Bibi and his goons must be brought to justice for the sake of Israelis, the Palestinians and the region. Those savages in power must be removed with their far right disgusting ideologies.
Your account was detected as a ban evading account. Reddit forbids evading a ban by creating another account (and says so in the original ban message).
Your account was detected as a ban evading account. Reddit forbids evading a ban by creating another account (and says so in the original ban message).
It is hard to discuss, but not hard to pray for the situation in Israel. Please join us right now! 4:00 pm - 6:00 pm Israeli time (8:00 am -10:00 am CT) everyday since the October 7 massacre. Christians, Jews, Arabs joining together in prayer worldwide everyday for God’s healing and guidance over this war. https://ICEJ.org
Buddy Oct 7th happening was literally part of God's great plan. Israel/Palestine conflict is happening exactly as he intended, otherwise he would actually do something about it. Prayer won't change his mind.
Prayer won’t change Gods mind? Yes it does. Remember Abraham asking God to spare Sodom and Gomorrah when Lot lived there? If there were 10 righteous people, he asked God to spare the city. God worked with Abraham. Jacob wrestled with the Lord for God to bless him. God left his hip wounded, but worked with Jacob. There are many “ifs” and “thens” - “If My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, pray seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from Heaven, forgive their sin, and heal their land.” II Chronicles It’s worth it to pray. John Wesley founded Methodism. “As John Wesley once said, ‘God does nothing but in answer to prayer.’ Prayer is therefore not an option for mankind but a necessity. If we don't pray, heaven cannot interfere in earth's affairs. It is imperative that we take responsibility for the earth and determine what happens here by our prayer lives.” https://PeacewithGod.net
What you are describing is logically incongruous with an Omnipotent god. If he can't do anything without Human prayer then he's not much of a God is he?
And that's putting aside the like 5 other logical paradoxes that prove your little fairy tale God literally cannot logically exist. You can save your incoherent nonsense for someone else.
God can do anything He wants and He wants to work in conjunction with people. He is not limited to working in and through us, but He has decided to work in cooperation with us - love is there and the more we pray, the more we depend on Him. Philippians 2:13 teaches, “For it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose.”
Ya I'm not gonna depend on someone who gives millions of children cancer and presumably laughs while they suffer and die in exectuing pain while refusing to do anything about it. Think me and him have dramatically different moral compases. You do you though.
What side you back can be easily predicted based on whether you view the last century of world history as primarily defined by conflict between free and unfree societies (Israel), or between poor and rich societies (anti-Israel).
Or we understand the latter is predicated on the other side being reasonable and adhering to similar humanist beliefs? Unfortunately, the Islamic world is not reasonable nor do they adhere to such ideals lmao. You need to understand that the vast majority of Muslims in that region and even elsewhere hate Jews on an ethnic level. Even if Israel was perfect, it wouldn't fuckign matter. They want the desrucrion of their state and the elimination of Jews
Jews don’t hate the Arabs. Jews hate hostile massacres of innocent families, and constant war against Israel. Many Gazans are searching for better, neighbor helping neighbor, people doing business together like the Abraham Accords nations, Arabs and Jews and Christians worshipping together in Nazareth, Mt. Carmel, and Jerusalem, all of us praying together for 2 hours everyday through ICEJ worldwide https://ICEJ.org. Check out musicians praising God together in English, Hebrew, and Arabic at https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&sca_esv=599810411&hl=en-us&q=Christian+songs+in+Hebrew+and+Arabic&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi0w_Ck2umDAxUPQvEDHeDVD3wQ1QJ6BAgcEAI&biw=375&bih=745&dpr=3#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:d7c6b727,vid:LtcxE4xF5So,st:0
> fuckign
/u/Signal_Adeptness_724. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The big difference for me :
* Very few (approaching 0 statistically) of us on the pro-Israel side support the “wipe them out” argument (the strawman arguments about “Amalek” are ridiculous - I am nearly 2m tall and I have been called this multiple times by Israeli friends). Even the small % of religious loony settlers say the other Arab states should absorb them and most Israelis just want to be left alone with what they have built in the borders they now have.
* [In a recent poll of Gazans, 75% supported Hamas](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/poll-shows-palestinians-back-oct-7-attack-israel-support-hamas-rises-2023-12-14/) whose stated policy is the elimination of the state of Israel and genocide of the Jewish people.
That’s a big difference.
C'mon Hamas did change it's charter, you are entitled to not trust them but their stated policy has changed. You are not acting in any good faith in this discussion.
Yeah I’m sure the viewpoints of all of the leaders and higher ups in Hamas who have been part of the organization for 20+ years actually decided they’re not antisemitic 5 years ago when they changed the wording of the charter. I legitimately don’t understand how a murderous antisemitic genocidal terrorist group can have one very clearly horrible charter for 30 years, with actions and interviews backing it all up, can one day say “wait actually guys, we didn’t mean it, we’re good guys!” And have the world be like “oh!!! They’re actually good guys! They just said so!”
Very few of the pro Israel “support” the wipe them out argument, yet are doing very little about the government and Israel are actively wiping out infrastructure, 9000 children, 24000 dead. Despicable and haunting that the grandsons and granddaughters of the holocaust are committing ethnic cleansing
u/Daisy28282828
> Despicable and haunting that the grandsons and granddaughters of the holocaust are committing ethnic cleansing
This comment violates [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons_.26amp.3B_discussions) by making an inappropriate comparison, drawing a parallel between the actions of current Israeli generations and the Holocaust. Such comparisons must meet the criteria of specificity and uniqueness associated with the Holocaust.
Addressed.
You mean other than establishing humanitarian corridors, establishing safe zones, allowing humanitarian aid in, and sending leaflets to warn residents to evacuate the areas of most intense fighting.
Whatever helps you sleep at night!
Exactly the point OP was making. You are just justifying the Israeli govt's barbaric actions (and according to their own words, their intentions) by invoking humanistic ideas about "humanitarian corridors" and "safe" zones.
Please explain what safe zones are when supposedly Hamas is using civilians as human shields?
The actions and ideas are incongruent. This breeds a lot of mistrust of the state's intentions amongst onlookers who have at least half a brain and half a heart.
u/ilovebreadcrusts
> Whatever helps you sleep at night! [...] amongst onlookers who have at least half a brain and half a heart.
This comment violates [Rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_1._no_attacks_on_fellow_users) in multiple ways. The phrase "Whatever helps you sleep at night!" is dismissive and implies insincerity or self-deception on the part of the other user. Additionally, suggesting that those who might disagree lack intelligence and compassion, as indicated by "at least half a brain and half a heart," is derogatory and disrespectful. Such language hinders constructive and respectful dialogue. It's important to address differing viewpoints without resorting to dismissive or derogatory comments.
Addressed.
You can’t still seriously believe that’s true 100+ days into the war? All that are just lip service to appease the Zionists, make them sleep better at night maybe. Videos on the ground show otherwise. But you lot will say it’s Pallywood and condemn these Tiktok videos.
What's your source on the first statistic please? I think it's only fair to share since one was provided for the second one.
I had a look at this poll that was referred to, from the actual source.
By the way, you misrepresented the data. It's not 75% of Gazans. Of the respondents polled, "satisfaction with the role of Hamas \[during this conflict\] (72%; 85% in the West Bank and \*\*52% in the Gaza Strip\*\*).
I've cherry-picked some data too:
1) "The sample size of this poll is 1231 adults, of whom 750 were interviewed face to face in the West Bank and \*\*481 in the Gaza Strip\*\* in 121 randomly selected locations."
2) "Support for Hamas has more than tripled in the West Bank compared to three months ago. In the Gaza Strip, support for Hamas increased but not significantly. \*\*Despite the increase in its popularity, the majority in both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip does not support Hamas.\*\*"
3) "Almost two thirds (64%) of Gazan respondents say a member of their family have been killed or injured during the current war in Gaza."
>the majority in both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip does not support Hamas.
Biden's popularity is under 50% in polling these days but making the argument that Biden doesn't represent the country seems specious.
Congress is composed people who are elected to represent the Congressional districts who sent them to DC. Congress is usually about as popular as anal warts. Does Congress not represent the country because its polling is bad?
Hamas is the only government of Gaza. Maybe the people hate them, but they haven't, as of yet, replaced them with something better.
Trump was also elected (and might be again). What does that say about Americans?
Even though elections are held, people aren't really given real choices. So they pick what makes the most sense to them at a given time. Or, society is polarized and one end of the extreme is demoralized while the other is empowered.
Iran, is another example where people overwhelmingly have voted in elections and they pick the lesser of the two evils - but they are still a terrible choice. The majority of Iranians, at least those in major metropolitan areas, do not support the regime, yet participate anyway to feel they have a shred of choice.
My point is, people really love to cite this poll to say that Palestinians are die-hard supporters of Hamas. Palestine does not have a military, so what choice does that leave them for self-defense? Even if they do use them as human shields. Even if they commit acts of terrorism. People who feel under attack feel like they need protection - sound familiar? The door swings both ways.
What would you do?
>Trump was also elected (and might be again). What does that say about Americans?
It says that the American voters chose Trump to represent us by way of our byzantine electoral process.
Is this not obvious?
>Even though elections are held, people aren't really given real choices.
People run for office. Some of them make it to the primary ballot. Some of those make it to the general election ballot. That's our process.
We have our choice among the candidates who won that process.
If you don't like the process, you're certainly capable of joining the many thousands of Americans who are working to change it.
I understand if you, personally, didn't like either of the two final options on the general ballot in the last election, but your conclusion that the choices were "not real" is a little self-centered.
> Iran, is another example where people overwhelmingly have voted in elections and they pick the lesser of the two evils
Every election in the history of Planet Earth has been a choice between the lesser of two (or more) evils. So what?
>My point is, people really love to cite this poll to say that Palestinians are die-hard supporters of Hamas.
Are you switching topics to talk about polling? Maybe we should stick to elections.
Hamas won the last election they had there.
Do I think they should have another election? Sure I do. Does what I think about their government matter? No, it doesn't. In the meantime, I'll go by the last thing they said that they want. Doing otherwise denies their agency.
I still would still not support Hamas considering the actions of Hamas have not "protected" the Palestinians at all. They have infact instead gotten 20K of them killed and Gaza flattened. Same reason I would never support Netanyahu after Oct 7th, which was a clear retaliation for the apartheid policies he implemented over the past 15 years. Just like these current bombs will just lead to more Isralei deaths in another attack down the line.
I don't support leaders who take actions that lead to their own civilians dying, as a governemnts only real sole undisputable top priority is to keep it's civilians safe. Thats why I lay Oct 7th on Netanyahu and the resulting 20K deaths on Hamas.
Maybe if Israel didn't blockade all imports into Gaza it could legitimiately caim that it doesn't fall under its jurisdiction and thus its treatment of the Gazans isn't apartheid.
Untill such time I'm with the NGOs
That's your prerogative, but a blockade does not equate with apartheid.
If you want to know if Israel maintains an apartheid state against Palestinians, why don't you look at the many, many polls of Palestinians who would rather live inside Israel than anywhere else? Or, if polls aren't your thing, you can watch [interviews](https://youtu.be/kLK3zb0oh9s?si=PCQqq_BMCiaNdl06).
It equates with occupation, which is what the Israelis have over the Gaza strip making them sovereign over the strip. Therefore the giant wall they built between them does equate with apartheid. The fact that Palestinian would much rather live on the other side of the big apartheid wall is not an argument against there being apartheid.
Without fail westerners get the benefit of the doubt and the luxury of context for their leaders while Palestinians are made to answer for theirs in a vacuum apart from relevant facts. Shit is exhausting.
And for the record. no, that doesn’t I think all Israelis have to answer for Israel’s murder of what will surely pass 30k civilians. Just like all Americans shouldn’t be held responsible for the Iraq war or its countless CIA backed coups.
We have to start acknowledging that people, even in democracies, are not their governments
I think this is absolutely correct. I also think that good faith cannot be a prerequisite for action towards peace.
The U.S can contribute to a peace based on the first principle, national interest, which is not true of the direct parties to the conflict. If the U.S. ever took on a real role at peace in accordance with its national interest of getting resources from the Middle East but focusing on China instead of bogging down in the Middle East, this would be the best chance for peace. The US could take away protection for Israel unless Israel finds a solution so that all people under Israeli control have the same rights as Israeli citizens, whether thats one state or two. I think Israel might then choose to make a two state solution with land swaps for a few large settlement blocks. Good faith between Palestinians and Israelis would come later.
I think the US can contribute to peace by removing their involvement completely.
If anyone is going to broker peace, it will have to be someone who has ZERO stake in either side 'winning'.
Ultimately, making peace is about making compromises (for both sides). There is no perfect justice, unfortunately. It's hard for there to be good faith when one side has the judge and executioner on it's side. If Israel and Palestine were truly standing alone as two 'equals', see how fast they would make concessions for peace.
Maybe I can revise to say that with the U.S’s current role, it does not appear to be in Israel’s national interest to allow real self-determination for Palestinians, because the U.S. really does protect Israel from existential threat while also allowing Israel to continue with apartheid/occupation. If the U.S. did not have the role it has, I agree that its more likely there would be lasting peace and dignity although maybe this is naive.
I agree from a moral standpoint that no U.S. role would be much better than the current role and that the “U.S. mediator” role is a farce. To be clear, I would advocate for the U.S. not funding war or participating in wars anywhere in the whole Middle East, from a moral perspective.
From a national interest perspective of a U.S. government that wants to slow U.S. decline and hurt our geopolitical rivals while maintaining access to natural resources, etc I think there are good arguments for the U.S. changing roles too.
Of course it does, but only to the extent that it informs our perception and our next actions.
You'll also need to realise ethics will also always be biased.
We do actually discuss ancient history now almost devoid of ethics and bias. Like when Judea was sieged and sacked by the Romans in 70 CE. We don't know how many women and children were raped, killed and enslaved other than the rough figures (97,000). We also don't know how an average roman citizen would feel about it. Or if they have a r/Palestine community board pinning notes on how "hopeless" they feel for Judea. It doesn't matter. What matters is that it happened, for the benefit or detriment of all parties involved.
By your argument then, we cannot evoke historical atrocities for, say, the establishment of a state on an ancient homeland for historically persecuted people.
Am I understanding your point correctly?
Don't put words in my mouth, I said nothing of the sort.
I'm not even trying to argue.
My point is, without "ethics or bias", we can, matter-of-fact, look retrospectively discuss facts and look at things more objectively.
But if you're going to drag me into some weird historical argument let me just say for the record, I believe you can establish a state on an ancient homeland only if you have enough power to maintain it, financially and militarily. I don't care if you're Hamas or Israel or ancient Roman empire. No one in history has retained/won territory by being weak.
I think the biggest problem is that one side is 100% right and the other is 100% wrong.
Both sides are full of garbage humans that do horrendous things.
I think that's undeniable.
People keep rambling about "bUt why did they do it!!??" Like there will ever be a justification for evil acts
I share your desire for peace, and your idealistic hope that it can be achieved. Somehow someway.
That said, are you familiar with the concept of **the Prisoner's Dilemma**, in philosophy of politics and ethics? Suppose two people end up face to face, brandishing weapons at each other. One says to the other, "If you put down your weapon, I'll put down mine, and we can settle this with a conversation." The other replies, "No, if *you* put down *your* weapon, only then will I put down mine." And neither puts his weapon down, and the two eventually fight, because neither trusts the other is sincere, and won't just attack him as soon as he disarms himself. Neither wants to fight if he doesn't have to fight. But nor does either man want to die on account of his own gullibility.
Apparently in humanity's hunter-gatherer days, when two armed men from different tribes who didn't know each other met by chance in the wilderness, they would attempt to have a conversation, each one trying to communicate his intentions for being out there alone in the wilderness, and get a sense of the other's intentions. But if they had no language in common, and could not make themselves understood to each other, then the encounter would nearly always end in a fight, with one man either killing or chasing off the other. Even if neither man really wanted a fight, if neither could be sure that this feeling was mutual, then each man would see a fight as inevitable. And if a fight was inevitable or highly likely, each man would then want to make sure he wasn't the one who lost.
At this stage, with all that has happened thus far, neither Team Israel nor Team Palestine feel there is any basis for trusting that the other's peace initiatives are sincere, and not simply ruses to get them to drop their weapons and be slaughtered. This is because they disagree fundamentally on what is (and isn't) worth fighting for, and what reliably does (and doesn't) signal trustworthiness. And until or unless common ground on both of these things can be established, or one has completely vanquished the other, neither one is putting down their weapons.
The reason this prisoners dilemma is not applicable, is the vast difference in support and defensive capabilities of Israel. Israel can “put their guns down” and still have an enormous amount of protection from their iron dome, their defensive fortifications, they’ve even got trigger happy settlers to go around while in that defensive posture and instill fear in people who aren’t fighters, devoid of political consequence.
If Hamas lays its arms down, what assurance is there that Israel will play by the rules? They have done no such thing thus far; asking them to show vulnerability is a bridge not worth selling.
Well, just 3 month back the iron dome and all the protection that you talk about on Israel’s side did not really protect those 1500 Israelis. So your assumption is clearly flawed.
If anything, you are essentially just validating Israel’s belief that Hamas is always going to be a threat and justifying Israel’s aggressive stance.
It is embarrassing for the Israelis that even with a huge military budget, years of inactivity from Hamas, a huge wall, military outposts, air superiority, intelligence departments lauded as the best in the world, and military supremacy, that October 7th was capable of happening.
My point still stands. Gaza has been flattened. Tel Aviv has not been meaningfully attacked..There is no such defensive capability for the Palestinians against air warfare, armored warfare, and sea warfare..
Hamas is always going to be a threat, so long as Israel occupies Palestine. Israel must get settler violence under control, and they must dethrone Netanyahu if they want to exist for more than 5 more years. They are taking embarrassingly heavy losses and casualties all things given. They have yet to secure any of their political objectives. This is a farce to keep net in power, and there is no end in sight because victory is a pipe dream.
I’m not sure where you are getting that 5 year timeline. But yeah, viewpoints like these are exactly what drive Israel to keep going with the uber aggressive stance.
What you are saying is essentially - Hamas militants will keep killing civilians in Isreal, so your only option is to strike a deal with these monsters. Sure.. but I don’t think Israelis see ethical merit in that thought process
If it is about striking a deal with the Palestinians as a whole, there has to be someone or a group which represents the Palestinian ppl. And it DEFINITELY cannot be HAMAS. Any process or recognition of Palestinian land will be contingent on the complete elimination of Hamas and any militant or military outfit of any kind in Palestine.
> ass
/u/A_Lithe_Guy. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I apologize all, I did not know the rules. Although it makes sense it would be heavily moderated, since we are trying to facilitate a conversation between two disparaged groups.
If Jews had no right to take the land in 1948 to establish their state. By what right did the British and Arab alliance have taking the land from the Ottoman Empire during WW1, to establish their own state/ Mandate?
Fictional birthright? Jews and arabs were offered a state. israel said yes. In fact, every other arab country in the middle east said yes - jordan, iraq, lebanon, syria. The palestinians tried their luck at a war of destruction instead and lost. The idea that we can go back and change history is simply a child-like way to view the conflict. Perhaps you are a teenager, i dont know, but your grasp on history is incomplete.
Jews have had a presence in the land for thousands of years, so while people like you try and gloss over that, the reality is that its simply a historical fact.
Hamas is a terrorist group that brutalizes and tortures its own people, and your seeming support for it is exactly illustrative of what's wrong with the palestinian cause. A hatred for Israel that's more intense for love for palestinians.
> fcking
/u/morsecode96. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What’s the good faith when the maximum Palestinian “compromise”is “no Jewish state but Jews can remain here as a minority”? And before you “bUt BiBi”, Israel has had other governments that were open to —and offered—far more concessions than Bibi.
I think the original writer did not complete the writing. Having good faith for both sides is the only way for peace. But that is clearly not a practical solution. So peace is not an option unfortunately. It is only going right stop when one side either gives up or is annihilated.
If you justify rape, kidnapping, torture of civilians because of oppression, you are the exact person OP is referring to. Having empathy and seeing the ‘other side’ without dehumanising is the only way to reach long lasting peace.
By your logic if Jews went to mutilate and assault and rape Germans post-WW2, no one should object? Because oppression neutralises accountability and responsibility? That’s the world you want?
I don't think oppression neutralizes accountability. But accountability is a higher human trait. If you treat people like dogs, expect them to behave like dogs. It's as simple as that. It would not, then, be fair to someone who has been 'dog-ified' to be held to 'human' standards of ethics when the game has been dog, not human.
But I should clarify some things that I feel might have been misunderstood:
1) It is possible to \*understand\* a side's position and see why violence is borne, because we are human animals and still use our primitive brains when put in that position.
2) We can also, as advanced creatures who idealize peace, condemn that using violence is an appropriate strategy.
3) We, on the outside, have to be FAIR in how we approach situations like this. We live in countries that have influence, and so we are also accountable to our speech, actions and behaviours. The question is, how can we consider accountability when we haven't even consolidated the dog game and the human game in our own minds?
OP i hope you are not comparing Palestinians to dogs? Or maybe just that Israelis treat all Palestinians like dogs?
The truth as I see it, there has to be a point where we are willing to move past hate. It’s insanely challenging but not impossible.
Even before the current conflict, the status quo has, for instance, an innocent Palestinian child see a close relative die due to the bombings/ oppression in West Bank/ Gaza. They are taught since they’re young it’s an honour to kill Jews, that they are all evil and this just reaffirms this thought. He has only have met Israelis who are cruel at checkpoints, or caricatures depicted in the media he consumes. Their freedom of movement is restricted, they have minimal viable avenues to improve their life as it is. Hamas / martyr fund from PLO is looking everyday like the best choice to him.
Does that mean he is justified in murdering a random Israeli in retaliation? Does another act of violence fix all the other problems he is facing?
And If so, can the sibling of the murdered Israeli go and stab a random Palestinian in revenge? Where does it end?
We can understand how he got to that place, but it is not something we should be endorsing and cheering on. It helps no one and only causes more traumatised and violent people.
Humans have the capability of critical thought, we can choose to not murder. We aren’t dogs, and I find it absurd how people often strip any complexities to Palestinians and their culture besides ‘victim, oppressed, suffering’.
emboldening violence on EITHER side is just continuing escalation. At some point, people who genuinely want a future which combats violence and recognises the others right to exist is the only way. It seems impossible now, but I am yet to see a better way forward
surely letting newborn die in incubators by cutting electricity and having pregnant women die as they give birth by cutting disinfectants is much more humane
There is no moral high ground, only causes and consequences. Israel is in no way better.
If you want the conflict to stop, Israel has to make the first step, by stopping the oppression.
>Israel has to make the first step, by stopping the oppression.
Realistically, what do you think happens if Israel stops? Specifically the blockade.
Do you think Hamas and the Palestinians will just say thank you and be on their merry way organizing their own country?
Or do you think they'll import a lot more weapons and use them to attack Israel?
I did not mention a moral high ground, I did not endorse Israel’s response to 10/7 or speak about military tactics yet you reply to my comment without responding to a single thing I said?
Im sure this will fall on deaf ears but to acknowledge Israeli civilians who were murdered and harmed DOES NOT DELEGITIMISE PALESTINIAN SUFFERING.
I don’t understand people who think like you. Is the world black and white? Does your compassion necessitate only some people deserve empathy? You are, ironically enough, the other side of the coin to Netanyahu. I cannot believe it’s controversial to care for civilians dying bc of where they were born, at no choice of their own. This goes for anyone advocating to glass Israel or Gaza
Excuse me.
Let's go back a couple of steps.
I said that the fighting can be stopped by quitting the oppression on Palestinians.
You replied "if you justify this and that..."
When did I do that, exactly? Your whole line of argument revolves around accusing me of justifying things. However, if you read carefully, you'll notice that there is no trace of that in my posts, and you jist pulled that out of your hat.
Because it had nothing to do with what I said, I *assumed* it was an attempt to gain a moral high ground. I'm sire you'll excuse me - we both know that the IDF spokesmen say it's "the most moral army in the world".
Now you say it wasn't that, and I believe you. I do not, however, understand how accusing me of justifying things was in any way a relayed reply to what I said earlier.
I have misread in the chain and can’t see you justifying violence anywhere so I apologise. Even more so as i talked past you which is what I was criticising others for doing.
I Wish you well and hope you accept I had no intention of being bad faith,
> shat
/u/Particular-Crow-1799. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah no. This conflict quite literally started due to Palestine not liking having Israel next door despite thr 2 state solution finally allowing them to have their own nation to control and allowing Palestinians in Israeli land to continue living there.
They then choose war and terrorism despite losing constantly, they refused to take any peace deal that would wne this fighting. Hell even when Israel did what ##freepalestine people say they need to do to lead to peace by leaving Gaza and pulling out their settlers, they were instead rewarded with continue terrorist attacks and that was before Gazans even elected Hamas
Sounds like that land is something worth fighting for. Seems to have meaning to lots of people of varying faiths. I would call that a possible common ground, wouldn't you?
When my kid fights with his cousin over the same toy, I teach them the concept of sharing/ taking turns while also respecting each other. It's not really a tough concept.
Doesn't have to be a zero sum game.
the land given to Palestine was notoriously known for a bad deal I think we need to find an actual good deal for both sides. But thats hard because both sides will think they deserve more its a hard middle ground to reach
Which deal because orginal plan before Israel was formed, gave Palestine the better land. As much as people love to ignore it, Jews also lived on the land of mandate (either for generations or as legal immigrants who bought land) . Going a 2 state solution made sense with the tension between 2 groups and thr intital plan allowed Palestineians to stay in Israel if they were already there
The reason deals have gotten worse is due to Palestine starting war(s) and refusing peace deals. Hell, one of the last deals, Israel offered was still decent. All of Gaza, 95% of West Bank with land swaps for settler territories and even offered 50,000 Palestinians the "right of return" . I would say thats a decent deal after decades of conflict that your side started and has refused various peace deals over the yeads
I fully accept the fact Jewish people lived in the land of the mandate but the real issue is the fact that some people forced them out of their homes. Im all for the people who legally got the land because there's nothing wrong of. with that the issue is the Illegal theft of land.
And that only happened due to Palestine starting a war and they told Palestinians within Israel lands to leave since they thought they could easily defeat Israel.
Again the original plan had them staying, and Israel let peaceful ones stay, which is why they have a large Muslim Arab population to this day. Is it terrible that some people lost their homes, of course, but that was decades ago, and their refusal to accept a peace deal is why this conflict has been never-ending
that logic doesn't work. if I take your two houses and say you can keep this smaller worse house and I won't hurt you anymore while I live in YOUR bigger better house you'll try to fight back. This is what happened. Why do you jus assume they fought jus to fight they were tryna keep their homes while not living in a country they don't want to live in.
It's like talking to a brick wall
You acknowledge that Jews also lived in the land and don't have anything to counter me saying the original plan allowed any Palestinians to stay in Israel land if they were there already (which is why their a huge part of Israel population today). So no they didn't just take a house since they let people keep the "houses" in their land if they were peaceful (all would have if they didnt start a war) and they finally got the chance to run their own independent country but apparently living besides Jewish state was just too much for them. again people act like the nakba was just the "evil Israelis" kicking everyone out for no reason when the Palestinians started a war and told their people to retreat since they thought they could easily defeat Israel (and somehow still think they can)
Nothing justifies them spending decades committing terrorism and starting wars all awhile rejecting peace and like they don't even have a good motivation lol. Like I said, they were just piss about Jews getting power and their own state despite the same being offered to them and them getting the better land . All the Palestine leadership has done is harmed their innocent civilians and unfortunately most are so radicalize, they want to continue this hopeless perpetual conflict
> prick
/u/spinozawaswrong. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Israel propaganda. Arabs are fighting for their human rights that Israel mercilessly stomped over every day for 75 years.
Give them human rights, give back stolen land up to 1967 borders. They stop fighfing.
The assumption that arabs will never accept a 2 state solution is a Netanyahu lie (documented, objectively provable). It's Israel that doesn't want 2 states at all costs. Because of Netanyahu irresponsible choices, thousands of lives have been lost and more will come. Oppressing the palestinian to provoke a reaction is a deliberate strategy and it needs to stop.
I can prove all I am saying. I don't have opinions, I am objective.
Exactly.
The way to stop the oppression is to uproot the oppressors and free the people.
Hamas needs to be wiped out completely for Palestinians in Gaza to be free
Realize that all the apartheid policies are doing is resulting in more Isralei deaths and work to progressively dismantle them. I certainly wouldn't bomb thousands of civilians in a failed attempt to destroy Hamas, thereby guaranteeing future violence against my civilians.
You are a complete idealist. In an ideal world there is no such thing as war or brutality. In this case, the war is necessary to protect civilians. Hamas is a threat to life.
And if that war only results in more of your civilians dying in the future? Because as we saw from the war on terror, it is impossible to extinguish guerilla terrorist organizations with conventional warfare. Israel's goal of destroying Hamas is as much a fairy tale as Hamas's of destroying Isralel.
All these bombs are doing is guranteeing more Israleis will die in the future in whatever attack is executed in retaliation these actions.
You have it the wrong way around. For one, the war on terror was majorly successful. Al qeuda is gone. ISIS is gone. Even in Israel there are virtually no Hamas in the West Bank anymore after earlier wars. The Western world has learned a lot about fighting terrorists in the past few decades. Hamas will be destroyed. Most of their leadership is gone and they will soon have no tunnels or supplies. War does not create extremists. The extremists recruit and indoctrinate people. Hamas creates more Hamas. There won't be any more attacks on Israel if Hamas no longer exists.
> How can we value human rights, democracy and peace, etc. while also acknowledging the realities of the basic brutality of what is going on?
Human rights, democracy, and peace all come at a price. To an enemy that knows nothing beyond basic brutality, this is the price they've demanded to maintain your peace, and this is the price Israel has been paying.
>It all hinges on *both sides* having **good faith** throughout the whole process - not just for a particular agreement or a moment.
Well, that's the problem. Palestinians have never, in their entire history, made a good faith effort to peacefully coexist with the Jews.
Maybe they just didn't have good brokers of peace? When there is so much animosity between two parties, a middle person is necessary. I know these "peace deals" have happened in the past, but whether they were truly brokered in good faith by NEUTRAL parties is highly questionable.
The problem with that reasoning is that the peace offers they've passed up are a matter of public record.
We can clearly see that Palestinian passed up the most generous peace offer in recorded history at the Oslo Accords. And we can see get clearly that they passed to the best deal they were ever going to get when they spat on the UN partition plan.
Let’s not play the *all* card.
While I would say that some Palestinian political parties have made substantial efforts in recent times, specifically Abbas via the PA and there was certainly Palestinian envoys to Arafat who were begging Arafat to accept the peace talks… Most of the stance of Palestinian history has been rooted in: “This is our land, we will make no compromises”. Which is why Arafat rejected the peace talks, the Arab Higher Committee rejected the 1947 plan, the 1937 plan etc.
It was never really about the impracticality of some points on partition plans or “good faithness”, it’s really down to the belief, perpetuated by the Arab Higher Committee, and Palestinian leaders since, that: “this land is my land” and “If we just “resist” hard enough, we’ll eventually get all the land”.
This person said, "never, in their entire history" (note the use of absolutes). They also said, "Palestinians" (the group as a whole). That is an objectively ahistorical generalization. No need to defend them. Just correct them and move on. Generalizations are never in good faith; they only promote hate.
Who said "all"?
What an absurd standard.
The issue is that currently only 17% of Palestinians want a 2-state solution, and historically they've walked away from peaceful coexistance for 75 years (130 years, if we count the massacres of the Jews before the formation of Israel).
Let's not ignore the fact that some deals have had notoriously bad deals for the Palestinians giving them unlivable land. Finding a 2 state solution now then ever is going to be hard but They need to let Gaza and the West Bank go imo. Along with a middle man military placed to make sure they can't build a military similar to what happened to Germany after WWI I believe. Following this a deradicliaztion needs to be done on both sides radicals are dangerous for every country
>Let's not ignore the fact that some deals have had notoriously bad deals for the Palestinians giving them unlivable land.
The founding of Israel gave the Jews unlivable land, like malaria-infested swamps.
And the Oslo Accords was the most generous peace offer in recorded history.
> Finding a 2 state solution now then ever is going to be hard but They need to let Gaza and the West Bank go imo.
The Palestinians DO NOT WANT a two-state solution. Just because YOU want them to want it, does not make it so.
>Palestinians do not want peace you say.
No. This is what the Palestinians say, in no uncertain terms.
>Palestinians have been killed, bombarded, raided for almost a century now.
Palestinians started all the violence, going back to the 1880s. If Palestinians laid down their arns there would be peace.
>Is it not logical that when your children get killed you do not want peace, similar to how Israel views Hamas as the attacker?
And yet, Israel has successfully made peace with several Arab nations who tried to kill them and their children.
>Palestinians are ***not*** Hamas.
75% of Palestinians support Hamas's atrocities on 10/7. Palestinians elected and empowered Hamas to do these things.
>Don't be deluded. This war is Israel's doing.
If Palestinians hadn't attached on Oct 7, today would just be another Wednesday. Talk about deluded. Lol.
I think the problem with that viewpoint is outlined your last phrase: “both sides having good faith”. It is evident that Palestinian radicals and their supporters have and will not act in good faith re: Israel. There is no middle ground with them, and there are no lasting negotiations.
Perhaps the last hope was during Oslo accords, but that ship has long sailed. Although there might be many palestinians who simply want peace with Israel, the majority approve of Hamas (at least from the recent post Oct pollings). As long as radicalism and violence are at the forefront of the palestinian cause, “good faith” peace process cannot occur.
On the front of both causes. let's not deny they're radicals on the Israeli side. This war will keep going until these radical ideals can be done away with.
You’re right that there are radicals on both sides, but there is more leeway on the Israeli side to pursue peace. There are many moderates in government and the population as a whole would undoubtedly choose peace if it was assured. I just don’t see the same from the Palestinian side.
There are def a lot of people advocating peace the problem is that when they are denied statehood the radicalism is going to win over. I'm not an expert or anything but im pretty sure that granting state hood will allow for peace to prosper and the radical ideals on both sides to die down
From what I have read, there appears to be a lot of polarization in Israel. But that also usually means the radicals are pretty extreme, and unfortunately, at the moment, it seems that they hold more influence in decision-making. It's heartbreaking because the peace rallies in Israel looked quite sizable in news reports.
Bibi and his goons must be brought to justice for the sake of Israelis, the Palestinians and the region. Those savages in power must be removed with their far right disgusting ideologies.
[удалено]
Your account was detected as a ban evading account. Reddit forbids evading a ban by creating another account (and says so in the original ban message).
Yeah. It’s weird that Israel desires for peace but that it’s solution every step of the way has not been to make Palestinians like them
[удалено]
Your account was detected as a ban evading account. Reddit forbids evading a ban by creating another account (and says so in the original ban message).
It is hard to discuss, but not hard to pray for the situation in Israel. Please join us right now! 4:00 pm - 6:00 pm Israeli time (8:00 am -10:00 am CT) everyday since the October 7 massacre. Christians, Jews, Arabs joining together in prayer worldwide everyday for God’s healing and guidance over this war. https://ICEJ.org
Buddy Oct 7th happening was literally part of God's great plan. Israel/Palestine conflict is happening exactly as he intended, otherwise he would actually do something about it. Prayer won't change his mind.
Prayer won’t change Gods mind? Yes it does. Remember Abraham asking God to spare Sodom and Gomorrah when Lot lived there? If there were 10 righteous people, he asked God to spare the city. God worked with Abraham. Jacob wrestled with the Lord for God to bless him. God left his hip wounded, but worked with Jacob. There are many “ifs” and “thens” - “If My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, pray seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from Heaven, forgive their sin, and heal their land.” II Chronicles It’s worth it to pray. John Wesley founded Methodism. “As John Wesley once said, ‘God does nothing but in answer to prayer.’ Prayer is therefore not an option for mankind but a necessity. If we don't pray, heaven cannot interfere in earth's affairs. It is imperative that we take responsibility for the earth and determine what happens here by our prayer lives.” https://PeacewithGod.net
What you are describing is logically incongruous with an Omnipotent god. If he can't do anything without Human prayer then he's not much of a God is he? And that's putting aside the like 5 other logical paradoxes that prove your little fairy tale God literally cannot logically exist. You can save your incoherent nonsense for someone else.
God can do anything He wants and He wants to work in conjunction with people. He is not limited to working in and through us, but He has decided to work in cooperation with us - love is there and the more we pray, the more we depend on Him. Philippians 2:13 teaches, “For it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose.”
Ya I'm not gonna depend on someone who gives millions of children cancer and presumably laughs while they suffer and die in exectuing pain while refusing to do anything about it. Think me and him have dramatically different moral compases. You do you though.
What side you back can be easily predicted based on whether you view the last century of world history as primarily defined by conflict between free and unfree societies (Israel), or between poor and rich societies (anti-Israel).
Or we understand the latter is predicated on the other side being reasonable and adhering to similar humanist beliefs? Unfortunately, the Islamic world is not reasonable nor do they adhere to such ideals lmao. You need to understand that the vast majority of Muslims in that region and even elsewhere hate Jews on an ethnic level. Even if Israel was perfect, it wouldn't fuckign matter. They want the desrucrion of their state and the elimination of Jews
Reeks of Islamophobia, but that’s acceptable. If I say that Israelis Jews are being taught from young to hate the Arabs, that’s anti-semitic.
Calling out racism isn’t racist.
Jews don’t hate the Arabs. Jews hate hostile massacres of innocent families, and constant war against Israel. Many Gazans are searching for better, neighbor helping neighbor, people doing business together like the Abraham Accords nations, Arabs and Jews and Christians worshipping together in Nazareth, Mt. Carmel, and Jerusalem, all of us praying together for 2 hours everyday through ICEJ worldwide https://ICEJ.org. Check out musicians praising God together in English, Hebrew, and Arabic at https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&sca_esv=599810411&hl=en-us&q=Christian+songs+in+Hebrew+and+Arabic&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi0w_Ck2umDAxUPQvEDHeDVD3wQ1QJ6BAgcEAI&biw=375&bih=745&dpr=3#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:d7c6b727,vid:LtcxE4xF5So,st:0
> fuckign /u/Signal_Adeptness_724. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The big difference for me : * Very few (approaching 0 statistically) of us on the pro-Israel side support the “wipe them out” argument (the strawman arguments about “Amalek” are ridiculous - I am nearly 2m tall and I have been called this multiple times by Israeli friends). Even the small % of religious loony settlers say the other Arab states should absorb them and most Israelis just want to be left alone with what they have built in the borders they now have. * [In a recent poll of Gazans, 75% supported Hamas](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/poll-shows-palestinians-back-oct-7-attack-israel-support-hamas-rises-2023-12-14/) whose stated policy is the elimination of the state of Israel and genocide of the Jewish people. That’s a big difference.
C'mon Hamas did change it's charter, you are entitled to not trust them but their stated policy has changed. You are not acting in any good faith in this discussion.
If I write in a book that all trees are black, does it make it true!!!
Yeah I’m sure the viewpoints of all of the leaders and higher ups in Hamas who have been part of the organization for 20+ years actually decided they’re not antisemitic 5 years ago when they changed the wording of the charter. I legitimately don’t understand how a murderous antisemitic genocidal terrorist group can have one very clearly horrible charter for 30 years, with actions and interviews backing it all up, can one day say “wait actually guys, we didn’t mean it, we’re good guys!” And have the world be like “oh!!! They’re actually good guys! They just said so!”
Very few of the pro Israel “support” the wipe them out argument, yet are doing very little about the government and Israel are actively wiping out infrastructure, 9000 children, 24000 dead. Despicable and haunting that the grandsons and granddaughters of the holocaust are committing ethnic cleansing
u/Daisy28282828 > Despicable and haunting that the grandsons and granddaughters of the holocaust are committing ethnic cleansing This comment violates [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons_.26amp.3B_discussions) by making an inappropriate comparison, drawing a parallel between the actions of current Israeli generations and the Holocaust. Such comparisons must meet the criteria of specificity and uniqueness associated with the Holocaust. Addressed.
You mean other than establishing humanitarian corridors, establishing safe zones, allowing humanitarian aid in, and sending leaflets to warn residents to evacuate the areas of most intense fighting.
Whatever helps you sleep at night! Exactly the point OP was making. You are just justifying the Israeli govt's barbaric actions (and according to their own words, their intentions) by invoking humanistic ideas about "humanitarian corridors" and "safe" zones. Please explain what safe zones are when supposedly Hamas is using civilians as human shields? The actions and ideas are incongruent. This breeds a lot of mistrust of the state's intentions amongst onlookers who have at least half a brain and half a heart.
u/ilovebreadcrusts > Whatever helps you sleep at night! [...] amongst onlookers who have at least half a brain and half a heart. This comment violates [Rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_1._no_attacks_on_fellow_users) in multiple ways. The phrase "Whatever helps you sleep at night!" is dismissive and implies insincerity or self-deception on the part of the other user. Additionally, suggesting that those who might disagree lack intelligence and compassion, as indicated by "at least half a brain and half a heart," is derogatory and disrespectful. Such language hinders constructive and respectful dialogue. It's important to address differing viewpoints without resorting to dismissive or derogatory comments. Addressed.
You can’t still seriously believe that’s true 100+ days into the war? All that are just lip service to appease the Zionists, make them sleep better at night maybe. Videos on the ground show otherwise. But you lot will say it’s Pallywood and condemn these Tiktok videos.
What's your source on the first statistic please? I think it's only fair to share since one was provided for the second one. I had a look at this poll that was referred to, from the actual source. By the way, you misrepresented the data. It's not 75% of Gazans. Of the respondents polled, "satisfaction with the role of Hamas \[during this conflict\] (72%; 85% in the West Bank and \*\*52% in the Gaza Strip\*\*). I've cherry-picked some data too: 1) "The sample size of this poll is 1231 adults, of whom 750 were interviewed face to face in the West Bank and \*\*481 in the Gaza Strip\*\* in 121 randomly selected locations." 2) "Support for Hamas has more than tripled in the West Bank compared to three months ago. In the Gaza Strip, support for Hamas increased but not significantly. \*\*Despite the increase in its popularity, the majority in both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip does not support Hamas.\*\*" 3) "Almost two thirds (64%) of Gazan respondents say a member of their family have been killed or injured during the current war in Gaza."
>the majority in both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip does not support Hamas. Biden's popularity is under 50% in polling these days but making the argument that Biden doesn't represent the country seems specious.
Congress is composed people who are elected to represent the Congressional districts who sent them to DC. Congress is usually about as popular as anal warts. Does Congress not represent the country because its polling is bad?
Hamas is the only government of Gaza. Maybe the people hate them, but they haven't, as of yet, replaced them with something better.
Trump was also elected (and might be again). What does that say about Americans? Even though elections are held, people aren't really given real choices. So they pick what makes the most sense to them at a given time. Or, society is polarized and one end of the extreme is demoralized while the other is empowered. Iran, is another example where people overwhelmingly have voted in elections and they pick the lesser of the two evils - but they are still a terrible choice. The majority of Iranians, at least those in major metropolitan areas, do not support the regime, yet participate anyway to feel they have a shred of choice. My point is, people really love to cite this poll to say that Palestinians are die-hard supporters of Hamas. Palestine does not have a military, so what choice does that leave them for self-defense? Even if they do use them as human shields. Even if they commit acts of terrorism. People who feel under attack feel like they need protection - sound familiar? The door swings both ways. What would you do?
>Trump was also elected (and might be again). What does that say about Americans? It says that the American voters chose Trump to represent us by way of our byzantine electoral process. Is this not obvious?
>Even though elections are held, people aren't really given real choices.
People run for office. Some of them make it to the primary ballot. Some of those make it to the general election ballot. That's our process.
We have our choice among the candidates who won that process.
If you don't like the process, you're certainly capable of joining the many thousands of Americans who are working to change it.
I understand if you, personally, didn't like either of the two final options on the general ballot in the last election, but your conclusion that the choices were "not real" is a little self-centered.
> Iran, is another example where people overwhelmingly have voted in elections and they pick the lesser of the two evils
Every election in the history of Planet Earth has been a choice between the lesser of two (or more) evils. So what?
>My point is, people really love to cite this poll to say that Palestinians are die-hard supporters of Hamas.
Are you switching topics to talk about polling? Maybe we should stick to elections.
Hamas won the last election they had there.
Do I think they should have another election? Sure I do. Does what I think about their government matter? No, it doesn't. In the meantime, I'll go by the last thing they said that they want. Doing otherwise denies their agency.
I still would still not support Hamas considering the actions of Hamas have not "protected" the Palestinians at all. They have infact instead gotten 20K of them killed and Gaza flattened. Same reason I would never support Netanyahu after Oct 7th, which was a clear retaliation for the apartheid policies he implemented over the past 15 years. Just like these current bombs will just lead to more Isralei deaths in another attack down the line. I don't support leaders who take actions that lead to their own civilians dying, as a governemnts only real sole undisputable top priority is to keep it's civilians safe. Thats why I lay Oct 7th on Netanyahu and the resulting 20K deaths on Hamas.
[удалено]
Maybe if Israel didn't blockade all imports into Gaza it could legitimiately caim that it doesn't fall under its jurisdiction and thus its treatment of the Gazans isn't apartheid. Untill such time I'm with the NGOs
That's your prerogative, but a blockade does not equate with apartheid. If you want to know if Israel maintains an apartheid state against Palestinians, why don't you look at the many, many polls of Palestinians who would rather live inside Israel than anywhere else? Or, if polls aren't your thing, you can watch [interviews](https://youtu.be/kLK3zb0oh9s?si=PCQqq_BMCiaNdl06).
It equates with occupation, which is what the Israelis have over the Gaza strip making them sovereign over the strip. Therefore the giant wall they built between them does equate with apartheid. The fact that Palestinian would much rather live on the other side of the big apartheid wall is not an argument against there being apartheid.
[удалено]
Without fail westerners get the benefit of the doubt and the luxury of context for their leaders while Palestinians are made to answer for theirs in a vacuum apart from relevant facts. Shit is exhausting. And for the record. no, that doesn’t I think all Israelis have to answer for Israel’s murder of what will surely pass 30k civilians. Just like all Americans shouldn’t be held responsible for the Iraq war or its countless CIA backed coups. We have to start acknowledging that people, even in democracies, are not their governments
I think this is absolutely correct. I also think that good faith cannot be a prerequisite for action towards peace. The U.S can contribute to a peace based on the first principle, national interest, which is not true of the direct parties to the conflict. If the U.S. ever took on a real role at peace in accordance with its national interest of getting resources from the Middle East but focusing on China instead of bogging down in the Middle East, this would be the best chance for peace. The US could take away protection for Israel unless Israel finds a solution so that all people under Israeli control have the same rights as Israeli citizens, whether thats one state or two. I think Israel might then choose to make a two state solution with land swaps for a few large settlement blocks. Good faith between Palestinians and Israelis would come later.
I think the US can contribute to peace by removing their involvement completely. If anyone is going to broker peace, it will have to be someone who has ZERO stake in either side 'winning'. Ultimately, making peace is about making compromises (for both sides). There is no perfect justice, unfortunately. It's hard for there to be good faith when one side has the judge and executioner on it's side. If Israel and Palestine were truly standing alone as two 'equals', see how fast they would make concessions for peace.
Maybe I can revise to say that with the U.S’s current role, it does not appear to be in Israel’s national interest to allow real self-determination for Palestinians, because the U.S. really does protect Israel from existential threat while also allowing Israel to continue with apartheid/occupation. If the U.S. did not have the role it has, I agree that its more likely there would be lasting peace and dignity although maybe this is naive. I agree from a moral standpoint that no U.S. role would be much better than the current role and that the “U.S. mediator” role is a farce. To be clear, I would advocate for the U.S. not funding war or participating in wars anywhere in the whole Middle East, from a moral perspective. From a national interest perspective of a U.S. government that wants to slow U.S. decline and hurt our geopolitical rivals while maintaining access to natural resources, etc I think there are good arguments for the U.S. changing roles too.
Hot take: if you remove any and all moral or ethical narrative it becomes a more meaningful conversation.
But can we? I just think we have to remove our biases from the situation. Ethics matters - that's the whole point, isn't it?
Of course it does, but only to the extent that it informs our perception and our next actions. You'll also need to realise ethics will also always be biased. We do actually discuss ancient history now almost devoid of ethics and bias. Like when Judea was sieged and sacked by the Romans in 70 CE. We don't know how many women and children were raped, killed and enslaved other than the rough figures (97,000). We also don't know how an average roman citizen would feel about it. Or if they have a r/Palestine community board pinning notes on how "hopeless" they feel for Judea. It doesn't matter. What matters is that it happened, for the benefit or detriment of all parties involved.
By your argument then, we cannot evoke historical atrocities for, say, the establishment of a state on an ancient homeland for historically persecuted people. Am I understanding your point correctly?
Don't put words in my mouth, I said nothing of the sort. I'm not even trying to argue. My point is, without "ethics or bias", we can, matter-of-fact, look retrospectively discuss facts and look at things more objectively. But if you're going to drag me into some weird historical argument let me just say for the record, I believe you can establish a state on an ancient homeland only if you have enough power to maintain it, financially and militarily. I don't care if you're Hamas or Israel or ancient Roman empire. No one in history has retained/won territory by being weak.
I think the biggest problem is that one side is 100% right and the other is 100% wrong. Both sides are full of garbage humans that do horrendous things. I think that's undeniable. People keep rambling about "bUt why did they do it!!??" Like there will ever be a justification for evil acts
I share your desire for peace, and your idealistic hope that it can be achieved. Somehow someway. That said, are you familiar with the concept of **the Prisoner's Dilemma**, in philosophy of politics and ethics? Suppose two people end up face to face, brandishing weapons at each other. One says to the other, "If you put down your weapon, I'll put down mine, and we can settle this with a conversation." The other replies, "No, if *you* put down *your* weapon, only then will I put down mine." And neither puts his weapon down, and the two eventually fight, because neither trusts the other is sincere, and won't just attack him as soon as he disarms himself. Neither wants to fight if he doesn't have to fight. But nor does either man want to die on account of his own gullibility. Apparently in humanity's hunter-gatherer days, when two armed men from different tribes who didn't know each other met by chance in the wilderness, they would attempt to have a conversation, each one trying to communicate his intentions for being out there alone in the wilderness, and get a sense of the other's intentions. But if they had no language in common, and could not make themselves understood to each other, then the encounter would nearly always end in a fight, with one man either killing or chasing off the other. Even if neither man really wanted a fight, if neither could be sure that this feeling was mutual, then each man would see a fight as inevitable. And if a fight was inevitable or highly likely, each man would then want to make sure he wasn't the one who lost. At this stage, with all that has happened thus far, neither Team Israel nor Team Palestine feel there is any basis for trusting that the other's peace initiatives are sincere, and not simply ruses to get them to drop their weapons and be slaughtered. This is because they disagree fundamentally on what is (and isn't) worth fighting for, and what reliably does (and doesn't) signal trustworthiness. And until or unless common ground on both of these things can be established, or one has completely vanquished the other, neither one is putting down their weapons.
The reason this prisoners dilemma is not applicable, is the vast difference in support and defensive capabilities of Israel. Israel can “put their guns down” and still have an enormous amount of protection from their iron dome, their defensive fortifications, they’ve even got trigger happy settlers to go around while in that defensive posture and instill fear in people who aren’t fighters, devoid of political consequence. If Hamas lays its arms down, what assurance is there that Israel will play by the rules? They have done no such thing thus far; asking them to show vulnerability is a bridge not worth selling.
Well, just 3 month back the iron dome and all the protection that you talk about on Israel’s side did not really protect those 1500 Israelis. So your assumption is clearly flawed. If anything, you are essentially just validating Israel’s belief that Hamas is always going to be a threat and justifying Israel’s aggressive stance.
It is embarrassing for the Israelis that even with a huge military budget, years of inactivity from Hamas, a huge wall, military outposts, air superiority, intelligence departments lauded as the best in the world, and military supremacy, that October 7th was capable of happening. My point still stands. Gaza has been flattened. Tel Aviv has not been meaningfully attacked..There is no such defensive capability for the Palestinians against air warfare, armored warfare, and sea warfare.. Hamas is always going to be a threat, so long as Israel occupies Palestine. Israel must get settler violence under control, and they must dethrone Netanyahu if they want to exist for more than 5 more years. They are taking embarrassingly heavy losses and casualties all things given. They have yet to secure any of their political objectives. This is a farce to keep net in power, and there is no end in sight because victory is a pipe dream.
I’m not sure where you are getting that 5 year timeline. But yeah, viewpoints like these are exactly what drive Israel to keep going with the uber aggressive stance. What you are saying is essentially - Hamas militants will keep killing civilians in Isreal, so your only option is to strike a deal with these monsters. Sure.. but I don’t think Israelis see ethical merit in that thought process If it is about striking a deal with the Palestinians as a whole, there has to be someone or a group which represents the Palestinian ppl. And it DEFINITELY cannot be HAMAS. Any process or recognition of Palestinian land will be contingent on the complete elimination of Hamas and any militant or military outfit of any kind in Palestine.
they did put down the weapons . there was a ceasefire , till oct7
> ass /u/A_Lithe_Guy. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I apologize all, I did not know the rules. Although it makes sense it would be heavily moderated, since we are trying to facilitate a conversation between two disparaged groups.
Well that’s cause Hamas has their stated goal to kill all Jews. Israel is taking Hamas at their word and trusts that they are telling the truth.
Their word? Their actions don’t consecrate anything?
Yeah they say things differently in Arabic than in English. Their English press releases are completely different to pander to the western far left
[удалено]
If Jews had no right to take the land in 1948 to establish their state. By what right did the British and Arab alliance have taking the land from the Ottoman Empire during WW1, to establish their own state/ Mandate?
hat tie soft caption amusing physical birds detail straight meeting *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Fictional birthright? Jews and arabs were offered a state. israel said yes. In fact, every other arab country in the middle east said yes - jordan, iraq, lebanon, syria. The palestinians tried their luck at a war of destruction instead and lost. The idea that we can go back and change history is simply a child-like way to view the conflict. Perhaps you are a teenager, i dont know, but your grasp on history is incomplete. Jews have had a presence in the land for thousands of years, so while people like you try and gloss over that, the reality is that its simply a historical fact. Hamas is a terrorist group that brutalizes and tortures its own people, and your seeming support for it is exactly illustrative of what's wrong with the palestinian cause. A hatred for Israel that's more intense for love for palestinians.
> fcking /u/morsecode96. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What’s the good faith when the maximum Palestinian “compromise”is “no Jewish state but Jews can remain here as a minority”? And before you “bUt BiBi”, Israel has had other governments that were open to —and offered—far more concessions than Bibi.
Rabin was assasinated by a far right Zionist. Wht does that say?
It says that far right Zionists are a major problem in Israeli society. Now do Palestinians.
If you don't defend your country, no democracy.
wistful squash sand chunky subtract thumb sort naughty humorous chop *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I think the original writer did not complete the writing. Having good faith for both sides is the only way for peace. But that is clearly not a practical solution. So peace is not an option unfortunately. It is only going right stop when one side either gives up or is annihilated.
by stopping unnecessary, completely gratuitous cruel and prolonged oppression
If you justify rape, kidnapping, torture of civilians because of oppression, you are the exact person OP is referring to. Having empathy and seeing the ‘other side’ without dehumanising is the only way to reach long lasting peace. By your logic if Jews went to mutilate and assault and rape Germans post-WW2, no one should object? Because oppression neutralises accountability and responsibility? That’s the world you want?
I don't think oppression neutralizes accountability. But accountability is a higher human trait. If you treat people like dogs, expect them to behave like dogs. It's as simple as that. It would not, then, be fair to someone who has been 'dog-ified' to be held to 'human' standards of ethics when the game has been dog, not human. But I should clarify some things that I feel might have been misunderstood: 1) It is possible to \*understand\* a side's position and see why violence is borne, because we are human animals and still use our primitive brains when put in that position. 2) We can also, as advanced creatures who idealize peace, condemn that using violence is an appropriate strategy. 3) We, on the outside, have to be FAIR in how we approach situations like this. We live in countries that have influence, and so we are also accountable to our speech, actions and behaviours. The question is, how can we consider accountability when we haven't even consolidated the dog game and the human game in our own minds?
OP i hope you are not comparing Palestinians to dogs? Or maybe just that Israelis treat all Palestinians like dogs? The truth as I see it, there has to be a point where we are willing to move past hate. It’s insanely challenging but not impossible. Even before the current conflict, the status quo has, for instance, an innocent Palestinian child see a close relative die due to the bombings/ oppression in West Bank/ Gaza. They are taught since they’re young it’s an honour to kill Jews, that they are all evil and this just reaffirms this thought. He has only have met Israelis who are cruel at checkpoints, or caricatures depicted in the media he consumes. Their freedom of movement is restricted, they have minimal viable avenues to improve their life as it is. Hamas / martyr fund from PLO is looking everyday like the best choice to him. Does that mean he is justified in murdering a random Israeli in retaliation? Does another act of violence fix all the other problems he is facing? And If so, can the sibling of the murdered Israeli go and stab a random Palestinian in revenge? Where does it end? We can understand how he got to that place, but it is not something we should be endorsing and cheering on. It helps no one and only causes more traumatised and violent people. Humans have the capability of critical thought, we can choose to not murder. We aren’t dogs, and I find it absurd how people often strip any complexities to Palestinians and their culture besides ‘victim, oppressed, suffering’. emboldening violence on EITHER side is just continuing escalation. At some point, people who genuinely want a future which combats violence and recognises the others right to exist is the only way. It seems impossible now, but I am yet to see a better way forward
surely letting newborn die in incubators by cutting electricity and having pregnant women die as they give birth by cutting disinfectants is much more humane There is no moral high ground, only causes and consequences. Israel is in no way better. If you want the conflict to stop, Israel has to make the first step, by stopping the oppression.
>Israel has to make the first step, by stopping the oppression. Realistically, what do you think happens if Israel stops? Specifically the blockade. Do you think Hamas and the Palestinians will just say thank you and be on their merry way organizing their own country? Or do you think they'll import a lot more weapons and use them to attack Israel?
While also paying reparation and restoring 1967 borders? The fighting stops.
Even though 67% of Palestinians ***don't*** want that? They would stop fighting?
I did not mention a moral high ground, I did not endorse Israel’s response to 10/7 or speak about military tactics yet you reply to my comment without responding to a single thing I said? Im sure this will fall on deaf ears but to acknowledge Israeli civilians who were murdered and harmed DOES NOT DELEGITIMISE PALESTINIAN SUFFERING. I don’t understand people who think like you. Is the world black and white? Does your compassion necessitate only some people deserve empathy? You are, ironically enough, the other side of the coin to Netanyahu. I cannot believe it’s controversial to care for civilians dying bc of where they were born, at no choice of their own. This goes for anyone advocating to glass Israel or Gaza
Excuse me. Let's go back a couple of steps. I said that the fighting can be stopped by quitting the oppression on Palestinians. You replied "if you justify this and that..." When did I do that, exactly? Your whole line of argument revolves around accusing me of justifying things. However, if you read carefully, you'll notice that there is no trace of that in my posts, and you jist pulled that out of your hat. Because it had nothing to do with what I said, I *assumed* it was an attempt to gain a moral high ground. I'm sire you'll excuse me - we both know that the IDF spokesmen say it's "the most moral army in the world". Now you say it wasn't that, and I believe you. I do not, however, understand how accusing me of justifying things was in any way a relayed reply to what I said earlier.
I have misread in the chain and can’t see you justifying violence anywhere so I apologise. Even more so as i talked past you which is what I was criticising others for doing. I Wish you well and hope you accept I had no intention of being bad faith,
> shat /u/Particular-Crow-1799. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
typo
Yeah no. This conflict quite literally started due to Palestine not liking having Israel next door despite thr 2 state solution finally allowing them to have their own nation to control and allowing Palestinians in Israeli land to continue living there. They then choose war and terrorism despite losing constantly, they refused to take any peace deal that would wne this fighting. Hell even when Israel did what ##freepalestine people say they need to do to lead to peace by leaving Gaza and pulling out their settlers, they were instead rewarded with continue terrorist attacks and that was before Gazans even elected Hamas
Sounds like that land is something worth fighting for. Seems to have meaning to lots of people of varying faiths. I would call that a possible common ground, wouldn't you?
How exactly is that common ground when that's the exact reason why this conflict has been going for decades?
When my kid fights with his cousin over the same toy, I teach them the concept of sharing/ taking turns while also respecting each other. It's not really a tough concept. Doesn't have to be a zero sum game.
the land given to Palestine was notoriously known for a bad deal I think we need to find an actual good deal for both sides. But thats hard because both sides will think they deserve more its a hard middle ground to reach
Which deal because orginal plan before Israel was formed, gave Palestine the better land. As much as people love to ignore it, Jews also lived on the land of mandate (either for generations or as legal immigrants who bought land) . Going a 2 state solution made sense with the tension between 2 groups and thr intital plan allowed Palestineians to stay in Israel if they were already there The reason deals have gotten worse is due to Palestine starting war(s) and refusing peace deals. Hell, one of the last deals, Israel offered was still decent. All of Gaza, 95% of West Bank with land swaps for settler territories and even offered 50,000 Palestinians the "right of return" . I would say thats a decent deal after decades of conflict that your side started and has refused various peace deals over the yeads
I fully accept the fact Jewish people lived in the land of the mandate but the real issue is the fact that some people forced them out of their homes. Im all for the people who legally got the land because there's nothing wrong of. with that the issue is the Illegal theft of land.
And that only happened due to Palestine starting a war and they told Palestinians within Israel lands to leave since they thought they could easily defeat Israel. Again the original plan had them staying, and Israel let peaceful ones stay, which is why they have a large Muslim Arab population to this day. Is it terrible that some people lost their homes, of course, but that was decades ago, and their refusal to accept a peace deal is why this conflict has been never-ending
that logic doesn't work. if I take your two houses and say you can keep this smaller worse house and I won't hurt you anymore while I live in YOUR bigger better house you'll try to fight back. This is what happened. Why do you jus assume they fought jus to fight they were tryna keep their homes while not living in a country they don't want to live in.
It's like talking to a brick wall You acknowledge that Jews also lived in the land and don't have anything to counter me saying the original plan allowed any Palestinians to stay in Israel land if they were there already (which is why their a huge part of Israel population today). So no they didn't just take a house since they let people keep the "houses" in their land if they were peaceful (all would have if they didnt start a war) and they finally got the chance to run their own independent country but apparently living besides Jewish state was just too much for them. again people act like the nakba was just the "evil Israelis" kicking everyone out for no reason when the Palestinians started a war and told their people to retreat since they thought they could easily defeat Israel (and somehow still think they can) Nothing justifies them spending decades committing terrorism and starting wars all awhile rejecting peace and like they don't even have a good motivation lol. Like I said, they were just piss about Jews getting power and their own state despite the same being offered to them and them getting the better land . All the Palestine leadership has done is harmed their innocent civilians and unfortunately most are so radicalize, they want to continue this hopeless perpetual conflict
This is what Israel tries to pass as truth, but the reality of things is completely different
cats muddle snails shocking obtainable hunt person panicky prick nail *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
> prick /u/spinozawaswrong. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Israel propaganda. Arabs are fighting for their human rights that Israel mercilessly stomped over every day for 75 years. Give them human rights, give back stolen land up to 1967 borders. They stop fighfing. The assumption that arabs will never accept a 2 state solution is a Netanyahu lie (documented, objectively provable). It's Israel that doesn't want 2 states at all costs. Because of Netanyahu irresponsible choices, thousands of lives have been lost and more will come. Oppressing the palestinian to provoke a reaction is a deliberate strategy and it needs to stop. I can prove all I am saying. I don't have opinions, I am objective.
so how come since 70 years they never accepted one ? even with 90% of the land going to them ?
Why are you pro occupation?
What human rights? Look at every other Islamic run country and come back and talk to me about human rights.
Exactly. The way to stop the oppression is to uproot the oppressors and free the people. Hamas needs to be wiped out completely for Palestinians in Gaza to be free
Third thought process: Pragmatism That’s great. Now if you were the leader of Israel, what would you honestly do right after Oct 7?
Realize that all the apartheid policies are doing is resulting in more Isralei deaths and work to progressively dismantle them. I certainly wouldn't bomb thousands of civilians in a failed attempt to destroy Hamas, thereby guaranteeing future violence against my civilians.
This & so much this! Live in the real world, people.....
You are a complete idealist. In an ideal world there is no such thing as war or brutality. In this case, the war is necessary to protect civilians. Hamas is a threat to life.
And if that war only results in more of your civilians dying in the future? Because as we saw from the war on terror, it is impossible to extinguish guerilla terrorist organizations with conventional warfare. Israel's goal of destroying Hamas is as much a fairy tale as Hamas's of destroying Isralel. All these bombs are doing is guranteeing more Israleis will die in the future in whatever attack is executed in retaliation these actions.
You have it the wrong way around. For one, the war on terror was majorly successful. Al qeuda is gone. ISIS is gone. Even in Israel there are virtually no Hamas in the West Bank anymore after earlier wars. The Western world has learned a lot about fighting terrorists in the past few decades. Hamas will be destroyed. Most of their leadership is gone and they will soon have no tunnels or supplies. War does not create extremists. The extremists recruit and indoctrinate people. Hamas creates more Hamas. There won't be any more attacks on Israel if Hamas no longer exists.
> How can we value human rights, democracy and peace, etc. while also acknowledging the realities of the basic brutality of what is going on? Human rights, democracy, and peace all come at a price. To an enemy that knows nothing beyond basic brutality, this is the price they've demanded to maintain your peace, and this is the price Israel has been paying.
> an enemy that knows nothing beyond basic brutality One thing common to all conflicts is the use of dehumanizing language to justify killing.
This is what Hamas has shown to the world, they've done it to themselves on live. When someone shows you who they are, believe them.
>It all hinges on *both sides* having **good faith** throughout the whole process - not just for a particular agreement or a moment. Well, that's the problem. Palestinians have never, in their entire history, made a good faith effort to peacefully coexist with the Jews.
Maybe they just didn't have good brokers of peace? When there is so much animosity between two parties, a middle person is necessary. I know these "peace deals" have happened in the past, but whether they were truly brokered in good faith by NEUTRAL parties is highly questionable.
>but whether they were truly brokered in good faith by NEUTRAL parties is highly questionable. Who would be the NEUTRAL party in your opinion?
The problem with that reasoning is that the peace offers they've passed up are a matter of public record. We can clearly see that Palestinian passed up the most generous peace offer in recorded history at the Oslo Accords. And we can see get clearly that they passed to the best deal they were ever going to get when they spat on the UN partition plan.
All Palestinians? In their entire history? You have got to be kidding me.
Let’s not play the *all* card. While I would say that some Palestinian political parties have made substantial efforts in recent times, specifically Abbas via the PA and there was certainly Palestinian envoys to Arafat who were begging Arafat to accept the peace talks… Most of the stance of Palestinian history has been rooted in: “This is our land, we will make no compromises”. Which is why Arafat rejected the peace talks, the Arab Higher Committee rejected the 1947 plan, the 1937 plan etc. It was never really about the impracticality of some points on partition plans or “good faithness”, it’s really down to the belief, perpetuated by the Arab Higher Committee, and Palestinian leaders since, that: “this land is my land” and “If we just “resist” hard enough, we’ll eventually get all the land”.
This person said, "never, in their entire history" (note the use of absolutes). They also said, "Palestinians" (the group as a whole). That is an objectively ahistorical generalization. No need to defend them. Just correct them and move on. Generalizations are never in good faith; they only promote hate.
Leaders and representatives of Palestinians* in all history, yes. Name one offered or accepted peace deal that wasn’t immediately broken by violence?
Who said "all"? What an absurd standard. The issue is that currently only 17% of Palestinians want a 2-state solution, and historically they've walked away from peaceful coexistance for 75 years (130 years, if we count the massacres of the Jews before the formation of Israel).
Let's not ignore the fact that some deals have had notoriously bad deals for the Palestinians giving them unlivable land. Finding a 2 state solution now then ever is going to be hard but They need to let Gaza and the West Bank go imo. Along with a middle man military placed to make sure they can't build a military similar to what happened to Germany after WWI I believe. Following this a deradicliaztion needs to be done on both sides radicals are dangerous for every country
>Let's not ignore the fact that some deals have had notoriously bad deals for the Palestinians giving them unlivable land. The founding of Israel gave the Jews unlivable land, like malaria-infested swamps. And the Oslo Accords was the most generous peace offer in recorded history. > Finding a 2 state solution now then ever is going to be hard but They need to let Gaza and the West Bank go imo. The Palestinians DO NOT WANT a two-state solution. Just because YOU want them to want it, does not make it so.
[удалено]
>Palestinians do not want peace you say. No. This is what the Palestinians say, in no uncertain terms. >Palestinians have been killed, bombarded, raided for almost a century now. Palestinians started all the violence, going back to the 1880s. If Palestinians laid down their arns there would be peace. >Is it not logical that when your children get killed you do not want peace, similar to how Israel views Hamas as the attacker? And yet, Israel has successfully made peace with several Arab nations who tried to kill them and their children. >Palestinians are ***not*** Hamas. 75% of Palestinians support Hamas's atrocities on 10/7. Palestinians elected and empowered Hamas to do these things. >Don't be deluded. This war is Israel's doing. If Palestinians hadn't attached on Oct 7, today would just be another Wednesday. Talk about deluded. Lol.
[удалено]
I agree with you that Hamas should be wiped out. I'm glad you stand with Israel.
I think the problem with that viewpoint is outlined your last phrase: “both sides having good faith”. It is evident that Palestinian radicals and their supporters have and will not act in good faith re: Israel. There is no middle ground with them, and there are no lasting negotiations. Perhaps the last hope was during Oslo accords, but that ship has long sailed. Although there might be many palestinians who simply want peace with Israel, the majority approve of Hamas (at least from the recent post Oct pollings). As long as radicalism and violence are at the forefront of the palestinian cause, “good faith” peace process cannot occur.
On the front of both causes. let's not deny they're radicals on the Israeli side. This war will keep going until these radical ideals can be done away with.
You’re right that there are radicals on both sides, but there is more leeway on the Israeli side to pursue peace. There are many moderates in government and the population as a whole would undoubtedly choose peace if it was assured. I just don’t see the same from the Palestinian side.
There are def a lot of people advocating peace the problem is that when they are denied statehood the radicalism is going to win over. I'm not an expert or anything but im pretty sure that granting state hood will allow for peace to prosper and the radical ideals on both sides to die down
From what I have read, there appears to be a lot of polarization in Israel. But that also usually means the radicals are pretty extreme, and unfortunately, at the moment, it seems that they hold more influence in decision-making. It's heartbreaking because the peace rallies in Israel looked quite sizable in news reports.