hundreth

I never think of it in terms of societal development and Spiral dynamics stages. I don't expect the Palestinians to have a culture shift overnight and I understand your concerns. I also don't think it falls squarely on them. What I do feel is that the international community needs to shift it's focus from victimization to empowerment. The international community will need to step up and directly invest peacekeeping forces and business initiatives to kick start the process. Also, I have no disillusions about Israel being oppressive and abusive. I know they are. But just as you've mentioned a 7 decade long process for Palestinians to have their viewpoints, Israelis have also endured 7 decades of wars of annihilation, terrorist attacks, and bad faith negotiations where peace was never truly the agenda of the Palestinians. The destruction of Israel is the goal. From the river to the sea as they say. Today this phrase has been rebranded, but Jews don't forget. It's telling that pro Palestinian voices insist on using a loaded phrase with genocidal undertones. Even if you use it with a different meaning, you're aware that many use the same phrase for nefarious purposes. You would never do such a thing in any other context. I believe Israelis from previous generations were way more invested in peaceful outcomes than today. What you see today is a product of decades of frustration and zero progress.

I don't believe anyone actually feels the way you're framing it. There are some Israelis for whom there are no conditions which warrant the Palestinians gaining sovereignty. I'm not one of them. There are others who want to see the Palestinians doing well. When they're doing well, the focus on retribution, hate, anger and violence greatly lessens. Trust is built over time. Of course the Israelis have their own side in this to play in terms of a culture and leadership shift on their ends. It feels like you're only able to hold one viewpoint at once. Either all of the responsibility must be placed on the Palestinians, or all of it must be placed on the Israelis. Why are they mutually exclusive? It's perfectly fine to want to see internal change from both sides.

I'm not going to respond to your entire self righteous and sanctimonious essay. This is how you frame the entire conflict, and that's unfortunate. I don't frame it the same way. Jews migrated to Palestine, population shifts happen. Jews are no more occupiers in Palestine than Mexicans migrating to the United States. They purchased land legally. You can point to isolated quotes from Zionist leaders with nefarious purposes out of context, but it doesn't change the fact that Jews never forcibly removed Palestinians from their lands before the UN resolution, and the arabs declaring war against the Jews. This isn't the minority report, you can't convict Jews based on the thoughts or isolated quotes from certain Zionists. Once war breaks out, things happen. I know it makes you upset, but the Palestinians LOST the war. THEY LOST. Now you want to behave as though Israelis are "arrogant" because they hold all the cards. F that.

Agreed, it can't happen over night. Which is the main disagreement between @zazen and myself. He'd like to see Palestinians given everything they demand overnight with no conditions immediately. It makes zero sense. I'd like to see relationships develop over time. I feel we need a UN peacekeeping force in place for the foreseeable future, until funds reach their intended places, living conditions are improved, relationships and trade partnerships fostered, and a generational culture shift in place on both sides. I believe in accountability on both sides. Israelis included, who will also require leadership and culture change.

This is akin to acknowledging there is a direct way forward to peace, but because of pride and a sense of righteousness the Palestinians should instead engage in an endless resistance war which only leads to pain and bloodshed on both sides.

It's astounding you don't realize that improving conditions in Gaza internally, creating a stable economy, clean water, trade partnerships, the paradise you speak of, etc. IS the most direct route to the Palestinians reaching full sovereignty.

I don't deny the situation for Palestinians in the Gaza or West Bank. I question how much emphasis is placed on Israel's actions vs. the Palestinians themselves. I'm skeptical they've been taking any steps towards peace themselves, and are not held accountable. That's not to say that Israel shouldn't be held accountable for it's actions. I also find it telling that your main example for discrimination is the JNF, a non profit organization which existed before Israel and not affiliated with the Israeli government at all. Not because it's his home, that is a misrepresentation. Because he has direct experience living In those other nations. I don't see what backing of the West has anything to do with it, just seems like another way to take a dig at Israel. At the end of the day, it's a Jewish state. One of it's kind. Is life perfect for Arabs in Israel? No. There's discrimination against sephardic Jews as well. You may not believe in the need for a Jewish state. Perhaps in a vacuum, it isn't necessary. Unfortunately we don't live in that world and the vast majority of Jews agree that a Jewish state is necessary. You don't get to decide, and that's why Jews will fight for Israel. The rest of the world has no say in what Jews feel is necessary for their security. They lost that privilege centuries ago.

That's not what zazen was referring to specifically. This is what I'm addressing.

Oh, so first it was related to the notion of a "Jewish state", now you've moved the goalposts to "Occupiers" and "apartheid". So you're allowed to have a religious state, as long as certain organizations don't label you as occupiers, I see. The fact remains, Israel receives an incredibly disproportionate amount of contempt and hate given what many consider it's biggest crime: existing. There's nothing Israel can do to satisfy you except for committing suicide and ceasing to be. Because to you, it's very foundation is one of colonialism. Never mind that every other nation's is. This is an interesting video with different perspectives from people living in Israel, including Arab citizens. At 6:04 an arab citizen is interviewed. Despite testifying that Israel is using disproportionate force, and even possibly committing ethnic cleansing in Gaza, he concedes that life for him as an Arab citizen is much better in Israel than ANY other arab nation on the planet. "I am not changing the country I am living in." "Meaning it's better here?" "Than any Arab country? There is no comparison. There is nothing to compare. There is nothing comparable. I'm telling you. There is no comparison between an Arab Israeli and Arabs in other countries. I am telling you it is from experience. I've been to Egypt. I've been to Jordan." and then he continues... The forest for the trees is that despite all the criticisms, Israel is far and away the nation which treats it's Arab citizens better than the surrounding nations. And before you label this more whataboutism, this same argument is used by anti Israel voices to somehow claim the Arab locals pre 1948 were so friendly and accommodating to Jews as compared to literal Nazis. But now we're talking about as compared to Islamic nations!

Now do the 23 officially Islamic nations...

Your response to me pointing out that Palestinians have no control or agency is to write an entire essay criticizing Israel with repeated talking points. Why do these strict border controls exist? Because Gazans use every available vulnerability to attack and kill Jews when they're open. You can pretend that's not the case, but it is. When there's periods of peace, these restrictions are slowly lifted, as more work permits were handed to Gazans directly preceding the Oct 7th attack. Yes, the Palestinians attempted a march of return which you broad strokes paint as a "peaceful" protest. In reality it was a gray area, where some protesters were combatant. The march of return is also one instance in a 70 year conflict that now anti-Israel voices use to justify Hamas' violence. Oh, they tried a peaceful protest and look what happened, so Hamas has no choice but to kill Jews. How about trying extended peace? By peace I mean, not attempting attacks on Israel. This isn't that complicated. Trust would be established, and all the conditions you complain about would be improved. You may not like that Israel is the one controlling to what extent that happens, but this is how it is. Also, most of what you said re: economics are just excuses. When you're focused on positive outcomes, economic possibilities are always there. Jews have been in situations where they were at huge economic disadvantages for centuries. They always find a way. If the tables were turned, Jews would have turned Gaza into Singapore with all the foreign aid money and opportunities they've had. But again, Palestinians have no agency or control in your world view. There's no possible way for them to better their situation, it all falls on Israelis.

There are many valid criticisms of Israel. Unfortunately, you'll never see Israel's critics ever assign any accountability or agency to the Palestinian people. That's why they're essentially ignored. They'll sit there arguing with you about how "from the river to the sea" is not ONLY a genocidal slogan, but some minority of people don't mean it that way but use it as a dog whistle to appeal to the antisemitic masses. None of them think to themselves, why am I defending a phrase used with genocidal intentions AT ALL? Why not urge them to adopt a new slogan without all of the historical baggage? They would never use this logic in favor of Israelis. Could the Palestinians make any other choices? Of course not, EVERYTHING is Israel's fault. It makes it essentially impossible to have a constructive conversation with them.

Being a Hamas member is a fluid concept. I doubt there's an official all encompassing roster of Hamas enlistees. You're Hamas when you pick up weapons and engage in combat with the IDF. Then you're not Hamas when you take the vest off. The focus is on Hamas infrastructure more than combatants. The only thing they can do is cut off Hamas' command networks, tunnels and stockpiles. Like many here have mentioned, you can't militarily defeat a state of mind. You can only temporarily disable their capabilities. Hopefully during this power vacuum, there is space for something more positive to emerge.

I'd also like to add that there are some key differences between Hamas' actions and the current IDF campaign: For one, prior to Hamas' attack there were actually attempts to improve relations with Gaza by increasing work permits, etc. There was a break in the conflict. For this one moment in time, the Gazans were relatively unprovoked. Israel responded directly to a serious escalation. Two, Hamas' actions had no tangible goal. Intentions matter. What was Hamas hoping to change? Nothing. They literally achieved nothing except for murder. The IDF has a direct goal, eliminate Hamas. Something will change, even if you don't agree with the strategy or outcome. Again, intentions matter. If a ceasefire happens, and Hamas remains in power in Gaza, I will concede the operation was a failure and unwarranted.

Silly analogy I'm not even going to bother responding to. Do better. Ok, and what point did you make? By flipping the script you haven't disputed anything I've said. I actually agree with your reframing of what I wrote. Of course Hamas is inevitably going to do Hamas things, which is inevitably why they will be destroyed. The only realistic range of different possibilities would be where Israel values it's own casualties vs. Palestinians. Hamas is always going to attack, and Israel is always going to retaliate, to what degree is where the meaningful discussion is had. If you want the most cynical interpretation of events, there it is. There are certainly some in the Israeli administration who agree with it. Certainly not all, there's a lot of disagreement and divergence of opinion among Israelis. Personally, I don't think there is an official plan. Right now Israel is reacting, and no one really knows where exactly this is going. Like most conspiracy theories, there's too many players with different agendas to really make them happen so simplistically.

Maybe, but it's not like they were very fond of the Israelis before this. The reality is that Hamas put Israel in an impossible position. Of course they needed a strong retaliation. You can't massacre ~1200 Israelis, kidnap 200 and then turn the other cheek. The Middle East is no picnic. A sign of weakness like this will invite many more attacks. You can say what you will about the 2006 Lebanon war, but it has kept Hezbollah and the IDF out of a major conflict for almost 2 decades. The Lebanese do not want to deal with another 2006. It is a deterrent, whether you like it or not. So now that Israel has responded, as it always was going to - you have to take the best of the worst options. That is what is happening, the removal of Hamas. Hopefully something good comes of it. Is there any guarantee? Of course not. We'll see what happens.

I believe it's necessary to remove Hamas. Hamas is tormenting both Israelis and Palestinians by stealing aid, not holding elections, organizing attacks on civilians from both sides, etc. They are a non starter for peace negotiations in the region, and they've radicalized large swaths of the Gazan population. This requires a very invasive troops on the ground approach with a lot of ugly guerrilla warfare. It's not enough to take out the leaders, you need to uproot Hamas from the ground up and change the status quo. Because of how entangled Hamas is with the civilian population, it's really difficult to limit civilian casualties and collateral damage. The IDF's approach of air striking the region before sending ground troops in is reasonable if you're trying to reduce Israeli casualties, which they definitely are. This doesn't mean they're trying to indiscriminately kill Gazan civilians. I think this is an unfair claim, as there's a 1 to 1 air strike to civilian casualty ratio. If Israel's goal was to eliminate casualties, it wouldn't be this way. On the other hand, where you draw the line in terms of risking Israeli lives is a gray area and Its worth having this discussion. Do I believe that Israel is perfectly toeing the line between risking Israeli vs. Palestinian lives? No. Exercising caution is important here. I think Biden is actually doing a great job of walking this careful line. A ceasefire is not the answer here. If we begin a ceasefire before Hamas is eliminated, all of this damage, destruction, and lives lost will be for nothing. With all the pain and torment this saga has created, we should have some tangible difference here with a promise of change. The big question is, what comes next? After Israel removes Hamas and polices the area for a bit, where do we go? I think the U.N. will need to step in with a peacekeeping force and ensure aid, food and resources all go directly to the Palestinian people. I think if Palestinian lives slowly improve economically with mutually beneficial trade partnership with Israelis, these wounds will slowly heal and peace will become possible. From the Israeli side, Netanyahu's right wing government will need to be replaced with policies that prevent settler expansion, etc.

Nothing happens in a vacuum. Those Mizrahi Jews living there had less to do with Israel than Palestinians do with Hamas today. Those Mizrahi Jews had literally zero to do with Israel's formation, yet they were uprooted.

Lol "mutually beneficial." Nice way to hand waive away the persecution and ethnic cleansing of Jews who lived in those areas for thousands of years and were forced to leave behind their homes, culture, businesses, and wealth to start from scratch in a new area with a new language. Jordan was created in 1948 too. Wouldn't it be "mutually beneficial" if the Palestinians went there? The logic doesn't quite work when the script is flipped, eh?

What Jewish minorities? There are barely any Jews living in Muslim nations today. Take a guess why. As a Jew, there are many Islamic nations I cannot even visit for fear of being attacked, kidnapped or arrested.

Are you going to make excuses for every Islamic nation? There are 23 of them. Get to work. I absolutely can deny that. They treat their own people exponentially worse than Israel treats the Palestinians. You can make all the excuses in the world, at best this is collective punishment. At worst this is a continuation of Jewish resentment in the region that has continued for centuries. This myth that Jews and Muslims lived in peace holding hands and singing together is nothing more than propaganda. These nations didn't just wake up one day and decide they hated Jews. There was already tensions for millenia.

Yes, when you zoom out the whole thing is extremely silly. Israel's closest neighbor, Jordan... was given 4x the land from the same British Palestine and is now 95% muslim population, yet @Karmadhi wants to talk about how these nations are friendly to minorites. With all the vast real estate these Islamic nations have, they expelled and ethnically cleansed 99.9% of Jews from their lands. Where did they go? ISRAEL. Because of this, it is essentially a non issue and no one is rioting in the streets for expelled Jews. Yet none of these nations have offered to take the Palestinians in. The entire Palestinian population could be easily absorbed by the Arab world. The reason is, it's not about the anguish of the Palestinian people, it's about being a thorn in the side of the one small Jewish state.

Here's another one for @Karmadhi: Afghanistan alone spans 252,071 sq miles. Iran spans 636,400 square miles of land. Do you know how much Israel spans? 8,630. You can fit 73 jewish states inside just the ONE Iranian islamic state. That's just ONE.

It's very convenient you didn't mention Iran. Do you know what Iran's official name is? The Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI). They aren't the only such nation.

What? You don't see any Islamic states?