3 ms·
That’s not a counterpoint. That’s an argument that violent attacks have also not worked out well for the Palestinians. To counter the original comment, you woul
by lazyasciiart 1y ago
That’s not a counterpoint. That’s an argument that violent attacks have also not worked out well for the Palestinians. To counter the original comment, you would need to give an example of Palestinian quiescence producing actual gains.
- energy123 1y agoIt's an argument that violent attacks have worked out significantly less well compared to where things were headed in the early 1990s during the Oslo Accords when there was reduced security paranoia among Israel's populace which allowed the political left to actually exist. Whether it was on the path to "working well" is probably a more subjective and loaded question.
- worik 1y agoI thought that the Oslo Accords floundered when a nutty Israeli shot the Israeli Prime Minister dead in an assassination Is that not correct?
- HappyPanacea 1y agoNo, this is often repeated and too simplistic, see for example Taba Summit after Rabin's assassination and Arab Peace Initiative. one of the main problems seems to be that Palestinians insist on full return and the Israeli don't trust them enough (Of course actions like the second intifada and oct7 only make them trust them less)
- tim333 1y agoIn the west bank the Palestinians have been able to live reasonable peacefully and Gaza could have been similar. The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit stuff could have gone through.
- sc68cal 1y ago> to live reasonable peacefully This is absolutely not true. There is constant Israeli settler violence in the West Bank against Palestinians and frequent raids by the IDF.