5 ms·

I know Israeli and Palestinian media are both biased so I don't expect to be able to change your mind in an internet comment. I've been working around the regi

I know Israeli and Palestinian media are both biased so I don't expect to be able to change your mind in an internet comment. I've been working around the region for the past 10 years. Ran from Hizballah rockets, Israeli bombs, and Hamas intelligence. The governments on all sides suck donkey balls, but the Palestinian people are definitely the ones getting shafted and it would be neighborly if the Israeli people weren't such ignorant dicks about it.

eloff 6y ago
The Palestinians are also the ones with a terrorist organization as a government, and who flat out refuse to acknowledge the reality that they are the party without bargaining power, yet refuse to compromise. I don't have a dog in the fight, but looking at how long it's been going on for, they really have only their own stubbornness to blame and they will a get an ever worse deal the longer they hold out. I'm not talking about fairness or justness here, just that there are realities to face when a stronger state clashes with a weaker one. There will never be an independent Palestine state in the form they are holding out for. They need to accept that, make the best deal they can get while they still have some bargaining power, and move on with their lives and focus on improving their quality of life. If they stick to this path they will continue to suffer in poverty and eventually lose it all. It's unpopular to say this, perhaps, because one feels for the Palestinians. Nevertheless, I think it's true.
- throwaway243646 6y ago
  From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Melos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Melos The Athenians offer the Melians an ultimatum: surrender and pay tribute to Athens, or be destroyed. The Athenians do not wish to waste time arguing over the morality of the situation, because in practice might makes right—or, in their own words, "the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must". The Melians argue that they are a neutral city and not an enemy, so Athens has no need to conquer them. The Athenians counter that if they accept Melos' neutrality and independence, they would look weak: Their subjects would think that they left Melos alone because they were not strong enough to conquer it. The Melians argue that an invasion will alarm the other neutral Greek states, who will become hostile to Athens for fear of being invaded themselves. The Athenians counter that the Greek states on the mainland are unlikely to act this way. It is the islands in the Aegean Sea that are more likely to take up arms against Athens. The Melians argue that it would be shameful and cowardly of them to submit without a fight. The Athenians counter that it is only shameful to submit to an opponent whom one has a reasonable chance of defeating. There is no shame in submitting to an overwhelmingly superior opponent like Athens. The Melians argue that though the Athenians are far stronger, there is still a chance that the Melians could win, and they will regret not trying their luck. The Athenians counter that this argument is emotional and short-sighted. If the Melians lose, which is highly likely, they will come to bitterly regret their foolhardiness. The Melians argue that they will have the assistance of the gods because their position is morally just. The Athenians counter that the gods will not intervene because it is the natural order of things for the strong to dominate the weak. The Melians argue that their Spartan kin will come to their defense. The Athenians counter that the Spartans don't have enough at stake in Melos to risk an intervention, noting that Athens has the stronger navy. The Athenians express their shock at the Melians' lack of realism. They reiterate that there is no shame in submitting to a stronger enemy, especially one who is offering reasonable terms. The Melians do not change their minds and politely dismiss the envoys.
  - eloff 6y ago
    That's an interesting story, thanks for sharing.
- cik 6y ago
  As someone who lives in the region, this is fairly apt. It's missing the usual nuance, but rather true. The reality is that Israelis firmly believed in a two state solution and offered an agreement that was signed and accepted, called Oslo. Fast forward to today. Israelis believe in a two state solution, but don't believe someone exists with whom to bargain. Isrseli Arabs have long since given up caring. Regional powers outside of Iran have stopped caring. I really hope there's peace soon, or at least in my lifetime. But the current detente is one that could carry on forever with few people noticing.
  - eloff 6y ago
    I would also like to see a lasting peace there, and I hope we will. It happened with other things in my lifetime that many did not expect to see. The fall of the USSR, peace in Northern Ireland, etc. I'm not going to hold my breath though.
  - Udik 6y ago
    > Israelis firmly believed in a two state solution and offered an agreement that was signed and accepted, called Oslo They believed in the solution very much but kept (effectively) annexing more and more land. People don't mention it, but the Israelis have a huge economic incentive in keeping things exactly as they are- the idea that "there is nobody on the other side" is an excellent excuse to grab more and more land. I understand that this might not be the openly agreed-upon motivation for the status quo; but Israel is in an incredible conflict of interest because the reality is that the conflict benefits many of its citizens immensely.
    - cik 6y ago
      That's only partially true. Parts that already existed at Oslo's time (Maaleh Adumim) were covered by the agreement. The flip side is that land was also promised in return - a promise never kept either. There isn't a lot of value for that land, other than it's relative proximity to central region. Israel would be better served, and it would be cheaper to simply build up in the north - very much one of the two national strategies in place. It sucks - but the reality is that Israel doesn't have anyone to negotiate with. The West Bank had a leader until recently, and Gaza is very much not an option. Making peace elsewhere is what's left, and it'll leave the PA behind eventually.

eloff 6y ago

The Palestinians are also the ones with a terrorist organization as a government, and who flat out refuse to acknowledge the reality that they are the party without bargaining power, yet refuse to compromise. I don't have a dog in the fight, but looking at how long it's been going on for, they really have only their own stubbornness to blame and they will a get an ever worse deal the longer they hold out. I'm not talking about fairness or justness here, just that there are realities to face when a stronger state clashes with a weaker one. There will never be an independent Palestine state in the form they are holding out for. They need to accept that, make the best deal they can get while they still have some bargaining power, and move on with their lives and focus on improving their quality of life. If they stick to this path they will continue to suffer in poverty and eventually lose it all. It's unpopular to say this, perhaps, because one feels for the Palestinians. Nevertheless, I think it's true.

throwaway243646 6y ago
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Melos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Melos The Athenians offer the Melians an ultimatum: surrender and pay tribute to Athens, or be destroyed. The Athenians do not wish to waste time arguing over the morality of the situation, because in practice might makes right—or, in their own words, "the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must". The Melians argue that they are a neutral city and not an enemy, so Athens has no need to conquer them. The Athenians counter that if they accept Melos' neutrality and independence, they would look weak: Their subjects would think that they left Melos alone because they were not strong enough to conquer it. The Melians argue that an invasion will alarm the other neutral Greek states, who will become hostile to Athens for fear of being invaded themselves. The Athenians counter that the Greek states on the mainland are unlikely to act this way. It is the islands in the Aegean Sea that are more likely to take up arms against Athens. The Melians argue that it would be shameful and cowardly of them to submit without a fight. The Athenians counter that it is only shameful to submit to an opponent whom one has a reasonable chance of defeating. There is no shame in submitting to an overwhelmingly superior opponent like Athens. The Melians argue that though the Athenians are far stronger, there is still a chance that the Melians could win, and they will regret not trying their luck. The Athenians counter that this argument is emotional and short-sighted. If the Melians lose, which is highly likely, they will come to bitterly regret their foolhardiness. The Melians argue that they will have the assistance of the gods because their position is morally just. The Athenians counter that the gods will not intervene because it is the natural order of things for the strong to dominate the weak. The Melians argue that their Spartan kin will come to their defense. The Athenians counter that the Spartans don't have enough at stake in Melos to risk an intervention, noting that Athens has the stronger navy. The Athenians express their shock at the Melians' lack of realism. They reiterate that there is no shame in submitting to a stronger enemy, especially one who is offering reasonable terms. The Melians do not change their minds and politely dismiss the envoys.
- eloff 6y ago
  That's an interesting story, thanks for sharing.
cik 6y ago
As someone who lives in the region, this is fairly apt. It's missing the usual nuance, but rather true. The reality is that Israelis firmly believed in a two state solution and offered an agreement that was signed and accepted, called Oslo. Fast forward to today. Israelis believe in a two state solution, but don't believe someone exists with whom to bargain. Isrseli Arabs have long since given up caring. Regional powers outside of Iran have stopped caring. I really hope there's peace soon, or at least in my lifetime. But the current detente is one that could carry on forever with few people noticing.
- eloff 6y ago
  I would also like to see a lasting peace there, and I hope we will. It happened with other things in my lifetime that many did not expect to see. The fall of the USSR, peace in Northern Ireland, etc. I'm not going to hold my breath though.
- Udik 6y ago
  > Israelis firmly believed in a two state solution and offered an agreement that was signed and accepted, called Oslo They believed in the solution very much but kept (effectively) annexing more and more land. People don't mention it, but the Israelis have a huge economic incentive in keeping things exactly as they are- the idea that "there is nobody on the other side" is an excellent excuse to grab more and more land. I understand that this might not be the openly agreed-upon motivation for the status quo; but Israel is in an incredible conflict of interest because the reality is that the conflict benefits many of its citizens immensely.
  - cik 6y ago
    That's only partially true. Parts that already existed at Oslo's time (Maaleh Adumim) were covered by the agreement. The flip side is that land was also promised in return - a promise never kept either. There isn't a lot of value for that land, other than it's relative proximity to central region. Israel would be better served, and it would be cheaper to simply build up in the north - very much one of the two national strategies in place. It sucks - but the reality is that Israel doesn't have anyone to negotiate with. The West Bank had a leader until recently, and Gaza is very much not an option. Making peace elsewhere is what's left, and it'll leave the PA behind eventually.