I agree that Israel is going about it in a terrible manner but I also do not think that the destruction of Hamas is a reasonable goal. How can you do that without genocide?
Okay, say Israel enters Rafah, do whatever they want in there. Say they do a whole another pass over Gaza.
Do you think the rest of the population just stands by? You can't treat people like Israel treats Palestinians and not have terrorism. It's really that simple. Any serious plan by Israel to achieve peace of any sort with Palestinians involves massive concessions compared to the actual state of things and I can't imagine for a second anything like that would happen.
It's almost like we're stumbling into how this is one of the trickiest geopolitical issues in the last hundred years...
There's an inverse to what you're saying (which I don't disagree with) which is that if Israel does nothing in response to Hamas aggression, and just lets Hamas + it's allies keep bulling, Israeli's will die and their citizenry will be radicalized to do something in response.
This has been the pattern in this region since literally day 1 of Israel being acknowledged as a country. It's two irreconcilable groups locked into a situation where neither can meaningfully (or "safely") de-escalate; a clean solution is really unlikely to emerge.
But you have to acknowledge, if these actions are not actually going to fix the problem, then they are actually psychopathic in nature. The "Well I have to do SOMETHING" rationale works when the "something" doesn't involve killing tens of thousands.
Also, it's not like the other option is "doing nothing", but acknowledging that a way must be found to return to the pre-2005 state of things. There must be a Palestinian governance with a degree of sovereignty and the settlements have to be removed. These are evident steps towards deradicalization but steps that the Israeli right in general is not keen on, in fact they would rather do the complete opposite.
What they "have to do SOMETHING" about is deal with a threat that aims to kill tens of thousands (more if hamas had their way) of their own, so I don't think you can just say that doesn't apply here.
It would be nice if one side could break the cycle of responding to violence with more violence, but that seems unlikely to happen, especially when one side is essentially defined by their intent of violence towards the other.
Israel backing out (removing settlements) and allowing for Palestine self governance isn't going to magically make hamas be nice. Israel would only agree to that kind of measure if they got to maintain some amount of influence over the region so that they could have some reasonable confidence that they can at least assess active threats against them. And suddenly we're back to 2005 Israeli disengagement, where they did withdraw their settlements in gaza and reduced their physical presence instead opting for trying to influence "remotely" while allowing Palestine to self-assemble it's governance. Turns out doing that is actually really hard, hamas took over anyway, and it landed everyone in the current mess.
Suggesting that they just do it again but trust me bro this time it'll work, or suggesting that what they really need to do is also relinquish any influence they have over the region is just not an idea that is going to make it off the ground. Some compromise related to it is probably what will happen, and we can all set our watches for the next iteration.
Again, it's almost like we're stumbling into how this is one of the trickiest geopolitical issues in the last hundred years
>And suddenly we're back to 2005 Israeli disengagement, where they did withdraw their settlements in gaza and reduced their physical presence instead opting for trying to influence "remotely" while allowing Palestine to self-assemble it's governance. Turns out doing that is actually really hard, hamas took over anyway, and it landed everyone in the current mess.
Yes, because Israel delivered the entire region to Hamas on a silver platter, having absolutely no coordination whatsoever with Palestinian authorities. This was in a time in which the majority of the population there supported a peaceful relationship with Israel. A massive blunder that Israel seems content with paying in Palestinian blood but not concessions of their own, it's insane to me that this ever became a talking point to defend Israel's actions.
>Suggesting that they just do it again but trust me bro this time it'll work, or suggesting that what they really need to do is also relinquish any influence they have over the region is just not an idea that is going to make it off the ground. Some compromise related to it is probably what will happen, and we can all set our watches for the next iteration.
>Again, it's almost like we're stumbling into how this is one of the trickiest geopolitical issues in the last hundred years
Sure, it's incredibly complex and yeah, I hope that's what happens in the end, thing is for all the deep this hole is, Israel doesn't seem interested in stopping digging, from their actions the trajectory seems set towards escalating the conflict up to a breakpoint in which they can end up better off, since they are very clearly in the more powerful position.
The Palestinian authorities were in the midst of an election, and the coordination with them that took place was in the form of US/Israel interference of the election to try and prevent Hamas from winning. Hamas won anyway. Fatah resisted in Gaza, and Hamas ended up taking over by force anyway.
So what should Israel have done to not hand control over to Hamas on a "silver platter"? They + the US tried to keep Fatah in power, that was everyone's preferred outcome where some stability could've emerged. That failed due to real Palestinian support of Hamas, as well as Hamas' military force.
Israel's options were basically to intervene militarily, overriding the results of the election; or "accept" the results and deal with/ reduce Hamas' military ambitions (which is what they've tried to do ever since). Both options put Israel in a losing situation. Override the will of Palestinian elections and you're denying them their sovereignty, interfere with the obvious military threat, and you're doing apartheid. Lose lose.
> Override the will of Palestinian elections and you're denying them their sovereignty, interfere with the obvious military threat, and you're doing apartheid.
So it is decided that it will do both. Maybe, just maybe, reconcile? No. Acknowledge the right to return and pay reparations? No. We will run apartheid and blockade sea, air and land. And the Egypt border will be controlled by way of a trilateral treaty. Increase illegal and immoral settlements in West Bank? Yes. Shield and promote settler terrorism? Yes.
Brother, how and why are you trolling around this thread 3 days after the link was posted?
In lieu of just matching snark with snark, I'll just suggest you take 5 minutes of self reflection to ask yourself if you're maybe being over-reductive of the situation, if you're really considering what reconciliation (+ it's risks) means to people who live in Israel/Palestine, and what a practical solution might actually look like.
Hey there! I'm really sorry if that came as snarky, but didn't mean that way. But you have to see that most of the comments are just plain disinformation and just could not let them hang in a no-way-out situation. I hope there would be a way out, without harming the people born into it. But I believe that has to come without this overpowering and dehumanising by those who definitely have the upper hand. This place does have all it takes to be a unifying idea for the vast majority of the world, and I sincerely hope peace prevails. You have a nice day too!
So what should Israel have done to not hand control over to Hamas on a "silver platter"?
In terms of preventing the Hamas-Fatah war and the initial takeover of the Strip -- there probably wasn't very much it could have done.
But after that juncture -- perhaps if the Prime Minister did not have an explicit policy of keeping them in power for 14 years (in order to "smash the vision Palestinian state into two pieces" as he would boast of his genius plan), backed by allowing $1.8 billion in transfers of Qatari cash from 2012 to 2018 -- that might have helped turn the tide.
That's a fact that's backed up by multiple polls and occurrences of what I describe. I didn't use any slurs. Can you please explain what is wrong with this so I can follow the rules better in the future? Thanks.
do you know of any protracted war where this hasn't been the case? or even any urban war where the ratio of civilian casualties to combatants is as low as this current war?
The two of you got into just the sort of flamewar that commenters are asked to avoid here, and most of all on a divisive topic like the OP. We have to ban accounts that do this, so please don't do it again. We've had to warn you about this kind of thing more than once before, btw.
The two of you got into just the sort of flamewar that commenters are asked to avoid here, and most of all on a divisive topic like the OP. We have to ban accounts that do this, so please don't do it again.
