4 ms·

That's the problem, isn't it? If you put yourself in the shoes of either side, you can see how they have very good reason to do what they do (except Israelian s

by hef19898 3y ago

That's the problem, isn't it? If you put yourself in the shoes of either side, you can see how they have very good reason to do what they do (except Israelian settlement policies, those basically amount to borderline ethnic cleansing, and force the IDF to move in after the fact, but that's a different beast). And since both sides are "right", there is no way this can end without outside intervention. An intervention that won't come, becaues nobody who could intervene is neutral enough, nor willing to be drawn into this.

falserum 3y ago
It’s multigenerational vendeta. Both sides have what to avenge for. Three ways how piece can be achieved here: - side a is wiped out - side b is wiped out - both sides turn the other cheek and shake hands. Both sides know that, and neither of them believe in cheeky business.
- hef19898 3y ago
  I saw an interview a while ago of an Israeli father who lost his kid in one of the previous wars, and who now works a Palestinian father, who also lost his kid, in order to find a peaceful solution. He confirmed your point by saying, I paraphrase, "we are doomed to live share this land together, or the graveyard under it". I really, really hope it will be tze "cheely" solution, the alternatives are, unfortunately, very much imaginable and incredibly painful and ugly.
- prewett 3y ago
  Sadly, both have to be willing to forgive for option 3 to work, so even if one side would be willing to, they are stuck unless the other side is also willing.
bloaf 3y ago
I disagree. Palestinian terrorism is objectively counterproductive and driven by unreasonable domestic politics, not reasonable geopolitics. You can't be a successful politician in Palestine with a position of "lets make concessions to Israel so we can stop suffering." The only successful politicians for the past 60-odd years have been the ones promising to fight Israel and get the Palestinians their stuff back. The problem is that Palestine as a state has no military, economic, cultural or geopolitical bargaining chips to get their stuff back. That means every successful Palestinian politician is elected with a mandate to "get our stuff back" but without the means to do it. So they have two options: either make concessions to get some stuff back, or try to fight. If they make concessions, they lose their grip on power to the groups saying "Those guys are giving away stuff to Israel! We'll get your stuff back!" If they try to fight a conventional war they lose in a matter of weeks (evidently.) So their only option is to fight just enough that their constituents are convinced they're doing a good job, but not so much that Israel wipes them out. Hence, the 60-year history of terrorism and targeting civilians. In conclusion: Palestinians need to make concessions for peace so that they can accumulate the bargaining chips they need to get their stuff back from Israel. They are not doing that because the Palestinian people will not support any leaders that pursue that strategy; they believe violence is a viable means of getting their stuff back even though that has been factually incorrect for the past 60 years. It is possible that the geopolitical landscape may change in the future, and violence becomes a viable option, but wasting resources on fruitless wars does not help change it. Therefore it is not true that both sides have very good reasons to do what they do.
- ignoramous 3y ago
  > I disagree. The armed struggle hasn't done them any favours, yes. Neither has peace (Oslo). > The problem is that Palestine as a state has no military, economic, cultural or geopolitical bargaining chips to get their stuff back. Hamas agreed to 1967 borders back in 2017. PLO has long given up armed struggle. > If they make concessions, they lose their grip on power to the groups saying "Those guys are giving away stuff to Israel! We'll get your stuff back!" A typical racist characterisation. Arab male or female is continually fair game to either poke fun at, or more seriously, be confined to and judged by a representation that is either inherently bad, angry, irrational or stupid, misogynistic or repressed, exotic or lascivious. https://www.runnymedetrust.org/blog/hooked-on-arab-stereotypes https://www.runnymedetrust.org/blog/hooked-on-arab-stereotyp... > So their only option is to fight just enough that their constituents are convinced they're doing a good job You make it sound like Palestinians want war in perpetuity. Such a hateful rhetoric. How many Palestinians do you personally know? > Palestinians need to make concessions for peace so that they can accumulate the bargaining chips they need to get their stuff back from Israel Not so quick: https://www.972mag.com/trump-peace-plan-apartheid/ https://www.972mag.com/trump-peace-plan-apartheid/
  - bloaf 3y ago
    > Neither has peace (Oslo). The peace was immediately undermined by groups who did not want to stop fighting. Look, the wikipedia article on the 1996 palestinian general election following the accords literally says, quote: The Islamist Hamas, Fatah's main rival, refused to participate in the election; they felt that doing so would lend legitimacy to the PNA, which was created out of *what they called unacceptable negotiations and compromises with Israel.* [0] > ["Those guys are giving away stuff to Israel! We'll get your stuff back!" is] A typical racist characterisation. This is well documented history, see above for one such example. I know there are people out there who think we actually have an obligation to alter historical facts to avoid coming to uncomfortable conclusions, but I am not interested in debating that view here, if an honest accounting of the facts makes me racist in your eyes, so be it. > You make it sound like Palestinians want war in perpetuity. Such a hateful rhetoric. Of course not, they want their stuff back. I'm pointing out that they have consistently chosen a way of going about it that is actually preventing them from getting what they want. Again, this is based purely on the actual history of the past 60 years where every Palestinian government has reverted to allowing anti-Israel violence because the public will not allow criticism of the fight to get their stuff back. As an example, the PA of today had to walk back its criticism of Hamas' Oct 7 attack after public backlash [1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Palestinian_general_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Palestinian_general_elect... [1] https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/abbas-appears-to-walk-back-criticism-of-hamas-terror-group/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/abbas-appears-t...

falserum 3y ago

It’s multigenerational vendeta. Both sides have what to avenge for. Three ways how piece can be achieved here: - side a is wiped out - side b is wiped out - both sides turn the other cheek and shake hands. Both sides know that, and neither of them believe in cheeky business.

hef19898 3y ago
I saw an interview a while ago of an Israeli father who lost his kid in one of the previous wars, and who now works a Palestinian father, who also lost his kid, in order to find a peaceful solution. He confirmed your point by saying, I paraphrase, "we are doomed to live share this land together, or the graveyard under it". I really, really hope it will be tze "cheely" solution, the alternatives are, unfortunately, very much imaginable and incredibly painful and ugly.
prewett 3y ago
Sadly, both have to be willing to forgive for option 3 to work, so even if one side would be willing to, they are stuck unless the other side is also willing.

bloaf 3y ago

I disagree. Palestinian terrorism is objectively counterproductive and driven by unreasonable domestic politics, not reasonable geopolitics. You can't be a successful politician in Palestine with a position of "lets make concessions to Israel so we can stop suffering." The only successful politicians for the past 60-odd years have been the ones promising to fight Israel and get the Palestinians their stuff back. The problem is that Palestine as a state has no military, economic, cultural or geopolitical bargaining chips to get their stuff back. That means every successful Palestinian politician is elected with a mandate to "get our stuff back" but without the means to do it. So they have two options: either make concessions to get some stuff back, or try to fight. If they make concessions, they lose their grip on power to the groups saying "Those guys are giving away stuff to Israel! We'll get your stuff back!" If they try to fight a conventional war they lose in a matter of weeks (evidently.) So their only option is to fight just enough that their constituents are convinced they're doing a good job, but not so much that Israel wipes them out. Hence, the 60-year history of terrorism and targeting civilians. In conclusion: Palestinians need to make concessions for peace so that they can accumulate the bargaining chips they need to get their stuff back from Israel. They are not doing that because the Palestinian people will not support any leaders that pursue that strategy; they believe violence is a viable means of getting their stuff back even though that has been factually incorrect for the past 60 years. It is possible that the geopolitical landscape may change in the future, and violence becomes a viable option, but wasting resources on fruitless wars does not help change it. Therefore it is not true that both sides have very good reasons to do what they do.

ignoramous 3y ago
> I disagree. The armed struggle hasn't done them any favours, yes. Neither has peace (Oslo). > The problem is that Palestine as a state has no military, economic, cultural or geopolitical bargaining chips to get their stuff back. Hamas agreed to 1967 borders back in 2017. PLO has long given up armed struggle. > If they make concessions, they lose their grip on power to the groups saying "Those guys are giving away stuff to Israel! We'll get your stuff back!" A typical racist characterisation. Arab male or female is continually fair game to either poke fun at, or more seriously, be confined to and judged by a representation that is either inherently bad, angry, irrational or stupid, misogynistic or repressed, exotic or lascivious. https://www.runnymedetrust.org/blog/hooked-on-arab-stereotypes https://www.runnymedetrust.org/blog/hooked-on-arab-stereotyp... > So their only option is to fight just enough that their constituents are convinced they're doing a good job You make it sound like Palestinians want war in perpetuity. Such a hateful rhetoric. How many Palestinians do you personally know? > Palestinians need to make concessions for peace so that they can accumulate the bargaining chips they need to get their stuff back from Israel Not so quick: https://www.972mag.com/trump-peace-plan-apartheid/ https://www.972mag.com/trump-peace-plan-apartheid/
- bloaf 3y ago
  > Neither has peace (Oslo). The peace was immediately undermined by groups who did not want to stop fighting. Look, the wikipedia article on the 1996 palestinian general election following the accords literally says, quote: The Islamist Hamas, Fatah's main rival, refused to participate in the election; they felt that doing so would lend legitimacy to the PNA, which was created out of *what they called unacceptable negotiations and compromises with Israel.* [0] > ["Those guys are giving away stuff to Israel! We'll get your stuff back!" is] A typical racist characterisation. This is well documented history, see above for one such example. I know there are people out there who think we actually have an obligation to alter historical facts to avoid coming to uncomfortable conclusions, but I am not interested in debating that view here, if an honest accounting of the facts makes me racist in your eyes, so be it. > You make it sound like Palestinians want war in perpetuity. Such a hateful rhetoric. Of course not, they want their stuff back. I'm pointing out that they have consistently chosen a way of going about it that is actually preventing them from getting what they want. Again, this is based purely on the actual history of the past 60 years where every Palestinian government has reverted to allowing anti-Israel violence because the public will not allow criticism of the fight to get their stuff back. As an example, the PA of today had to walk back its criticism of Hamas' Oct 7 attack after public backlash [1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Palestinian_general_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Palestinian_general_elect... [1] https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/abbas-appears-to-walk-back-criticism-of-hamas-terror-group/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/abbas-appears-t...