Comment by ethanbond
1 year ago
“Peace while continuing to seize land” is a peculiar-enough type of peace to not really qualify for simply “wants to live in peace” by many people’s definition.
1 year ago
“Peace while continuing to seize land” is a peculiar-enough type of peace to not really qualify for simply “wants to live in peace” by many people’s definition.
It's tricky but there have been attempts at a normal peace deal like the Camp David Summit. But then the Palestinians say no. So instead you get the other stuff you mention.
Yeah, the “but first X did Y! But before that P did Q!” goes back thousands of years. All that to say it’s not as simple as “one side wants peace and the other doesn’t.” It’s very messy.
Yeah but ignoring history a bit if A and B say ok lets sign an agreement, do our own thing and not attack each other you get a kind of peace. If B says no A must be destroyed then you don't. It's not really a moral question of who's right and wrong so much as a practical agreement to move on.
1 reply →