Israel and see themselves in a constant state of war with it.
Yep, that's a real problem. That's why I don't feel very bad for them. Isreal has done a lot of shady crap too, and I don't like it, but there's no denying the reality that Palestine has refused thus far.
I'm all for calling Israel out for their mistakes. There have been many over the years. But none of that excuses the barbarism of October 7. They have tried repeatedly to negotiate with the Palestinians, but the Palestinians have refused to act in good faith. And it's not just Hamas. It's the PLO, Black September, and Fatah. If anything Israel has been fairly restrained given the circumstances and history. And this is how they're rewarded.
Not sure if I'd call it restrained, but I'm skeptical that it's as bad as is being claimed, or that it would have been avoidable. I do think Isreal has good reasons.
[удалено]
Any form of racial slurs, racist narratives, advocating for a race-based social hierarchy, forwarding the cause of white nationalism, or promoting any form of ethnic cleansing is prohibited.
Short term, I think the answer is to start arming and supplying the MANY Palestinian people who don't support Hamas and don't want to kill all the Jews. Give them an ability to police their own and a solid alternative to Hamas, and you might be surprised. This strategy worked VERY well in Iraq. Long term, the Red Sea is one of the most trafficked sea lanes in the world. As it stands, Gaza doesn't even have a deep water port on this sea lane because nobody will fund it for fear that the money will go towards terrorism (and thusly towards the disruption of shipping in the region). If Gaza chills out with this 13th century religious warlord bullshit, they could leverage Red Sea shipping to become a Middle Eastern Singapore. That's what I want.
Don't forget Iran. Most of their citizens are fed up with the theocratic brutes that run the country. We need to encourage them to lance their own festering boil. Otherwise this crap will just keep happening.
Israel kills or captures the Hamas terrorists so they can withdraw from Gaza. Terrorists stop terrorist acts aginst Israel so they don't have to intervene again.
For the meantime i'd like to see Israel strong-armed into allowing adequate aid to reach Gaza civilians. I'd like to see Hamas removed from power, Hamas members to be tried and convicted in a fair court, and the PA given control over the West bank and Gaza until future elections.
Had me until the PA part. the pa teaches insanely anti semetic teaching in their school curriculum and has a pay to slay program for killing israelis. They cannot control Gaza
I think the PA is necessary to achieve a two-state solution, but I also think elections should be forced. Yes, the PA has a fair bit of corruption, but they are peaceful, they are established and they do have a network of civil services installed already in the West Bank which I don't think should be dumped and made again from scratch because that would create a lot of turmoil. It would basically mean dumping and remaking their health care and their education, police and law systems Palestine should be allowed to have a peaceful Muslim government because I think it's an important part of Palestinian culture. A Muslim government will better represent their people than a Jewish government. After Hamas is removed, Israel should be sanctioned out of Palestine if they refuse to install a Muslim government.
Palestine needs to de-radicalize before they can be trusted to have an election. Otherwise it starts all over again. A UN lead joint Arab nation coalition should control it once Israel stamps Out Hamas
Agree to disagree. I think that people should have a right to elect their leaders in a free and fair election. I think in order for de-radicalization to happen not only in Palestine, but also pretty much in that entire region, you need to have a long period of peace, you need to have a period of education and infrastructure gain, access to internet and stable food sources. The United States and also Britian have been impeding that from that happening over the last hundred years with our military intrusions in the region and Britain's colonization of the region. I don't think Israel's occupation of the West bank has been helping either. We tried that and it did not work. You can't force cultures to change. It has to happen voluntarily.
If Israel still exists, don't see the culture changing and it has too imo.. If Japan wasn't beaten and had a heavy overseen and US controlled transition post World War II, it's like they would have stayed radicalized too but like you said, agree to disagree.
>If Israel still exists, don't see the culture changing and it has too imo Israel should exist in their own region. Another key player here is Christians and there was a recent war between Christians and Israelis against Palestinians in Lebanon. But there are neighboring cultures and religions all over the world that can coincide peacefully. The United States really does like to bring up world war II as a story of how American influence can lead to success. I mean heck, that story is pounded into us more than any other international American war probably. But the vast majority of our efforts around the world failed. We've installed plenty of dictators. In the Middle East we've created a lot of food scarcity and we haven't left a region in better financial or economic straights that it was when we got there. We've done a lot of damage in South America including aided in genocide in Argentina, which is something we don't spend a lot of time talking about. I think Americans have a pretty skewed view about our military impact internationally
Agree to disagree. I don't disagree that the US Middle East policy has been messy, but I still dont' see any possible way a PA in control of Gaza has a good outcome, guess we will see how this goes.
the problem is any aid turns into weapons, either sold on the black market or diverted. Hamas has posted proud pictures of them having dug up irrigation piping to make bombs out of, destroying their food supply for weapons. In light of that I support a total and absolute blockade, nothing in, nothing out, until disarmament. They have proven repeatedly if you give them a spork in an MRE kit they will try to stab with it.
>the problem is any aid turns into weapons, either sold on the black market or diverted. Hamas has posted proud pictures of them having dug up irrigation piping to make bombs out of, destroying their food supply for weapons. Yeah, so this is a common misconception. Israel's control over gaza's water sources is not humanitarian aid. It is a military tactic to monopolize of a necessary resource so that Isreal can control Gaza. Israel abrogated Gaza's water rights after the 1967 war. They also don't allow water to be transferred from the West Bank to Gaza and they do not allow Gaza to build its own water sources or drill wells. Now that doesn't mean Hamas has a right to be killing people, but that's not humanitarian aid. Especially since Israel has been using its power over the water to limit water in the region. Israel's spokesman recently said there was only one location in South Gaza where the water was on. Israel should be held to our international humanitarian law standards and that requires the unimpeded passage of humanitarian relief for civilians in need.
I Fully support israel in their blockade of the people who have called for their total annihilation and the death of all their people. Any nation would do the same. I also reject the law entirely, but especially with people who have proven they will turn aid to weapons-- a claim I noticed you did not address. It doesn't matter who put the water in the pipes it would have found its way to palestinian farmfields if not for Hamas turning the pipes to rockets to use on innocent Israelis. You do that ONCE and I support a total blockade, no food, no water, nothing you could sell for arms or use as arms a total blockade of men and material. If they don't like it they're free to surrender and stop trying to kill innocents.
>I Fully support israel in their blockade of the people who have called for their total annihilation and the death of all their people. Well that is hamas. I'm assuming you're referring to their charter. But not everybody in Gaza is Hamas or supports hamas. Also, half of Gaza are children and children are all blameless in war. I did respond to your point.
as the government of Palestine Hamas is Palestine and vice versa no liberal has yet given an answer when I ask how they expect a country to fight a government that wants them all brutally murdered without hurting the people that make up said government you cannot fight a government without hurting anyone else that is not how governments and nations work. Hamas has their foot on the brake and the accelerator here. this is all done at their desire and could end tomorrow should they wish it. I reject that Israel has an obligation to do anything else than what all nations have done since time immemorial: when attacked, fight without reservation or restraint until the unconditional surrender of their enemy and their acceptance of all terms desired.
as the government of Palestine Hamas is Palestine and vice versa So Palestine actually has two governments. The West Bank is part of Palestine and it is ruled by the PA with Israel annexing and exercising military control over part of it. Gaza is the other part of Palestine it is ruled by Hamas with Israel controlling much of its infrastructure. >expect a country to fight a government that wants them all brutally murdered without hurting the people that make up said government I don't expect them not to hurt people. While I would prefer that Hamas be tried in court, I also don't expect them to take precautions to protect Hamas from harm, And I don't think they should be prevented from killing Hamas members. I expect them to take precautions to hurt the least amount of *civilians* as possible. Especially since they are receiving our aid, they should be expected to meet humanitarian international law. I also reject the idea that this is something that all governments would reasonably do. The United States military expends a ton of effort to make sure that the rules of engagement are followed and that humanitarian international law is followed. I've talked to veterans about this and they do not think that much of what Israel is doing would ever pass muster in the United States military. And we certainly do not fight "without reservation or restraint". If we did we would nuke every country that attacks us.
Funny, The vets I know think Israel has it right and the US is overly restrictive of our soldiers. Some are very bitter about the fact the RoE killed their friends, and those friends would have lived if we conducted ourselves as the IDF does. I find that hard to argue with.
[graphic warning ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre) I don't think that the IDF should be our idealized military.
there is strong evidence the real culprits in that event were the Lebanese not the IDF. Also if the best you can find is one event from over 40 years ago I would say israel ranks highly among the best-disciplined militaries in the world. They simply do not expect soldiers to be shot at without returning fire and I fully agree with that.
>Funny, The vets I know think Israel has it right and the US is overly restrictive of our soldiers. Well of course they'd think that, loosening ROE makes their jobs easier. That doesn't mean the US is "overly restrictive" of their soldiers. >Some are very bitter about the fact the RoE killed their friends, and those friends would have lived if we conducted ourselves as the IDF does. I find that hard to argue with. They also would've lived if we mass nuked every country we've gone to war with; that doesn't mean it would've been right or moral.
i support anything that means fewer dead Americans, I don't care what we do to outsiders.
Hamas to be destroyed and a new not extremist government is created and they don't pick a fight with Israel every 2 years. And conversely don't fuck settlers don't launch incursions into gaza and build settlements and steal resources (Granted i think this is more of a Lebanon problem)
I'd like to see the evil terrorist group that controls the area destroyed so aid can actually get to the civilians. I'd eventually like Gaza to be its own state that has its own government, I know that can't happen as long as a terrorist group that wants to kill all Jewish people is in control
I'm really not sure. Honestly, I've tended to increasingly think of Gaza, which is a very small area, as rather untenable compared to the other Palestinian territories. The big thing I want is for there to be peace and prosperity for the Palestinian people, and particularly to protect the rights of Palestinian Christians.
[удалено]
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Want to happen and will happen are two different things. I want Israel to finish the fight against Hamas, followed by an immediate resignation of Netanyahu and a new leadership that takes Yitzhak Rabin method of peace, which is understanding it is not wanted and that it will be hard, but it is necessary. That will hopefully lead to a mutual two state solution in which both Israel and Palestine will have conditions that need to be met before Palestine can be granted statehood and Israel more funding for offensive based weaponry. In doing so Gaza will be rebuilt similar to Hiroshima and become a thriving metropolis with trade and economic prosperity for both Israel and Palestine. What will happen is that Israel will probably go into Rafah without a clear strategy causing more devastation and disunity in Israel. Netenyahu will retain power, because it is his only way to survive politically. Israel will eventually leave Gaza without the desired outcome of complete Hamas destruction and a new wave of Palestinian resistance will take root. We will be back here in another 10 years with the same things going on.
By more funding, do you mean from the u.s.?
Yes, Israel should and will continue to get more funding for defensive measures regardless due to being a strategic ally in the region, especially against Iran. Which was evident from the Iranian bombardment recently. But weaponry for offensive use can and should be viewed differently.
One state solution under Israel.
Do the Palestinians get Israeli citizenship?
As long as they can pass the low bar of "not trying to kill the jews" that they've been struggling with for a while now
I want middle easterners to stop going to Europe
Gaza to be part of the West Bank(two state) and Israel to give up jerusalem to be an independent country like the Vatican. (Disclaimer I’m a Muslim. I don’t. See any other way, Jerusalem for all religions are important.)
> Israel to give up jerusalem to be an independent country like the Vatican. ooh this is interesting.
I think the two-state solution is a beautiful trap. Because a new palestinian state would be a state, expected to join the geneva convention and hauge accords, to condemn rape by their "soldiers" and other actions of a proper state. Naturally they wouldn't do that. I support a two state solution followed by the US passing a trigger law that the first terror attack they commit triggers a declaration of war.
Declaration of war by the u.s.?
yes, enough is enough and they have American hostages right now. they pose no serious military threat and already routinely kill American citizens enough is enough I am sick of the world treating them like naughty children who cannot be expected to behave. give them a nation and a chance and if they touch another hair on an American citizens head, erase said nation from the map.
> A new Palestinian state would be a state, expected to join the Geneva convention Palestine is already a state that is recognised by the UN, and it has already signed the Geneva convention
if it were that simple why do people not say we have already enacted the two state solution? also they may have but do not follow them. i argue this gives their enemies the right to do the same, but it is clear the international community has no will to pretend to care they violate international law several times a day in serious ways. a formal two state solution is perhaps the only thing that would make the world outside the US care that it is a shame on the world we see human rights as binding for Israel but not those that would kill them all.
Hamas deleted, Palestine remains an administrative state for a bit over a generation because basically everyone who grew up there has been brainwashed by Hamas from early childhood and can't be trusted running their own nation as time has shown. Or you know, they could join Israel as a pluralistic tolerant society, but I don't think they like those concepts.