DawnC

This post discusses the situation in Israel and Gaza, approaching it from a systemic point of view. My major claim is that the problem in Gaza runs much deeper than just the Hamas regime, It is a profound and structural issue within Palestinian society. This is not a challenge unique to the Palestinians, but rather a broader problem within most of the Arab world. Democracy faces difficulties there because the society lacks adequate development. Let's consider Egypt, for example. After the removal of the dictator Mubarak, the Egyptians elected radicals, the Muslim Brotherhood, who were subsequently replaced by a military dictator, Sisi. It appears that there are three options for such countries: a moderate ruler who enforces policies with force (like in Jordan), extremist and oppressive regimes like those in Iran or Turkey, which have significant support from one segment of the population while suppressing the other, and the third is a bloody civil war like in Syria. The Palestinians not only lack the development needed for an open, pluralistic, and democratic society, but they have also prevented any moderate movements from gaining any real influence. They consistently choose and support irresponsible leadership, leading them into further chaos and conflict. This pattern can be traced back to early Palestinian leader Amin al-Husseini (who, by the way, had affiliations with the Nazis, and this was before the establishment of Israel) and continues to this day with widespread public support for Hamas (even in the west bank). The Palestinian leadership has rejected all proposals for peace and fundamentally struggles with the ability to compromise due to their deep-seated concept of justice and twisted concept of honor. While their claims of connection and ownership of the land may make some sense from a Western perspective, understanding their society and level of development reveals that their claims differ fundamentally from what we might initially perceive from a Western mindset. These claims of ownership are deeply rooted in religious beliefs, and thus, the struggle for it is considered a holy war. However, the issue runs even deeper. Their religious mindset hinders their capacity for compromise, they tend to think in a zero-sum manner and the major isue is that they invest all their resources to their 'just cause,' neglecting the essential element necessary for a functioning country - building a society (education, infrastructure, institutions, etc). The most clear example is the allocation of funds and resources in Gaza, that received substantial donations from Europeans and Americans in past years and seems to be a worthless investment. Israel, on the other hand, has a strong society and institutions, and a relatively open and pluralistic culture. It does have a problematic right-wing faction (about 5%-10% of the population), however, the majority of Israelis (to my understanding about 60%) are located in the center of the political spectrum, and the radical left is negligible. Israel does have a problem with some of the settlers in the West Bank and with the way Palestinians are treated there. Nevertheless, Israel's control of the West Bank is rooted in a mindset fundamentally different from that of the Palestinians. Essentially, Israelis fear a recurrence of what happened in Gaza in the West Bank. Geographically, the West Bank is situated exactly in the middle of Israel and is only 20 minutes from Tel Aviv. There are factions that advocate holding onto all of the territory from a religious standpoint, but they constitute a small, insignificant minority in Israel. The perspective of most Israelis is focused on national security and strategic considerations. As for the Gaza situation, from what I am aware of, Israel's army is doing more than any other military in the history of warfare to protect civilians in Gaza (and if you think otherwise, please provide an example). Israel possesses the capability to cause indiscriminate harm, yet consciously chooses to avoid it. As I understand it, to most Israelis, this is a deliberate choice (with varying degrees) and not solely a strategy to gain global public favor. Clearly, the protection of civilians can be done to some extent and war is not a pretty thing. To me, it is clear that Hamas cannot remain in control of the Gaza Strip, as any society that values and cherishes life cannot tolerate such a regime on its borders. Unfortunately, I believe that relying solely on the air force is not a viable means to remove Hamas from power. I'm uncertain about what would be beneficial for the region after Hamas is removed (if you guys have a take on this I would love to hear it). As far as I'm concerned, until there is a cultural revolution within Palestinian society, the situation will remain unchanged. Unfortunately, I don't think that we can enforce such change from the outside, neither through military intervention nor through impassioned speeches about freedom. Sadly, I don't foresee this changing in the near future, and sadly, they will continue to suffer until change comes from within. I didn't address the influence of Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, and the Houthi movement. Clearly, as long as Palestinian radicalism is nurtured by Iran, this makes the situation even more difficult and complicated, But this post has become quite lengthy, so I'll leave it here. edit: I hope this goes without saying, but I'll mention it anyway - this clearly does not address individual Palestinians or Israelis, but rather the societies from a systemic point of view. I'm sure there are good and bad people everywhere. My concern is the functioning of the collectives.

@Nivsch an optimistic assessment 😄

@Leo Gura @Nabd @Lila9 @Samsonov Just to provide a brutal example of this society's mentality, take a listen to this recording: https://www.ynetnews.com/article/by11zbthm6. This is a completely distorted spiritual-like catharsis this guy experiences from killing Jews. His family is literally weeping with a sense of fulfillment and joy. I urge you not to solely rely on my assessment of this issue or base your assessment solely on this single recording. Take the time to study their educational system. You'll be amazed to see how this recording is not surprising at all.

#1 It's okay, but it is not a major diversion from what actually happens. It won't have a major positive effect from an Israeli perspective on anything besides maybe on how Israel is perceived by some Westerners (not even on how Palestinians perceive them). On the other hand, the negative can be crucial in terms of hostages' release, and the ability of Hamas to maintain its control command (that is exactly beneath hospitals). #2 It fails to understand the regional situation. Israel cannot afford such action to take place without a response. The more that organizations like Hamas gain power on Israel's borders, the higher the risk for the country. Hiding behind their walls was the exact strategy that led to Hamas' ability to surprise them. Consider what would happen if there were a coordinated attack from Hezbollah, pro-Iran militant groups, and Iran's regime. This suggestion heavily plays into Iran's strategy to wear out Israel. From an Israeli perspective, they should be more proactive and not passive, and this is very reasonable. Edit: This also neglects the fact that Israel has 200 civilians held by Hamas. #3 If you think that Hamas can be negotiated with for peace, you totally misunderstand what Hamas is. Good luck negotiating peace with Al-Qaeda, ISIS, WWII Japan, and the Nazis. Announcing an end to settlement expansion is actually a good suggestion, but it has not much to do with how to deal with Hamas in Gaza now. Also, I would target the focus on specific settlements and not on the entire project. I highly suggest avoiding a mindset that is solely focused on finding a solution. These suggestions may not be helpful in reducing the intensity of this conflict. They might actually be more like 'Chamberlain deed'.

@Leo Gura I have watched the entire video. In simplistic terms, it seems as if the research question they tackled was 'Why does the US have a special relationship and support for Israel?' The answer they arrived at was 'because of Israel-favored lobbies.' Unfortunately, the way they address the actual question is lacking depth and seriousness. They spend much more time on the answer than on the question. To me, this suggests that they either lack a deeper strategic and global perspective, or they conducted the research in the opposite direction—starting from their biased solution (treating Israel like a normal country) and working backwards to justify it with research (citing the influence of lobbies). Even if I take their investigation seriously, the way they address the question indicates they have a limited view on two levels: a strategic level and the role of the US in the current global situation. From a strategic perspective, they fail to see how aligned the strategic interests of the US and Israel are (not to say that there aren't cases where they differ or that US and Israeli governments simply made strategic mistakes). They also have a totally misunderstanding of who their enemies are. I'm using the word 'enemy' here intentionally. If you misunderstand Putin or Khamenei, you have a major strategic problem. Understanding that someone is an enemy doesn't always mean going to war, but it does have an impact on your strategic viewpoint. But I believe the deeper problem lies in a failure to recognize the role of the US as the keeper of world order. They tend to lean towards the belief that the sole interest of the US is its national security, and this perspective can be very dangerous for Americans to adopt. If Putin and Khamenei can act with impunity, Putin might have already taken over Ukraine by now, and it's only a matter of time until the entire Arab world falls under the control of Iranian militant groups. And I haven't even mentioned China. Maintaining world order requires force, and the American alternatives are very troubling. It may sound poetic for Americans to shy away from being a dominant power and be American centered, but the alternative players poses great danger to the entire world. I'm not sure they understand how significant this is. And as for trust in US officials, I think you may be exaggerating in your assessment of unconditional support in terms of credibility, especially regarding the impact this would have on personal relationships with those involved. It's good to question this, but everyone is biased. It's important to be mindful of veering into conspiracy-like thinking where you can't trust anything.

Israel's and the US's intelligence agencies are so connected and collaborate on so many different levels now that presenting false claims or claims with no evidence would be easily disproven by the US. Israeli officials would not risk being perceived as highly unreliable by their American counterparts. They might be biased, but they understand credibility well enough.

Multiculturalism can only happen when a society or an individual meets certain crucial elements. Having tolerance toward some cultures is like having dinner with a cannibal. Yes, it's noble to have tolerance for vegetarians, vegans, keto, Halal, Kosher, etc. Such a diverse dinner would be lovely. But I wouldn't add a cannibal to the table. I want to know if I'm on the menu or not. It is very easy to confuse a respectful approach toward different cultures with non-intervention or appeasing policies. I have respect for lions, but that doesn't mean I'm going to go pet them, avoid putting a bullet in one's head if it tries to eat me, or ignore their spread around the world. When Germany made themselves energetically totally dependent on Russia, or when the West tries to appease Iran, it is not a respect towards their culture. It is a misunderstanding of culture. The Islamic world is diverse, and from a western perspective, different factions of it should be dealt with using varying approaches. Some can actually benefit from direct assistance in their cultural development, some may require a credible militant threat alone and others should be left alone.

He is a truly unique, impressive and inspirational individual. He has many interesting interviews and a nice book, ‘Son of Hamas.' The fact that he is completely rejected by his society and faces numerous death threats is deeply saddening. What do you mean? What do you think Israel should do?

Nothing happens in a vacuum. The problem is that when people observe the present situation, what they often see is an enormous power imbalance, which easily leads them to a victim-aggressor framework. Yes, the conditions of the Palestinians under Israeli control are terrible and discriminatory. Yes, the conditions in the Gaza Strip are dire. Yes, many Palestinians lost their homes in '48. Yes, Israel occupied Gaza and the West Bank in '67. But those things did not happen in a vacuum either. That is precisely my point. Let me give you two simple examples: 1) 'Many Palestinians lost their homes in 1948': The Jews in Israel endured horrific riots and attacks from Arab Palestinians in the early 20th century, long before they had any real power or a state. It was only after the Arabs initiated a war on Israel that Palestinians lost their homes. Almost all of them fled and weren't forcibly expelled. There were some terrible acts of deportation by Israelis, but this wasn't the majority, and it occurred when Israel's very existence was at stake, facing aggression from five Arab countries, including Arabs within Israel. It wasn't civilians being expelled by an army; it was a total civil war, with one side supported by nearly all the surrounding countries. 2) 'The conditions in the Gaza Strip are terrible'. They are. But why is that? Why are they so dire? There have been enormous amounts of money sent to Gaza from all over the world. Did Israel hinder Palestinians from developing their own society and improving their quality of life? In fact, Israel removed its settlers from their homes, withdrew the military, and departed. From a broader perspective, when Israel attempts to help Palestinians, to seek an end to the conflict, or takes steps to improve the situation, instead of welcoming these efforts and trying to build something positive from them, the Palestinians make the situation worse. As to some of the things you have mentioned: Settler violence is troubling, yet it's relatively isolated and lacks significant support from the Israeli public. I do believe that the expansion of settlements was a foolish and irresponsible move on Israel's part (at least in areas that disrupted the continuous Palestinian-inhabited territories). And the Israeli spokesperson's statement may not have been nice, but it's certainly understandable given the circumstances. But my main point is that while these actions do create friction and may worsen the situation, they are far from being the core issue. The misperception of the victim-aggressor creates a distorted version of history, leading to things like falsely labeling it as colonialism and an obsession with historical justice not only for the Palestinians but also in the Western world. This is a much more complicated conflict and it is wrong to address it this way. I think that this false perception creates a problem with acknowledging the deeper issue I was describing. It is not the deeper issue of who is right or who behaved immorally here, or made a mistake there. It is the deeper issue of why peace or any sort of solution is not a realistic possibility at all. Israel has more power, but all of its power is useless when it comes to changing the foundational principles that govern the Palestinian society. "Any proposal fell short of fairness and the meeting of minimum standards set by international law." I don't think so. I think that any society with responsible leadership, that has an appreciation for peace and a desire to build a nation, would agree to those proposals if they were in the shoes of the Palestinians. I agree that spiral dynamics can be simplistic, and an investigation of a society should be more nuanced than that. That doesn't mean there aren't cases where the gap in development is very much clear when you do investigate it. I hardly disagree with your assessment on young Palestinians. The Palestinian education system is incredibly problematic in so many ways. The society's sole role model is basically a killer, and this is a crucial element of the society. Young Palestinians differ in some manners, but they don't show any real signs of change in the important elements of the problem. Stating that one culture or society is better than another in some crucial elements of human freedom and dignity is not the same as believing the culture or society you think is better is flawless. Clearly, there are problems within western societies. The comparison remains relative.

@Leo Gura Some problems just don't have a solution. This is a fact of reality that people seem to always forget. It's the wrong paradigm to address this conflict. The misguided actions America took because every third president believed they would bring peace to the Middle East are enormous. Even the Israelis have difficulty grasping it. A better framework would be to try to lower the flame to a bearable condition. This is similar to fighting poverty and crime. Sometimes 'the perfect is the enemy of the good.' Peace is not a realistic possibility, and it would be beneficial to get it out of our system when it comes to the Israelis and Palestinians. Unfortunately, while Hamas rules over any territory that is adjacent to Israel, or any civil society for that matter, the situation is clearly unbearable. Every militant capability they have will be used to target Israel in the most horrific ways. The Israelis actually had a huge misperception and thought that Hamas could be made to be a more moderate organization by improving conditions in Gaza and negotiating with them. I think that even from an American or global perspective, Hamas shouldn't stay in power. I'm not sure what your suggestion is and what you oppose. How would you propose removing them from power? It's true that Israel is less concerned about collateral damage than in the past, but it's clearly not recklessly bombing civilians. Hamas' hold on Gaza is strong, and they are very skilled at using their strategic advantage. This is not a regular military-military fight. Their tactics involve intentionally fighting from civilian facilities and engaging in very difficult door-to-door combat while forcing their civilians to be in the crossfire as a tactic. This is what I think Israel is trying to prevent by urging the Palestinians to move south and targeting specific areas for bombing. I don't see a better militant option that would not put Israeli soldiers at high risk, and not even options that might put them at risk that would actually result in fewer civilian casualties. The thing is, there is actually a greater and more important issue at play. The bigger picture is Iran and its attempt to gain control over the Gulf countries and the Middle East. From a global perspective, this is a very dangerous situation. Israel is the only country that is actually capable of dealing with Iran in the region (and the Iranians understand this). To my understanding, Hamas was actually putting into practice a part of Iran's strategy against Israel, which is to make life in Israel unbearable by targeting civilians and imposing a significant economic burden to the point where a western society cannot endure. In that regard, the role of the US in the world is much more significant than just shouting for human rights like the Europeans. US is the only country that can actually ensure freedom in the world. If the Iranians and Putin can do what they are doing and get away with it, in the long run, it means death to freedom and to our way of life. From an American perspective, Israel is the most reliable ally in the region that has the capabilities and determination needed to confront Iran (Israel is actually the only ally of the US that doesn't want US soldiers to fight for them on the ground). When Israel is perceived as weak in the region or even when support from the US is wavering, this can have a major effect on the conflict with Iran. I don't think the US has to cheer for every bomb Israel throws, but unwavering support is definitely a US and global interest. edit: 1) Sometimes radicals are simply radicals, and it doesn't really matter what the US or Israel would do or have done. Believing that Iran's regime or the Houthis in Yemen emerged solely because they were created by bad policy from the West is simplistic. Of course, bad policy can contribute, but it's not always the case. Some cultures are more susceptible to radicalism, and the question of why is more complex. 2) I think that a realistic approach to Israel and Palestine would also include: denying any militant capabilities from the Palestinians, finding creative ways to ensure continuity in Palestinian territories (to reduce day-to-day friction), targeting the pressure on Israel to the specific settlements that interrupt that continuity in an irreparable way (like Hebron, unfortunately 7/10 made it much more difficult), and focusing Palestinian aid on the Palestinian education system, which is the most problematic element at the moment.

Not every 'normal' human definitely desire peace. And there is a difference between individuals will and the societies structure and value system. Those are two major misconceptions. Try to investigate the Palestinian social structure, values and belief system (including all places you have mentioned) with an open mind and tell me what you see. Don't seek out impressive individuals (some of whom I know personally). Study the society. I understand that you hold this belief. I also acknowledge that there are certainly moments in history where, even after examining an issue from all perspectives, the moral stance is clear as you suggest. But in this particular conflict, it isn't such a straightforward case at all (and I'm taking a soft approach here). It goes deeper than just understanding Israel's perspective. It's about seeking an accurate, undistorted version of history. Your viewpoint is historically inaccurate. I thought about writing it down, but I'm starting to wonder if it would be a good use of my time. I hope you'll consider taking some time to investigate this matter with an open mind. And by the way, realize that this discussion doesn't contradict my original assessment. Even if you are correct, expecting and fighting for historical justice can be unrealistic, unwise, and irresponsible. And the Palestinian society can be the current major obstacle for peace, even if historical justice is on their side.

I'm mostly talking about countries in the Middle East. Iraq, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Libya, Palestinian Territories. This doesn't mean there aren't impressive individuals in those countries. I'm referring to the overall state of affairs and the trajectory.

I'm not sure that's right. I think there is a significant moderate faction in Iran's society, and even under their barbaric regime, the society is pluralistic and open to some extent. It is not a western society but I believe the situation is more hopeful for the Iranian people than in Arab societies.

Then let me rephrase that: The thing is, you are so caught up with your concept of historical justice that this makes your whole perspective of the current situation and historical events biased. The kind of peace you are talking about requires a lot of things. For example, mutual understanding and respect. You are struggling with viewing the other side's perspective, let alone the Palestinians. The Palestinians are also caught up with their concept of historical justice. The Israelis were ready long ago. The type of peace you are talking about is not a realistic possibility for the Palestinians because their mindset and culture lack other necessary elements, such as political stability, education, awareness, and essentially any appreciation for peace. Palestinian society does not value peace. That's just the way it is, no matter what you believe is just.

Not at all. The Iranian society, for example, is quite developed, and the Iranians are an impressive people. If there comes a time where they can overthrow their barbaric regime, there is a substantial possibility for a moderate and stable alternative to take hold. Maybe, but the most realistic assumption is that there are regions that may deteriorate into chaos and brutality. Responsibility in the political sense requires recognizing your capabilities and limitations and acting accordingly. And it also requires acknowledging the consequences of your behavior. This was hardly ever a thing in Palestinian leadership. If you disagree with this, you might have a gap in your historical knowledge of the actual facts of the events before and after the establishment of Israel. (Israel btw has shown a desire to establish peace with Palestinians numerous times). Your viewpoint is firmly rooted in the belief that Israel's mere existence is immoral because you see them as thieves who stole the land from the Palestinians. I don't share the same view, although I can understand it. The thing is, you are so caught up with your concept of historical justice that this makes your whole perspective of the current situation and historical events biased.

Because it is aimed at Iran, not Syria, and Syria is deeply stuck in the mess of its civil war. Iran is trying to replicate a similar situation in Syria as it has in Lebanon with Hezbollah.

The idea wasn't to leave Gaza alone and cut it off from the outside world (by the way, when Israel left Gaza, it also left parts of the West Bank as well). The idea was to minimize friction with Palestinian society as much as possible. This came about after Israelis were disappointed by the failure of the Oslo Accords. Basically, Israeli society thought that if they couldn't negotiate an agreement to create two separate states because the Palestinian leadership refused to compromise, they would 'force' a separation on the ground without the other side. This way, soldiers wouldn't have to deal with civilians on a day-to-day basis, and the friction would be reduced. And Israel's public wouldn't feel as responsible for the Palestinians. The plan was to implement a similar approach in the West Bank. The thing is, almost immediately after Israel left Gaza, there was a civil war in the Gaza Strip between Hamas and the PLO. Hamas won (the war was brutal), and they had wide support in the Gaza Strip. Israel chose not to become directly involved in this conflict. It seems that Israelis believed that supporting the PLO could be seen as illegitimate by the Palestinians. They also thought it might be easier to deal with the Palestinians if they had divided leadership. After Hamas took power, Israel implemented strict restrictions on the Hamas regime, particularly regarding military supplies entering Gaza. This might give the impression of a prison-like environment imposed by Israel and Egypt But I think that Israelis and Egyptians have allowed almost everything to enter, and they have taken steps since then to try and aid Gaza's development (they've allowed people from Gaza to enter Israel for work). Maybe more could have been done, but it's doubtful that it would significantly impact Hamas's regime. I don't know if that policy turned out to be smart or not, but I think it was a valid course of action to achieve the Israeli strategic goal of separation between the Palestinian society and the Israeli society to two different states (which is a valid goal). Many Israelis supported this until 7/10, but the Hamas attack changed a lot, and I think the situation is too chaotic to make a valid prediction about this. I think that a better strategy, instead of leaving Gaza completely, would be to allow the Israeli army to access the area, with some sort of autonomy for the Palestinians similar to the arrangement in the A zone. I believe this would result in a much safer situation with minimum friction. Some Israelis believe that the settlements that disrupt the continuity of the Palestinian population (not all settlements do that) are responsible for the improved situation, as where there are settlements, there must be an army to protect them. This is a valid point, but I think the friction it adds to the conflict is significant.

And my point isn't about placing blame. It's not about changing the situation either. It's about presenting things as they are. Please try to understand that I'm not in the business of badmouthing the Arab world or the Palestinians, I have a deep compassion for their suffering (my grandparents are from Iraq btw). I'm simply describing reality as I understand it. My claim is that if you think that the problem of the Palestinians is Hamas's regime or the control of the West Bank by Israel, you misunderstand a fundamental issue. The Palestinian society (as a collective), at this moment, is incapable of having a stable, sovereign governing entity that is responsible and relatively moderate. This issue cannot simply be labeled with an oppressor-oppressed framework. This is not a problem unique to Palestinians. The majority of the Arab world has completely failed to deal with the challenges of the modern era and still struggles with it. Many countries are still struggling to establish a stable regime to this day. And this traces back much before Israel was established. The Palestinian leadership behaved irresponsibly, with a hostile intolerant and barbaric approach before 1948. Israel has definitely made mistakes in the past 75 years since it was established. But on a broader scale, both Israel's leadership and society have behaved relatively responsibly and have been in the business of compromise. This is the fundamental difference between the societies that I believe you fail to see. As far as the solution you propose, holding Israel accountable for its mistakes is fine. But I don't believe they have the ability to change the fundamental mindset of the Palestinians, even by withdrawing from all territory. A realistic assessment of what would happen if they were to leave suggests that the most likely scenario is of an ISIS-type regime emerging on their borders. Would you be willing to take that risk? That is an irresponsible and foolish decision from an Israeli perspective, and I think that viewpoint is justifiable. Thus it isn't much of a possible way for a solution... You also fail to realize that Israel's society is an open democratic society and they hold themself accountable for their mistakes without you. On the other hand, there isn't much accountability on the other side. That is a fundamental element in the problem within Palestinian society that I discussed, touching the core issue. Who holds the Palestinian leadership accountable for their consistently reckless and irresponsible decisions, aggressive and barbaric attitude, and unwillingness to compromise? Who holds the Palestinian people accountable for supporting their leadership for decades? In a way, one can argue that holding them accountable and putting pressure on them might help foster a sense of responsibility and willingness to compromise from within Palestinian society and that can lead to a solution. But I don't really believe this can result in anything. Sadly, I don't foresee a solution in the foreseeable future.

Now you have shifted focus towards the solution. I believe it is crucial to first acknowledge the deep and fundamental nature of the problem. I would approach the solution with greater humility. If it were that straightforward, someone would have already addressed it. This is a profound issue with no easy fix or simplistic, naive solution. Don't reduce the complexity of life to a bumper sticker slogan

@zazen To some extent, yes. There wasn't actually a Palestinian regime when Israel was established, and even for a long period afterwards. The Palestinian national movement arose in reaction to Zionism, and they had somewhat of a central leadership (not in the same way it exists in the Western world) not long before the 1948 war. The Palestinian leadership was engaged in violence against the Zionist settlements before there were states (under the British Mandate), and their leadership was irresponsible and rejected any sort of compromise. Not only that, they deliberately started a war. This war wasn't Palestine versus Israel as there were not exactly states. This was more of a civil war inside the territory of today's Israel, West Bank, and Gaza, with large support from surrounding Arab countries to the Palestinians led by Egypt. Yes, in that war, tragedies like the one you mentioned happened, but when you examine the actions of the Israelis compared to different conflicts from around that time (1948), they were relatively moral. The reason for the war was the inability of the Palestinian leadership to compromise and their belief that they could eliminate the Jewish settlements all around the territory. By the way, I'm not speaking from a judgmental point of view. They actually believed that they could remove the Zionists and didn't want to share the land. War, in that case, is a relevant strategic option. The thing is, they lost. And when you start a war in order to eliminate your opponent and reject any peace and compromise proposal, the tragedies war bears are on you. Is that the same as the Nazis? I don't think so. Is it barbaric, untrustworthy, and suggesting they hold little value for peace? Yes. Not only that, but in the period from 1948 to 1967, the Palestinians were not actually occupied by Israel. They were occupied by Jordan and Egypt, and the Palestinians that remained in Israel received civil rights (though clearly Israel could have done much more to help its Arab citizens, and is doing much more today). The Six Day War was initiated by Israel after the Arab world, led by Gamal Abdel Nasser, posed a serious threat to Israel's existence (he was able to unite the Arab world in the efforts of conquering Israel). That's where the Occupation as we know it started. Is it morally wrong to occupy land from Jordan and Egypt in a defensive war? I don't believe so. The agreements Israel had with Egypt and Jordan make the question of territory quite irrelevant. Are the Palestinians to blame for the Arab world's aggression? In part, yes. They supported that policy and engaged in it. The Palestine Liberation Army (subject to the PLO) took part in these aggressions as its goal was not to free the West Bank and Gaza but to conquer Israel entirely. Here we have the most controversial part. Israel couldn't afford giving citizenship to the entire Palestinian population in the West Bank (because it would literally mean the destruction of Israel), and Jordan did not want it (the same way Egypt didn't want the Gaza strip when Israel returned Sinai to Egypt). Here, I do think that Israel made two major mistakes that make it partly responsible. The first was the Military Governorate that resulted in contact between civilians and soldiers (here I'm talking about the way it was arranged and not the seizing of the territory itself), and the second was settling in the middle of the West Bank, especially the settlements that disrupt the continuity of the territory heavily populated by Palestinians. Israel's policy was not very strategically smart, but from a broader moral perspective, the difference between the societies reveals itself again as the Military Governorate was ended because of major intrinsic pressure from the Israeli society and the Israeli leadership was engaged in attempts for peace and compromise, suggesting even almost full return of the West Bank and Gaza. All compromise proposals were rejected by the Palestinian leadership. Almost every move Israel made to give the Palestinians more freedom and control resulted in further radicalization. Yes, when you lose a war for which you are responsible, you have to show signs and seeds of wanting to end the war to regain your territory and freedom as a society. The Palestinians failed at this consistently. These are valid questions. I don't think that Israel's policy around Gaza and the West Bank is meant to prevent development but to ensure they do not organize militarily. If the Palestinians in Gaza were focused on development after Israel left the territory in 2005, Gaza would have looked totally different. Their failure and hostile and barbaric approach is mostly self-induced. The first point is true. I think that the Israeli and US leadership takes this into consideration. You think in terms of "what is the solution to this situation?", but the reality is that some problems are such that certain situations do not have a solution in the sense that you can do something and the problem would disappear. There is no definitive solution to poverty. There is no definitive solution to criminal activity. Can they be reduced to a level that can be tolerated? Probably yes. If you believe that a peaceful resolution is possible with an organization like Hamas, you may misunderstand the fundamentals of their mindset. Some people are utterly barbaric. When someone comes to rape, seeking a peaceful resolution may not be the most practical option, because the threat is inherently barbaric. In some cases, yes. In others, no. It depends on the issue. Sometimes completely separating society from the government is not very smart. Before the 'Arab Spring,' it was thought that the problem lay with the regimes, and if you would just let the people choose, Arab countries would flourish. This was a common misconception that stems from the same mindset you are holding now. In most cases, what came after the rulers were overthrown was worse because the root of the problem was the society.

You are addressing the cause, but I am more concerned with reality. If you eliminate all the moderates, the society left behind becomes extreme, unstable, and barbaric, at least on a collective level. But even if he had not taken the actions he did, the moderate movements in Egypt were weak and lacked significant support among the population, making their election unrealistic. The actual moderates were impressive individuals by the way, but sadly their influence on Egyptian society was negligible. I disagree with your viewpoint on the Muslim Brotherhood. I believe it is quite the opposite. They know how to present themselves as somewhat moderate, but their ideology is fundamentally extreme and a significant portion of Egyptians either fail to see this or want it.

This is the exact perception I tried to appose. You think that saying occupation immediately leads to a clear moral stance because of a bias towards sympathizing with the weak. This is an oversimplification and a simplistic approach to complex conflicts and politics. When the US occupied Japan and Germany, was it an occupation? Yes. Were they automatically the oppressors and villains? No. The Us occupied them because the regimes were barbaric. The reason Japanese and German societies were able to recover from their occupation and the crises of WW2 was because they focused on rebuilding their own societies and set aside hostile, aggressive and barbaric agendas. This is not the case with Palestinian society. Their leadership consistently avoids taking responsibility, and the society repeatedly chooses irresponsible leaders. You mention European countries but this conception fails to understand the state of the Palestinian society. The reality is that if Israel were to withdraw from the West Bank, it could face an ISIS type organization at it's border. This is not an unrealistic fear, but the most reasonable possibility. You genuinely believe that the rout of the conflict an injustice done to the Palestinians and if they were just treated differently they would act differently. And you genuinely believe that the Palestinian society is fundamentally different from Hamas. These are misconceptions. Yes, Hamas's armed forces are not synonymous with the entire population, but their significant support among the people is not a trivial matter. Some regimes are utterly barbaric and some society are incapable of supporting and having a stable non barbaric regimes. Any life loving country would not allow such regime to establish at it's borders. Could Israel be nicer to Palestinians? Yes. Could Israel have a smarter policy? Certainly. Does that automatically assign blame to Israel as the malevolent occupier and hold them responsible for the failure of Palestinian society? No. Regarding the final part of your statement, it seems you're offering military advice without a comprehensive understanding of warfare, particularly in situations involving organizations like Hamas, which strategically operate from hospitals, mosques, and densely populated areas. Your perception of warfare is unrealistic. Hamas has a huge hold over Gaza and cannot be easily neutralized through specialized marine operations alone. And Yes, when a governing body initiates an idiotic and barbaric attack as Hamas did, the people suffers. You expect Israel to be clean and flawless, but this is an unrealistic expectation that has never been met in the history of warfare. In relative terms, Israel's moral compass in targeting civilians holds up under examination, even though witnessing the actual images of collateral damage can be deeply distressing. Is there a potential that the response will get out of hand? yes. But as for this moment I don't think it's likely.

I agree. I wonder if that pro Western leadership will be the PLO. They're already struggling to maintain their regime in the West Bank, and are considered collaborators by many Palestinians (and they already lost their hold in Gaza to Hamas in the past). They are different from Hamas but I am not sure to what extent (after what we saw with Hamas I really don't know). Essentially, I think you are correct, but the situation may be a bit different. There could be a way to avoid many checkpoints, and it is certainly preferable to avoid settlements in the middle of Gaza. I believe that, apart from the far-right faction, most Israelis do not want to settle in Gaza. This is especially true for Netanyahu, his Minister of Defense Galant, and Netanyahu's opposition, who joined his government during the war period. The way I see it, they are aiming for something in the direction of an 'A zone,' where the IDF can freely enter and exit, but the civilian population will not have close day-to-day contact with soldiers. I couldn't think of a better alternative... There were programs aimed at economic assistance, and there is support for essential utilities (not sure if the mindset that drove this was to help the Palestinian society develop). In terms of education, there were numerous civic initiatives, but as far as i am aware of there wasn't a structured, systemic program implemented by the Israeli government.

Being the stronger side doesn't automatically make you the aggressor. If you believe that if Israel were to withdraw from the West Bank, Palestinians would adopt a 'live and let live' mindset like yours, you are living in a dream world. Israel's continued control is primarily fueled by its citizens' fear of a recurrence of what happened in Gaza (rather than being driven by a religious fanatic approach like major part of the Palestinian society). This perspective overlooks the societal structures, levels of development, and values held by both Israelis and Palestinians, as it's emotionally easier to sympathize with the weaker side. edit: His suggested solution is ridiculous. It is a 'La La Land' approach that will never work. Israel is not without fault, but his accusations are exaggerated, and he appears to lack an understanding of the realities of war.

If anyone here genuinely believes that Israel is committing genocide, it's important to examine your biases. Israel is not without flaws, but it is certainly not engaged in genocide. This notion is too absurd to even consider debating. Check your resources. Learn to assess the quality of the information and news you consume. Study the cultures and political systems of the parties involved. Delve into history. Reflect. Think.