3 ms·

I really appreciate your perspective. Got an idea of a way out for Israelis and Palestinians? Is there a path toward peace and no genocide?

orwin 3y ago
Not in the short or medium term, sadly. In 50 years? The one state solution was impossible, since at least the 6 day war, but probably earlier. The issue is that the PLO pushed for a one-state solution until 89. Then the PLO and Israel's government agreed on a two state solution, with only the likud as a major party against it. Rabin was assassinated, the talks failed, at least temporarily (as revanchism died, the PLO main parties all agreed two state was the solution). But the process existed and could start again. Then Hamas arrived, saying they supported a two state solution too, but they were less corrupt than Fatah (and probably also appealed to mix of radicalized islamists and revanchists, ex-Fatah armed groups). They were elected, and immediately removed elections, removed all UDP members (pesky democrats!) and whatever was left of free speech in Gaza disappeared. Also they now support a one state solution, and are genocidal. So as long as Hamas and Likud exist as strong political entities, the two state solution is impossible imho (as Hamas will prop up Likud, Likud with fund Hamas, and savvy politicians from other parts of the Middle East will do both to weaken Israel and take over as the area powerhouses. Which they already did) One way, and at this point it might be Israel policy (hopefully it's that and not worse), is that the Gaza strip is bombed so hard, the UN has to take over. Wait for 10 years, create a two state solution without Gaza at first (with Gaza still under UN rules), then after 30 more years (so revanchism has time to die), incorporate Gaza, however they vote for: as a Palestinian enclave, or as an Israeli state. I'm really sorry for Gazaouis, because it's unjust, they fucked up one election and it fucked up their autonomy, Likud politicians helped Hamas almost as much and will never feel a thousand percent of the pain Gazaoui are suffering and will suffer, but it seems like the best option right now, the only one that doesn't involve a war or a genocide.
- rendall 3y ago
  Gah. Grim. Noam Chomsky said something once that has stuck with me over the years. That, in a situation like this, moderate voices get drowned out because the extremist perpetrators of violence exchange prestige. The violent extremists of one side perpetrate violence and so the opposing extremists get to say to their own side "See? Our side's moderates are inadequate! Only violence will see us through!" I have come to disagree with Chomsky about a lot, but his model of prestige exchange, where violence between two opposing sides is in some sense cooperative, has stayed with me. Pernicious, if valid. Has resonance with what you testify, here.
  - orwin 3y ago
    This is a way better way of saying what I'm tried to say. I'll remember it.

orwin 3y ago

Not in the short or medium term, sadly. In 50 years? The one state solution was impossible, since at least the 6 day war, but probably earlier. The issue is that the PLO pushed for a one-state solution until 89. Then the PLO and Israel's government agreed on a two state solution, with only the likud as a major party against it. Rabin was assassinated, the talks failed, at least temporarily (as revanchism died, the PLO main parties all agreed two state was the solution). But the process existed and could start again. Then Hamas arrived, saying they supported a two state solution too, but they were less corrupt than Fatah (and probably also appealed to mix of radicalized islamists and revanchists, ex-Fatah armed groups). They were elected, and immediately removed elections, removed all UDP members (pesky democrats!) and whatever was left of free speech in Gaza disappeared. Also they now support a one state solution, and are genocidal. So as long as Hamas and Likud exist as strong political entities, the two state solution is impossible imho (as Hamas will prop up Likud, Likud with fund Hamas, and savvy politicians from other parts of the Middle East will do both to weaken Israel and take over as the area powerhouses. Which they already did) One way, and at this point it might be Israel policy (hopefully it's that and not worse), is that the Gaza strip is bombed so hard, the UN has to take over. Wait for 10 years, create a two state solution without Gaza at first (with Gaza still under UN rules), then after 30 more years (so revanchism has time to die), incorporate Gaza, however they vote for: as a Palestinian enclave, or as an Israeli state. I'm really sorry for Gazaouis, because it's unjust, they fucked up one election and it fucked up their autonomy, Likud politicians helped Hamas almost as much and will never feel a thousand percent of the pain Gazaoui are suffering and will suffer, but it seems like the best option right now, the only one that doesn't involve a war or a genocide.

rendall 3y ago
Gah. Grim. Noam Chomsky said something once that has stuck with me over the years. That, in a situation like this, moderate voices get drowned out because the extremist perpetrators of violence exchange prestige. The violent extremists of one side perpetrate violence and so the opposing extremists get to say to their own side "See? Our side's moderates are inadequate! Only violence will see us through!" I have come to disagree with Chomsky about a lot, but his model of prestige exchange, where violence between two opposing sides is in some sense cooperative, has stayed with me. Pernicious, if valid. Has resonance with what you testify, here.
- orwin 3y ago
  This is a way better way of saying what I'm tried to say. I'll remember it.