Comment by locallost

This is not the approach the West took with ISIS, which involved similarly one-sided fights against terrorist forces [1], nor do I think it's an approach that would have worked. When "everyone who wants peace" doesn't include the people in control of the guns and rockets, who instead want to kill their enemies by any means necessary (and themselves do not respect international law), you can't simply dialogue your way out of it any more than Ukraine could have dialogued their way out of getting invaded by Russia.

The ICJ ruled that Hamas return the hostages unconditionally, but everyone knows that won't happen — Hamas is simply unaccountable. "Everyone who wants peace" can't even get the Red Cross access to the hostages, let alone get them returned. Vague calls for diplomacy with terrorist groups doesn't solve much, which is why people are asking you for specific solutions — it's easy to say Israel should stop fighting, but then: what should it do? How would you actually ensure it doesn't keep getting attacked, repeatedly, as Hamas continues to insist they plan to do?

1: Mosul alone had ~10,000 civilian casualties and that was less densely populated than Gaza City and didn't have tunnels: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/show/thousands-more-civilia...

And it similarly had about 1MM civilians displaced: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/06/world/middleeast/mosul-ir...

And that wasn't the end of the fight against ISIS!

This is looking at the conflict from western eyes. Religious fundamentalists don't think like that

> And then everyone who wants peace invests lots of money and expertise over a long time to build a modern, prosperous, stable Palestinian society

When Israel left Gaza in 2005 it had no blockade and an airport. Israel blockaded them and bombed their airport because they kept using everything to attack Israel.

If Gaza and the West Bank were given complete independence with no interference, what makes you think it will turn out different and they won't use the open borders to bring in weapons to attack Israel?

Unfortunately , pouring money in gaza while hamas is in power only funnels it to weapons and terror infrastructure.

How do we know it ? We've been doing that for the past 15 years.

It is an incredibly naive outlook as that has been in place since 2005 in Gaza.

Doesn't matter how much people who want peace invest when terrorists who want to continue fighting are in charge. There is no "modern, prosperous, stable Palestinian society" when terrorists are in charge.

They have had better options... and still choose the path they are on.

[flagged]

[flagged]

[flagged]

> And then everyone who wants peace invests lots of money and expertise over a long time to build a modern, prosperous, stable Palestinian society

What makes you think that’s even possible? Name any other Arab country you could plunk down next to Israel that wouldn’t constantly be trying to destroy Israel?

The Palestine/Israel conflict is significantly longer than any of the examples you gave.

Which is not to say that its impossible. But the older I get, the less hope I have.

Peace could be achieved fairly easily if both sides said they want to live in peace. However only one does. I think that will change eventually.

How does history prove any such thing? That's neither how history or proof work. Most of the wars that have been resolved to everyone's benefit have done so by the unconditional surrender of the aggressors, followed by amicable reconstruction.

Well, the alternative to diplomatic solution is total annihilation of palestinians in west bank, be it by forcing them off the land which is impossible since they have nowhere to run and other islamic states refuse them (so much for inter-muslim brotherhood, I guess Iran should take them), or murdering them one by one which seems to be going on now. Or what we had till now, which led to what we have now. It doesnt matter that the other side plays dirty, all sides eventually do. It just doesn't matter for statement above.

It doesn't matter a nanofraction of a bit what government(s) publicly say, those are farts in the wind to be polite, I don't understand why people even care about such PR, its like what Putin says, what does it matter when its clearly said for a specific purpose and truth is optional?

I honestly dont understand the resistance to their own state. Yes they will hate Israel, just like till now they did, just like every single its neighbor since its creation. So what? How did we/they move from this utter hate of neighbors to cca peace? Well certainly not by following the path of trying to eradicate the other, history is pretty clear there. Yes its a bit easier to invade and kill if you want compared to invading a foreign state, but preventing it should be a good thing. Also, US is effectively giving them a blank check, just empty words flying around, I really expected a bit more. A room for Russia or China to step up.

Its like counting some destroyed tunnels or killing few brainwashed young guys mattered in long run, in same vein as say counting Vietcong losses and comparing them to US ones didn't matter. That's whats happening now. What's the plan for rest of existence? I dont see that part, I mean 0. But maybe current Israel government likes this situation, I mean the top guy is former special forces guy, so this is not unusual situation and a bit of blood doesn't matter to them and if there is war people don't focus so much on how effectively he erodes democracy.

So what is this, state-sponsored genocide? Because 100% this is not how Hamas disappears for longer than few months (in same vein al qaeda didn't) and I think literally everybody involved realizes that, this will actually make it much stronger long term, think about all those eager volunteers from places like Saudi arabia. Soviet war was what created Osama. US invasion of Iraq is what pointed him to US.

Suffice to say, when doing grocery shopping I don't buy products from Israel these days, we don't need more wars in middle east and massive refugees waves in Europe. Tiny wallet, but its all I have (apart from vacations but for that Israel was very low in the list anyway).

> If I knew the answer to that question I would be a high ranked politician

The solution is simple, avoiding the solution in order to create a western military power ally in the middle east is what high ranked politicians do.

That is certainly not true. Exhibit A: Osama bin Laden’s father was literally a multi-billionaire and he himself inherited $30-50 million.

Too bad gaza has no land or economy to feed and employ themselves.

Not if they have more to gain in 'heaven'. Remember, Hamas are religious fanatics.

Isn't that exactly the view of reality that the Israeli right wing holds? They would agree that the choices are either dismantling the state of Israel, or eternal warfare. Since they don't want to dismantle the state of Israel, they elect for eternal warfare.

It's funny how on some questions, the most extreme people on both sides agree on the answer. Hamas and the Israeli right wing both agree that the only viable solution is for one ethnic group to control all the land from the river to the sea.

This is a good summary of Islamic radicalization propaganda that seeks to use Palestinian civilians as pawns, with no regard for them. It is this narrative that keeps the Palestinains in prison.

The counterpoint is that you "must" face the reality that this is never going to happen, and that asserting that it will or should is equivalent to damning the Palestinians to the existence that they currently occupy.

Greater Islam does not have an army that can stand against the West, let alone do the Palestinians. All that they have are manipulated terrorists whose actions always cause much more destruction on their side than the inverse.

So I say again, the only realistic and humane view is to take your oppopsite position, recognize the immovable force, and actually attempt to save Palestinian lives via deradicalization and a relocation campaign.

> that is an apartheid state that exists on occupied land

I’ve heard this line from people who say the West Bank and Gaza are the occupied land, to those who say all of Israel is occupied land. The former makes sense. The latter is extreme.

> like apartheid South Africa was dismantled

South Africa wasn’t as militarised as the Levant has become, unfortunately. As long as Iran seeks the destruction of Israel, itself and through its proxies, any Mandela-type accounting is probably fruitless. (I am open to being convinced otherwise.)

apartheid is a loaded term of opinion, not of fact. comparing israel to other true apartheid regimes, such as south africa, is hyperbolic. there exist discriminatory policies that ought to be reformed but i do not believe that word is appropriate.

israel does, in fact, exist on some occupied land that she should return, including many west bank settlements. however, there is something to be said for keeping parts as a bargaining chip against those motivated largely by religious and nationalistic fervor mixed with some basic hatred. other parts of her land were obtained legitimately, going all the way back to the first aliyah after the kiev pogroms in which tens of thousands of jews were massacred. many immigrated legally, though the ottoman empire later threw up some barriers to immigration with hopes to limit their numbers. many were later moved legitimately under the authority of the british in mandatory palestine.

legal immigrants are not necessarily "occupiers". there is also a period past which land becomes naturalized, just like most of the world has been taken and settled by force at some point or another. most of the people who are descendants of those ancient conquerors are just as indigenous as those who were there before. i'd venture to say much of israel, while it ought to be shared better, is populated with naturalized inhabitants.

[flagged]

[flagged]

[flagged]

> Hamas killed fewer people than Israel did/is

That's an understatement, Hamas killed less than 1,000 civilians, Israel killed 20,000+

> An occasional October 7th is a better choice than levelling Gaza is

Better for who? For Hamas yes, killing Israelis with impunity would be a boost. But for Israel - I don't know of any democracy that can keep going with an 'occasional' October 7th. A country can't sustain that without collapsing at some point. Think about 9-11 but with 80k killed instead of 3000, and around 10000 kidnapped. And the entity responsible is just around the corner and gonna keep doing it on occasion. Those are the proportions. How many of these would the U.S be able to endure before its economy and society collapsed?

> While I'm not a military expert, I think it would be reasonable to rule out the possibility of a similar massacre any time soon

I'm not sure its reasonable. No one in Israel is thinking that way at least, and for good reason imo. The motivation to kill is there, so you have to assume there's a lack of ability. OK maybe for a couple of years Hamas will have to regroup, but how much time does it take to get a couple thousands more guns and grenades and bombs when Iran is giving them for free? It doesn't have to be another attack of this magnitude, even killing "only" 100 Israelis would be a huge blow.

You prevent this type of shit from happening again by being dead serious about countering terror, about deploying sufficient defense and not assuming too much about what the enemy can do because you might not have an accurate picture. Israel has been doing none of that in Gaza in the last decade or more.

Hamas doesn't get away from it this time already.

"dont let gazans interact with Israelis" is exactly the definition of apartheid though, unless you're advocating recognising Palestine, and giving them autonomy wrt water, electricity and so on. However the comment "ensuring no Gazans ever escape again." Is rather telling, it implies a recognition that Gaza is effectively a prison - dehumanisation like that fosters this sort of conflict, so really this sort of attitude is far less helpful than say learning from lessons in Japan and Germany post WW2, South Africa post-apartheid and so on.

I think you have a slight misconception about living under Iron Dome.

It's not 100% effective and you still have to run to the nearest shelter. In some areas close to Gaza, you have less than 10 seconds to run to the shelter.

So I wouldn't consider that "normal life" by any standards

How come? I don't know, but HAMAS clearly negotiates and does pragmatic things. It's a group of people with moderate and more radical elements like any other largish group.

> Like you said, HAMAS exists solely for the sake of resisting Jewish occupation [0], from the river to the sea, which also means the extermination of Israel and Jews [1].

Quite a jump.

I think why Israel's current government will not compromise is very pragmatic. It failed too badly in preventing this escalation, and has little support. Look at those numbers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_I...

Netanyahu is basically done and gone. His only hold on power is continuing the extermination campaign against Hamas and their families, until some miracle reversal in the polling numbers. His only mandate currently is for the "war".

Additionally, Israel doesn't need to compromise, due to large amount of outside support (in the form of material and political (vetoes in UN SC, etc.) support for its extermination campaign, and the sanctions against Hamas), and due to the massive power difference between it and Hamas.

Biblical stuff is largely a smokescreen/justification for pragmatic matters as far as government/politics goes. And maybe some ideological food for non-secular reserve soldiers to be more willing to go get maimed in Gaza.

How did it turn biblical, with 45% of Israeli Jews being secular, and 27% of population not being Jewish?

The ideology of Islamic Fundamentlism is responsible for these terrorists. If Israel deserves any blame, its for listening to The West's constant demands for appeasement.

[flagged]

The Marshall plan was only enacted after Germany and Japan had been reduced to rubble, had millions of their civilian population killed through indiscriminate bombing, including the use of two atom bombs, occupied, submit to total surrender, the entirety of their command structure executed, and their governments dismantled and replaced by the Allies.

I think you are skipping over quite a bit of human bloodshed and strife to get to the Marshall Plan.

But overwhelming victory and unconditional surrender were the foundations for that reconstruction. There is really no way that peace could have been achieved with WWII Germany and Japan through giving money or diplomacy (Neville Chamberlain says hi). Once there was overwhelming victory resulting in unconditional surrender, then the rebuilding process started.

EDIT:

In addition, there was no equivalent of the Marshall Plan between the Soviet Union and East Germany, yet there were not wars between them after WWII.

To say it more succinctly, Axis countries clearly had a lot to gain from peace (namely stable happy lives again) and nothing to gain from further violence.

Whereas you might say that many Palestinians (specifically the ones who joined Hamas) had little to gain from the status quo, and little to lose from violence. When you are born locked in the world's largest prison, becoming a terrorist might seem appealing.

Once their WW2 militaries were utterly defeated and their leadership was forced into unconditional surrender, followed by Allied occupation and rebuilding.

Both countries were previously led by extremists totally incapable of any such moral epiphany. Sound familiar?

> chapter in their country's respective histories and a major cultural movement against the possibility of those kinds of atrocities happening again

It's true that that's the case today. But it took a while for this transition to occur. Basically, the entire wartime generation had to retire/die out. In the 50s and 60s Germans were still very keen about downplaying the atrocities (even if they of course recognized that they occurred) and especially being very lenient towards war criminal and even protecting them from foreign governments (e.g. Heinrich Boere).

>due to the recognition of an absolutely horrific chapter

You mean, the absolutely horrific military defeat.

> That's exactly the point, at least how I'm reading it. Between the US and Japan peace and diplomacy was allowed to rule instead of constant violent retaliation.

What diplomacy? The US destroyed Japan's military, bombed Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki (the latter two with nuclear weapons), killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. The Japanese surrendered unconditionally.

Then the US occupied Japan while directing the construction of a new Japanese government.

I don't see any diplomacy there.

Yea, I think it's pretty odd how little awareness of tribal councils, discussions of self-governance, and resistance from Native Americans there is in the modern America but it feels like the US almost wants to forget it has reservations.

Does it? I am open to believing this, but I have not heard it. Can you link to examples?

> That France and Germany are now good neighbors is a miracle.

It was not because of wise humans as if humans suddenly learned wisdom. It was because they both realized instead of being empires acquiring territory, they had instead been turned into players between the US and the Soviet Union who were both much stronger than either of them and that war would end up completely devastating both of them without any benefits.

> Marshall Plan and favorable trade agreements the allies gave Japan would never be extended by Israel the way it is and acts now

Between America and the oil-rich Gulf, I think we can figure it out.

Germany and Japan did not have anything in their constitutions advocating the destruction of the allies.

> The world is overwhelmingly pro Palestine

That's arguable, certainly in the west at least. Even if most people oppose the current war/atrocities that doesn't mean that they generally favour Palestine (or especially Hamas..) over Israel (.e.g. like you didn't have to be pro-Sadam to oppose the war in Iraq).

They don't have to go away.

But, I think its reasonable to assert that the Arab world desperately needs to become more secularized. Most of the Arab world is deeply anti-semitic, deeply tribal (even amongst themselves), and deeply backwards in their orientation to what makes a free society possible.

In that sense, the palestinians need a big cultural change.