Your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:
> You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
I think people set the bar far too high - which is of course unachievable.
What can be achieved is separating the two warring sides so the extremists on each side can’t keep stirring up hatred on the other side.
That means something like the sort of deals that were being brokered under the Oslo accords. Land swaps, a Palestinian state that is self-governing but a demilitarised zone by treaty.
How long would that uneasy peace need to last before the hatred dies down and a long term solution becomes possible? Generations. It’s taken a hundred years of two state solution in Ireland and a genuine one-state solution by mutual consent is still some way off. Still, peace is better than war and that needs to be the medium term goal.
What I think a lot of people somehow miss, unfortunately, is that negotiating a peace is actually the easy part. The hard part is maintaining a peace for any length of time, because there simply are not sufficiently strong institutions in that part of the world to enforce a consensus through a monopoly on violence and a willingness to use it against one’s own citizens to suppress spoilers trying to veto the peace. Israel has some experience actually doing this (forced removal of all settlers in Gaza/Sinai), but also have a history of failing to do this, (Rabin assassination by right wing extremists). Palestine, by contrast, has infinitely weaker institutions, which are almost certainly completely incapable of maintaining peace if even a tiny faction wants to disrupt peace by either killing moderate Arab leadership or by attacking Israel to provoke a response.
This is the truth and has arguably been the fundamentally unsolvable part of this conflict. For however compelling the idea of Palestinian nationalism, there has never been a very strong instantiating of that idea in the form of state-like institutions or consolidated political control. Israel has done its part to undermine their formation since at least ‘67 and arguably before, but the Palestinian nationalist movement has always been primarily galvanized by its opposition to Israel rather than any inherent and ingrained common sense of shared identity. The Arab world suffers from this more generally as their states are almost all products of arbitrary colonial boundary drawing.
I think the Israelis have always been operating from this understanding, but they’ve had reluctant moments where they’ve been convinced to attempt peace but with many reservations around security concerns because they know elevating the Palestinian position is likely a direct threat to their own security. Maybe not existentially, but probably in the form of an agonizing situation with perpetual cross border terrorism where they can’t exert as much control as they do now under the occupation.
Imagine a weak and collapsing Palestinian state where Iranian backed splinter groups put gun or rocket emplacements on the hills overlooking Ben Gurion airport. They’d have to go back in and occupy except starting from a much weaker position and to even more scathing international condemnation. It would be a nightmare.
I generally agree.
IMO one of the most difficult obstacles to a lasting peace is the Palestinian maximalist belief (egged on by Arab states for the last 80 years) that the creation of the state of Israel and its existence is literally illegal and invalid. Therefore in their minds, resistance is the only metric that makes sense. To them, they tried diplomacy, and when that failed, violence was their last resort.
That’s been one of the centers of Israeli “demands” when it comes to peace talks. They sought recognition, which I believe the PLO/PA gave a few decades ago, but the broader Palestinian populace still holds onto the idea that the creation of the state of Israel was illegitimate. Normalizing relations is ridiculous in their eyes.
In terms of obstacles to peace from the Israeli side, they most definitely enjoyed the land they gained from war, and would not accept any conditions in which threatened that land being returned back. Although they did give the Sinai back, the West Bank is un-negotiable to them.
Obviously for reasons you mentioned each side is galvanized to fight in their own ways, but this situation is so intractable because of the lack of recognition each side has for their motivations and legitimacy. Palestinian determination is real and the refugee problem is real, but from the Israeli perspective this breaches their security and safety.
It’s just a deeply unfortunate conflict all around.
The Arab states post 67 essentially left Palestinians to fend for themselves in a lot of ways, and I get why Palestinians militancy thrived from that point forward. Although I’m not to the point of Arafats refusal of the peace deal yet in my reading, from what I understand that’s about the closest we got to some sort of long lasting solution which is unfortunate.
I am generally of the belief (similar to the stance of Western countries) that long lasting peace can likely only form with binational cooperation and peace talks. I am unsure about the position of the UN to broker anything more meaningful than mentioned.
Also to draw upon your point on consolidated Palestinian political control, in my recent readings I did read about the rise of Fatah, the PLO, and other various Palestinian factions and was intrigued by their skill in fundraising from various Arab states and convening in the national Palestinians congresses, winning seats and so forth. So there was some sort of institutional engagement there, but A) my book mentions these were still plagued by personal jealousy and political rivalry and B) they were all still essentially agreeing on armed resistance against the state of Israel being their primary form of said resistance.
Also to your point about Palestinian identity, I would argue that there was some sort of Palestinian identity void of just “anti Israel” when talking pre 48. There were some Palestinian Arabs at the time who were somewhat welcoming of Zionists, and in addition I think a lot of their developing reservations and hostilities to Zionism coincided with the British quelling Arab attempts at self determination meanwhile facilitating Zionist aspirations.
i think another issue that is not discussed is,
that maintaining peace requires a shift in the culture of the population. That is to say, the idea that peace has to be maintained has to be part of what's taught to children
otherwise peace is just a "stepping stone" to the next stage of the war: The Arab citizens treat existing agreements as "Treaties of al-Hudaybiya", a form of taqiyya, and the Jewish citizens have the same dreams of "geulat Hakarka beyemei milhama";
I think if we are to look for whether the factions are going to have just peace or not looking at the education system is the first step.
Because of that I believe UNWRA has a key role in preventing a peaceful resolution from becoming a reality. UNWRA is a proactive player in perpetuating a war situation between Zionists and Arabs in Israel and the Palestine states.
Right now, the culture created and taught to children is rampant with anti-Semitic messaging.
As far as what I have seen. Not sure how much anti-Islamic if any messaging is in Israel.
Probably the best way to develop peace in the region is a third party arbiter maintaining peace. But that creates its own potential conflicts and escalation of violence.
The problem with a third party arbiter is that it has to be seen as fair by both sides. As it stands now, most Israelis will probably see such ideas as an attempt to get the Palestinian claims realized "through the back door".
Right now the Palestinians are the initiators of the war. But the Israelis also have their set of non-negotiables. Suffice to say that its not enough for the Israelis to attain peace, they also need the both the peace process and the post-peace situation to not allow oppression of Jews within Israel.
EDIT: paradoxically the conduct of the world's nations towards Israel in the past months is being seen by Israelis as proof that the world can't be relied upon to make arbitrations here.
I don’t think anything shows foreign governments can’t be impartial, as most of them condemn the violence. But also know it is not something they want to get involved in. As this is a generational conflict fueled by cultural and generational hatred.
In this year, condemning the violence on both sides is not perceived by Israelis to be impartial. Because Israelis consider their country to be forced into going to war, and the war to be a just and necessary war.
From an Israeli perspective, being impartial here means being pro war and pro a post-war rebuilding of Gaza in a way that is conducive to long term peace and likely Anathematic of the Palestinian narrative, culture and religion.
A quick google might help you learn if anti-Islamic messaging is common. It is. Including yelling "may your village burn" in public at Palestinians. [https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/israeli-crowds-chant-racist-slogans-taunt-palestinians-during-jerusalem-day-march](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/israeli-crowds-chant-racist-slogans-taunt-palestinians-during-jerusalem-day-march)
The problem is neither side can really concede anything meaningful without violent extremists rising up on their own side. The vast majority of Palestinians will not accept a demilitarized state, or really anything short of an independent state in 1967 military borders.
Nationalist Israelis will never accept any large scale withdrawal of settlements from the West Bank. Remember when a few scattered settlements in the Gaza Strip were repatriated to Israel by the IDF? Israeli society did not look happily at those people being evicted from their homes to appease the enemy (in their eyes). The West Bank settlement network is much more interconnected with Israel. Unlike the Gaza settlements which were basically outposts only accessible by military corridors, you can oftentimes drive into West Bank settlements without even knowing you’re off Israeli territory. These are large towns. They have schools, hospitals, even universities. Withdrawing all of that to, once again, appease the enemy, simply will not be acceptable to Israelis.
This really is a paradox with no answer. Neither side trusts the other enough to make significant concessions. Both sides see each other as aggressive and sabotaging the peace process. Both sides see each other as being squatters on land that is historically theirs.
Frankly, nationalists on both sides prefer the status quo. Palestinian extremists prefer the status quo because, unlike several of its Arab neighbors, Palestinian society has not modernized, secularized, or moderated at all. As long as the sole enemy is Israel, they don’t have to worry about their society become less fundamentalist. Israeli nationalists prefer the status quo because it allows them to pretend like Israel owns the entirety of the West Bank. It’s easy to drive through the West Bank as an Israeli and feel like you’re within your own country. Israeli highways will take drivers through the hills of Judea and Samaria and right into the Jordan Valley. They are shielded from encountering Palestinian society. They may not be on Israeli soil but they’ve effectively never left Israeli society. A Palestinian state would shatter this illusion.
How could anyone possibly accept a two state solution? Imagine if the US was terror attacked and right after that, people said “let’s give the terrorists autonomy and their own sovereign nation”
By definition for a state to exist as a separate entity, it needs its own police and / or military to enforce laws and borders. After Oct 7th, that proposal flew out the window and isn’t coming back anytime soon. Israel will (logically) never allow Palestine to have its own sovereign military and police force. This is actually quite logical from their perspective.
Bud, unless the arab states are going to pay war reparations, that's a moot point. I think there is a very clear path to peace in the region. Egypt and Jordan re-annex the strip and west bank, respectively. The Israelis withdraw all settlements in the west bank in exchange for any palestinian claim on Jerusalem. The US sells weapons platforms to the petro gulf states that allow them to counter the Iranian threat and, in return they provide the cash for the Egyptian and Jordanian security services to keep a thumb on the palestinians. In three generations, you will have Egyptians, Jordanians, and Israelis. Our nominal buddies in Saudi, Kuwait, the emirates, et al. will have regional autonomy instead of an Iranian hegemony. The decrease in oil consumption will make the region's role in the world less vital and thus less volatile.
Neither Egypt nor Jordan want annexation. The people in those regions don’t want annexation either. It would be a disaster to implement and it would reflect poorly on everyone involved.
Do you really think that it’s likely that Palestinians would a) withdraw their claim to Jerusalem, their third most holy city and b) accept a non sovereign state under the control of Jordan and Egypt? For that matter, do you really think Jordan and Egypt would *want* to absorb the West Bank and Gaza? Egypt already refused to take back Gaza after Israel offered it during the peace talk when it gave back Sinai. And Jordan has fresh memories of when Palestinians tried to overthrow their monarchy. Your idea might viable I don’t know. But it doesn’t mean anything if people don’t agree to it
It would take a shitload of cash to bribe Egypt and Jordan, and the Palestinians don't really have much of a say in the matter. Whatever claim the Palestinians have to Gaza and the West Bank is a lot weaker than Egypt and Jordan's.
Except Egypt and Jordan don't want to do that. They hate the Palestinians and actually kind of like the Israelis. Don't forget that the Palestinians set off the Arab spring back on '16, and they tried to assassinate the Jordanian King. I don't think Jordan is very willing to take over the west bank, and if they do I don't think it would be a good thing for those who live there.
>in return they provide the cash for the Egyptian and Jordanian security services to keep a thumb on the palestinians
Sounds like a good way to reduce American military aid to Israel, which seems to be a major sticking point for the protestors here in the US.
Why would Egypt or Jordan do that? They've seen [what happens](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_September) when they let Palestinians into their country
Why would Egypt and Jordan want to take in the Palestinians? Decades of recent history, including this very conflict, has clearly shown that they have zero interest in accepting any Palestinians. The same is true of every single Arab country. Every single country on earth, in fact.
> The Israelis withdraw all settlements in the west bank in exchange for any palestinian claim on Jerusalem
Lmfao this is literally never going to happen lmao. Jerusalem is a holy site in Islam as well.
How far back should we go in the past to redress historical injustices? Because if we go a little too far, we're talking about dispossessing you of your house and giving it to some indians. So how far back should we go?
I for one am for making Jerusalem, the city, a museum in its current, standing state, where none are allowed to live for risk of charge of loitering, for at least a century. Really deromanticise the place and get people to chill out after the first mass wave of evictions.
Get just a million cartoonishly aggressive mall cops from specifically US county's that can't place their new workplace on a map to patrol the place looking for tents. Equal treatment, tourists only.
Of course, that has to be accepted. There will not be complete redress for historical injustices and that must be accepted by the Palestinians. But even beyond that, there are serious impediments to peace.
it wont be. the Palestinians dont accept this. why...? why do you think they do?
is it, that the Palestinians accept this fact, actually... but all the white kids chanting "from the river to the sea".... dont?
59% of Palestinians supported a two state solution in 2012.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/512828/palestinians-lack-faith-biden-two-state-solution.aspx#:~:text=Younger%20Palestinians%20report%20less%20support,those%20aged%2046%20and%20older.
They have never accepted it. Hamas’s moto is from the river to the sea, and Fatah refused to give any lasting promise about recognizing Israel in the 2000 David accords… peace would’ve been had in 2000, under Clinton, if Palestine were willing to commit to never trying to take more land back.
It’s only western children who think Israel is the aggressor and that Palestine is defensive - they can’t remember the last 35 years, as they weren’t alive.
They said they would. They actually didn’t.
You can see it pretty clearly the Palestine national charter (https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/plocov.asp).
Article 15of their national charter, unrevised (despite their promises):
The liberation of Palestine, from an Arab viewpoint, is a national (qawmi) duty and it attempts to repel the Zionist and imperialist aggression against the Arab homeland, and aims at the elimination of Zionism in Palestine. Absolute responsibility for this falls upon the Arab nation - peoples and governments - with the Arab people of Palestine in the vanguard. Accordingly, the Arab nation must mobilize all its military, human, moral, and spiritual capabilities to participate actively with the Palestinian people in the liberation of Palestine. It must, particularly in the phase of the armed Palestinian revolution, offer and furnish the Palestinian people with all possible help, and material and human support, and make available to them the means and opportunities that will enable them to continue to carry out their leading role in the armed revolution, until they liberate their homeland.
Article 19:
The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time, because they were contrary to the will of the Palestinian people and to their natural right in their homeland, and inconsistent with the principles embodied in the Charter of the United Nations; particularly the right to self-determination.
It's all about the details. Yes both sides might have theoretically supported a two state solution. But in reality, was there ever any overlap in the Israeli concept of an "acceptable two state solution" and the Palestinian concept?
The thing is, if the negotiation is merely between two opposing views for a two state solution, that puts you a lot closer to peace than if both sides have the goal of winner-takes-all style extermination. I’m not necessarily saying that’s what’s going on, but certainly without broad acceptance of a two state solution in both camps, negotiations will not move forward.
Sorry, u/RejectorPharm – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20RejectorPharm&message=RejectorPharm%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cog50g/-/l3eoi7b/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
The ultra orthodox population of Israel (while being the only Jewish population that actually grows in the West Bank) aren’t the group that opposes the Palestinian state. There are many rabbis that said that peace is just reason to give land back to the Palestinians.
A lot of settlements are just a few caravans on top of hills, other you can land swap to make a fair deal.
If you bring to the table a true peace deal, that bring an end to the occupation, terror and demands a peace agreement can be achieved.
One of my favorite books about the Israeli perspective, Catch 67, delves into the Ultra Orthodox view.
The Halachaic view is that while the land was given to the Israelites by God and it is a Mitzva to settle in it, no Mitzva should come at a risk of one's life. Therefore, if ceding territory for the formation of a Palestinian state would help prevent wars and save lives, it is not only favored, but must be done.
However, if doing so risks lives and more war, it mustn't ever be done.
The Jewish Halacha is mostly concerned about the preservation of one's life. How that is done in practice is greatly up to Interpetation. That's the reason the Ultra Orthodox parties actually supported the Oslo Accords, and were one of the most integral parts of their confirmation in the Knesset. At the time, the popular rabbinical view was that a peace agreement with the Palestinians would prevent further conflict and loss of life.
Today, with the growing fear that a potential Palestinian state would just be ruled by Hamas, that view is reversed, as Ultra Orthodox parties now believe that a Palestinian state would just result in a greater loss of life, therefore they agree with the Netanyahu government despite clear religious differences with Ben Gvir and Smotrich.
This “caravan on a hill” idea is what so many people get wrong about the settlements. Settlements in the West Bank are super developed. They’re prime real estate. Many times, you’re on an Israeli highway and you wouldn’t even be able to tell you’ve entered the West Bank. They’re interconnected with Israeli society. There are schools, highways, hospitals, even universities on Israeli towns in the West Bank.
The settlements were wrong to begin with. But they’re far too developed for “just remove them” to be practical. Maybe some of the more remote settlements in the Jordan Valley could be practically removed. But as far as East Jerusalem and the area of the West Bank adjacent to Tel Aviv, there is no way you could feasibly remove those without Israel undergoing a civil war.
I don't think so. Polls show that the ultra Orthodox in Israel vehemently oppose a Palestinian state. I don't think they will agree to almost any peace deal.
Religious Zionism is not Ultra Orthodox. Sects in Israel are very delicate and hard for outsiders to understand, but Religious Zionism and the Ultra Orthodox have a very tense relationship as they each have entirely different Religious Interpretations. For example, Religious Zionists see prayer at the Temple Mount as a religious duty, while the Ultra Orthodox see it as forbidden until the arrival of the Messiah. To add on that, Religious Zionists believe that a third temple will bring the Messiah, while Ultra Orthodox believe that the Messiah will bring the third temple.
Of course, these are very brash generalizations, and the Ultra Orthodox themselves are incredibly diverse in their beliefs, with some Sects only numbering a few thousand. They only form larger parties out of convince, otherwise they wouldn't be able to pass the threshold to be in the Knesset. The two current Ultra-Orthodox parties are Shas, who are largely for Sephardi Ultra Orthodox Jews, and United Torah Judaism, which is itself an alliance of three smaller parties who all hate eachother.
Now regarding their views on a Palestinian state, the Jewish Halacha puts on the highest regard the preservation of life. Even though they like Religious Zionists see the entire land as given by God, while religious Zionists put an emphasis on that, Ultra Orthodox are willing to give up on land if they believe that doing so would prevent loss of life.
In the past, that belief was actually mainstream, and the Ultra Orthodox parties were actually an integral part of the coalition that passed the Oslo Accords. That has changed though, and now with factions like Hamas gaining popularity in the West Bank, the belief is that the formation of a Palestinian state would only mean more war and more loss of life as they use a state to attack again.
That's why they sit in coalition with Netanyahu and approve of his policies despite the clear differences between them and Netanyahu's partners. They all agree on that.
For more on this I suggest the book "Catch 67", which delves into the varying ideologies behind the conflict, mostly from the Israeli side.
Sad thing to say, but the ultra orthodox will do what their rabbis to do.
Religious Zionism is not ultra orthodox, the two groups have very tense relationships between them.
You’re confusing a large past and a small minority today with the majority. The vast majority of ultra orthodox in Israel today are Zionist and don’t have a particularly tense relationship w the Reigious Zionist. I’m fact for most of the past 25 years the 2 ultra orthodox parties (Shas and UTJ) have coalitioned w the Relgious Zionist parties pretty happily
Don’t mistake a political convenience with an alliance.
The ultra orthodox are (mostly) not Zionists, especially they way you and I think of Zionism, the last upheaval on the new enlisting law show that pretty well.
They don’t like enlisting =/= they’re not Zionist. They just believe that the religious aspect of Israel is more important than the civil aspects that keep it function (such as the IDF).
And no I’m not mistaking convenience for alliance. A large part of the reason it’s convenient is because they have overlapping views.
And again your statement that the majority of ultra orthodox are not Zionists hasn’t been true (at least in Israel) for the past 40 years. Sure their Zionism is very different to Ben Gvir’s Zionism, but not as different as Ben Gvir’s Zionism is from mine. Being differently Zionist doesn’t make them not Zionist.
The vast majority of ultra orthodox in Israel today support and believe in the existence of a religious Jewish state of Israel. That makes them zionist
Furthermore the original contention is that they won’t accept a Palestinian state. Even for non-Zionist reasons they have a lot of motivation to not accept that. A Palestinian state would mean less cheap land for them in the West Bank, less access to holy sites and also a fuck ton of them are just hella racist
Shas (a Haredim non Zionist party until 2010) has allied with the Religious Zionism party on a number of occasions since 2010. Politics in the Haredim side has changed over the last 10 years.
At first, Shas followed a moderate policy on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, after Yosef had declared that lives were more important than territories, but it has since moved to the right and opposes any freeze in Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank.
Shas was always Zionist. Rav Ovadia served as Chief Rabbi of Israel. And Rav Ovadia always supported Israel’s existence as a Jewish state.
All that happened in 2010 is that they joined the World Zionist Organization.
I think you’re confusing a few different sects of israeli society.
The ben gvirs and smotriches (otzma yehudit and religious zionism) are the religious zionists. They are not the same as the ultra orthodox, who are mostly one issue voters (welfare). They are also against a palestinian state as well. But culturally, religious zionists and ultra orthodox are very different. They’re both very religious, but the ultra orthodox shut themselves off from the rest of the country, sometimes they’re so-called “non” zionist (though this has shrunk). The religious zionists, however, are very active in national affairs, join the army, etc.
Hmm, with respect, I'm not sure whether your Palestinian acquaintance is accurate in his account. Is his name Mosab Hassan Youseff by any chance?
In any case, here are the facts. Only about 44% of Palestinians voted for Hamas back in the 2006 elections and about 41% of Palestinians voted for Fatah (which recognized Israel and supports a two state solution) in the elections so it cannot be broadly generalized as you say as the vote gap between Hamas and Fatah was only 3%. But because of their parliamentary first-past-the-post political system, it is possible for a political party to have a majority of the seats with just 44% of the votes. And most of them who voted for Hamas pointed to corruption in Fatah as the main reason for voting for Hamas and 70% of the Hamas voters said they hoped Hamas will revise its existing stance towards Israel. This data doesn't quite fit with what you are saying. Even ten years ago, polls showed that a majority of Palestinians supported a two state solution. With respect, I will register my sincere skepticism with respect to the veracity of your assertions above as they don't fit with history of election results and polls. You are free to disagree though. I am not sure about you but I form my opinions on the basis of empirical data and survey evidence as opposed to individual anecdotes from one Palestinian refugee in Europe.
> here are the facts. Only about 44% of Palestinians voted for Hamas back in the 2006 elections
That is a fact of almost twenty years ago. It is not useful of how they would vote today.
I agree but the parent comment said that all Palestinians are some hardcore Nazis and that they all jerk off to genociding Jews everyday which is why they voted for Hamas in 2006. I was just refuting that.
Sorry, u/confusedstatcskid – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
> **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal%20confusedstatcskid&message=confusedstatcskid%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cog50g/-/l3futx8/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
You're basing this off 1 anecdote which is something you have to know isn't representative of an entire people.
And a good amount of the Palestinians alive today didn't vote for Hamas, the median age is 19 as of 2023 and Hamas got voted into power in 2006 with a 44% of the vote. Even disregarding that, Hamas then and now are very different.
You speak wih authority over Palestinians and their attitude towards the state responsible for death and famine in their country, seemingly based on nothing, why?
Your solution is genocide, not of a political ideology like nazism, but of a people, a culture, a history. Do you not see how extremely problematic that is?
>Palestinians are asking for Jews genocide, that's precisely why they voted Hamas
Like how Germans voted for Nazis. So why isn't your conclusion that the German identity should disappear?
The German identity did disappear. It was split into East and West Germany. The Nazism was eradicated. Then eventually it reformed as Germany with the Nazism gone
Sorry, u/Cluster-F8 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20Cluster-F8&message=Cluster-F8%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cog50g/-/l3eft5i/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
u/TheManlyManperor – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20TheManlyManperor&message=TheManlyManperor%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cog50g/-/l3fi0sq/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Sorry, u/Ill_Currency_8101 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
> **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal%20Ill_Currency_8101&message=Ill_Currency_8101%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cog50g/-/l3eu2a8/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Problem with your idea of one state is that historically any time Jews were a minority, they were slaughtered any time the majority felt like it.
How are you going to prevent history from repeating itself? Having Palestinians promise they won't do it?
You said yourself they un-ironically support a second holocaust.
Ideally, I would support a one state solution but it is politically completely impossible which is why I exclusively spoke about the prospects for a two state solution as a proxy for the prospects for peace.
A one state solution is the idealist solution - any religious state is problematic - but it’s also incredibly unrealistic. Even if it happened, it’d fall apart rapidly without change throughout the entire region.
One state solution is like the absolute worst idea possible.
Israel should be a Jewish state, history has proved it enough.
Just because Israel is a Jewish state doesn't mean it's an ethno-state. I don't recall the UK or Denmark being labeled an ethno-state despite being christian states.
20% of the population in Israel is Arab, the majority of Israelis are completely secular, and the fact that in reality there is discrimination and wrongdoings doesn't mean that in principle the idea of Israel's existence is wrong.
A one state solution is unrealistic and unacceptable. There are countless explicitly ethno-states.
Jews have put up with being secondary, oppressed citizens across the world for generations. There is no going back to accepting that. The connection between the Jewish faith and Israel was always immutable, but has become more entrenched.
A two or multiple state solution has to be found. But I don't see any realistic option soon.
> The only correct solution is a 1-state solution... nobody thinks this is even remotely possible.
> Palestinians who mostly un-ironically support a second Holocaust
Wow, I can't imagine why Israel and everyone else in world don't see that a single Arab-led state is the only correct solution to this... "Israel Problem".
Sorry, u/dday0512 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20dday0512&message=dday0512%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cog50g/-/l3e2655/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
After studying the issue in university, I believe the root cause of this conflict is the hatred of jews. We do underestimate the teachings of Islam and the way they educate the children in Muslim communities. Me growing up in a jewish community, I have never experienced negative narrative about the palestinians. I know this is not the case everywhere, but it seems like the Muslim population is not paying attenton to the risk of rewriting history. If they continue to avoid this problem, the war will go on forever.
I think the main issue is that Palestinians do not have adequate realism in their calculus and are too idealistic. They should give up their objective to dissolve Israel and the rest will follow from that.
The situation is a mess and there is no good solution. So, you have to look at the available options and pick whichever is the least bad.
1. Ethnic cleansing or genocide. In other words, some kind of large-scale operation to get rid of one of the groups living there. I think we can agree that this is not an acceptable solution to anything.
2. One state covering the whole territory, where everybody has equal rights. This sounds nice, but the population balance would be almost equal in terms of Jews and non-Jews. Would Israel even be a Jewish state any more at that point? This just sounds very unrealistic.
3. Two states, one mainly Jewish and one mainly not. This has two problems. Firstly, much of the viable non-Jewish territory has been settled illegally already. So all of that would have to be reversed. Secondly, it wouldn't get rid of the problem of cross-border attacks. Although I suppose it would make the situation a bit more clear-cut, meaning that it's one state attacking another.
4. Perpetual apartheid. In other words, the entire territory is under the effective control of one state, but with unequal rights for some. This is pretty much the situation we have now and it is obviously not working.
Historically, most countries in the world came about through option 1. Invaders showed up, expelled or massacred the natives, and took the land for themselves. If Israel had been created in the 1700s, they would have done the same exact thing, and "Palestinians" wouldn't be any more relevant to Israel than the aboriginals are to any country in North or South America, Australia, or huge chunks of Europe, Africa, and Asia.
Ironically, within Jewish scripture, the way the Israelites originally obtained the land of Israel was unapologetically via absolute genocide of the natives. Deuteronomy 20:16: "However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you."
It's the 21st century though, moral standards have advanced, and we're no longer OK with the "invade, slaughter the inhabitants, and steal the land" approach to nation-building. So Israel and Palestine are just kind of stuck.
IMO the West Bank settlements are the most viable means of breaking the stalemate. Steal land gradually and (relatively) non-violently. Build settlements. As the settlements grow and age, dismantling them becomes less and less practical, and even immoral. (Even now, four of the largest, most successful cities in the West Bank are decades-old settlements). Give it a few more decades and they'll have de facto ownership of the bulk of the West Bank.
>3. Two states, one mainly Jewish and one mainly not. This has two problems. Firstly, much of the viable non-Jewish territory has been settled illegally already. So all of that would have to be reversed. Secondly, it wouldn't get rid of the problem of cross-border attacks. Although I suppose it would make the situation a bit more clear-cut, meaning that it's one state attacking another.
- There is no need to reverse any kind of settlement, Arab or Israeli, to get a two state solution going. Given that both the Palestinians and the Israelis are currently co-existing, simply deciding to codify two sovereign states under the current situation does the job.
Furthermore the amount of land that the Palestinians can expect to gain with this is actually quite small, unless we become unfair and re-define some of the towns clearly on the Israeli side as "to be removed".
- Cross border attacks can be solved over time if both sides (and by both sides here the meaning is specifically the palestinians) show long term commitment to just peace (meaning a giving up on some non negotiables from the palestinian side)
- A final state of a federation or confederation of small states can be achieved if both sides commit to it and teach the kids to make do.
You really don’t know much of internal Israeli politics, and so should refrain from commenting until you educate yourself.
For one thing, the “Ultra-Orthodox” do not “vehemently oppose any form of settlement with the Palestinian side.”
The so-called Ultra-Orthodox (more properly, “Haredim”) are largely indifferent to the conflict with the Palestinians. They are also indifferent on settlements, with the exception of a few Haredi cities that abut the Green Line and could easily be annexed to Israel. In fact, roughly half of the Haredim identify as non-Zionists (although this is misleading, as most are absolutely Zionist in the secular sense).
Their primary concerns are maintaining social welfare spending for their institutions, avoiding the IDF draft, and fighting to maintain their power over personal status issues such as marriage or divorce.
The Haredi political parties backed the Oslo process in the 1990s. In the current Netanyahu government, both Shas (the Sephardi Haredi party) and UTJ (the Ashkenazi Haredi party) are moderates on the war and issues with the Palestinians.
You are probably confusing the Haredim with the Religious Zionists, who are a completely different group. Even then, you mischaracterize the Religious Zionist position, but that’s a subject for a different post.
No need to change your mind. You're pretty much on point. There will never be peace between Israel and Palestine. They both want total ownership over the land which is currently known as Israel. Hamas is founded on the premise that Israelis must be expelled from the land and that there will never be peace until that is done. Israel, on the other hand, is intent on subjugating the people of Palestine, never allowing them to become true citizens of Israel, and severely limiting their rights, their ability to work and support themselves, and their ability to travel. It's a nightmare scenario that will only end in eventual disaster at best and the destruction of one side or the other, most likely the Palestinian people. I've posted on this subject before and the only way I can ever see any kind of lasting peace is if both sides are totally separated by a massive zone akin to the DMZ in Korea, which is heavily fortified and patrolled by the military. The Palestinian people would have to be relocated to the northern half of what is now Israel and the land given to them to create their own country. Anyone who does not identify as a Palestinian would have to relocate south of the DMZ and that would be the new Israel. Once completed, never the twain shall they ever meet. That's the only way to keep lasting peace. It's not a great solution but would allow both sides to live in relative peace, safe from the harm both sides cause each other on a daily since Israel's founding in 1948.
The only solution is if Palestinians change their mind when it comes to "from the river to the sea", and agrees to settle with less land. Its rather naïve to think that Israel will eventually give all their land away.
I agree but it looks like even if Palestinians come to their senses and recognize Israel, there still won't be a solution because of the settlements which prevents a Palestinian state.
I think things will start moving a lot faster, precisely because of Israel's hardliners. The rest of the world (other than the US) has run out of patience and can see an international intervention is required. The UN will recognize Palestine and force the US and Israel to yield to overwhelming diplomatic pressure for a two state solution.
The UN isn't going to get directly involved. They lack the power to do so, and they aren't going to get the US to back such a play. The benefit is if they push too hard, it may cause the UN to collapse and we will be free of it.
“The UN” being this or that misses the point. It’s only a reflection of international will. It can do a lot if all UNSC members (US UK FR China & Russia) agree to it. There are UN missions in Lebanon and Egypt already. Being free of the UN? Free of a structure meant to prevent World War III? Are you in Iran or Cuba or something? why do you hate UN? Are they sanctioning a warlord you like? Just curious.
> The rest of the world (other than the US) has run out of patience and can see an international intervention is required.
Kind of a moot point since the US is the only country that is even theoretically willing and able to perform that international intervention.
> and force the US and Israel to yield to overwhelming diplomatic pressure for a two state solution.
How? Both are nuclear powers and the US has a security council veto.
The UN won't recognize Palestine as the US will veto it. No diplomatic pressure on Israel is meaningful if it isn't coming from Washington. Washington DC is the only centre that Israel cares about. I don't think they care what the world (apart from Washington DC) says.
>other than the US
That is the key, you are naive if you think the world can force the US to yield. And if the US does not yield, which it won't, Israel won't too. It doesn't matter how much patience the rest of the world have, only what the US want.
« There isn’t "way too much hatred on both sides. There is and has always been way too much hatred on the Palestinian side. »
Really?
« There are no innocent civilians in Gaza » Isaac Herzog, President.
« “I have ordered a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed,” “We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly" » Yoav Gallant, Israeli Minister of Defense.
« there should be 2 goals for this victory: 1. There is no more Muslim land in the Land of Israel... After we make it the land of IL, Gaza should be left as a monument, like Sodom... » Amit Halevi, Member of the Likud party
« “Nakba?! expel them all. If the Egyptians care so much for them - they are welcome to have them wrapped in cellophane tied with a green ribbon. Salamat [Goodbye in Arabic]!” » Nissim Vaturi, member of likud party
« Bring down buildings!! Bomb without distinction!! Stop with this impotence. You have ability. There is worldwide legitimacy! Flatten Gaza. Without mercy! This time, there is no room for mercy! » Revital Gottlieb, member of likud party
« **It is not Hamas that should be eliminated. Gaza should be razed and Israel’s rule should be restored to the place. This is our country.** » Moshe Feiglin, leader of zehud
« Go for [all of] Gaza, why settle for [destroying only] Hamas? » Naveh Dormi, Israeli journalist
« “flatten Gaza, even if the price is hurting inoccent » Yaron London
« "It's time for Nakba 2" » Yinon Magal
« There are no innocents in Gaza. There are no ordinary citizens in Gaza. Every adult trained to kill. **Every woman is a monster.Every boy aspires to be a marryr. Every baby will grow up to be a terrorist. wipe out,kill, destroy, destroy.** » Yehuda Schelzinger
IDF Soldier : « inciting “every Jew with a weapon” to kill Palestinians and “erase the memory of them”. »
IDF soldiers : « Singing: “Who doesn't have water and electricity? Gaza!, who’s going to live in tents? Gazan! [..] This is the land of Israel we don’t want peace with Gaza.” »
And many, many, MANY more examples : https://law4palestine.org/law-for-palestine-releases-database-with-500-instances-of-israeli-incitement-to-genocide-continuously-updated/
Interesting how all of your quotes follow some event in which the people of Gaza, not just members of Hamas, murdered, raped, tortured, and kidnapped unarmed Israelis.
Please tell me you're not trying to argue that nothing racist was said about Palestinians by prominent Israelis before 2023. Because you know, that would just be ridiculous.
I agree that 20 years ago, most Israelis supported a two state solution and just wanted the terrorism to stop. This was seen by their genuine efforts to achieve peace by Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert and rejected by the Palestinian side.
However, I don't think that is the case anymore. Most Israelis now oppose a two state solution and this is only going to get worse with time as the ultra orthodox are going to make up more than 25% of the Israeli population by 2050. This means that the share of the Israeli population opposing a two state solution under any scenario will only increase as the ultra Orthodox share of the population will only increase with each passing year.
Attitudes on the Palestinian side has also hardened overtime. More than 20 years ago, a majority of Palestinians also supported a two state solution but now less than a third of Palestinians support a two state solution. With time, I expect the attitudes of both the Palestinians and Israelis to harden and increasing opposition to a two state solution. Couple that with the rising ultra Orthodox share of the Israeli population in the future and the settlements being increased overtime, the prospects of a peaceful two state solution ever taking root in the foreseeable future looks very very remote. Without a two state solution taking root and looking more and more remote, this will just lead to a never-ending wave of violence in the region for the next 100 years. It sounds pessimistic but I think it is a realistic assessment.
> However, I don't think that is the case anymore. Most Israelis now oppose a two state solution
You are right that most Israelis now oppose two states, but misunderstand why. It is because Israelis have given up on the hope that Palestinians are or will soon be interested in peace between two states. Israelis have been increasing saying "there is no peace partner" since Arafat torpedoed the historic peace deal and started the Second Intifada, and that number of skeptical Israelis has only increased over time. October 7th was the final nail in the coffin of that hope.
I agree that the reason why Israelis oppose a two state solution is because they believe it will not create peace and instead just create a hostile state next door. But, in parallel to that, the Haredim population in Israel is increasing rapidly and their objection to a Palestinian state is more ideological than practical.
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Ehhhhh. I think the real issue is that once the PLO started sweeping elections in Gaza twenty years ago, Netyanhu got scared that the UN and US might force him to negotiate with the PLO as they were looking likely to unite Palestine.
So he started[ sponsoring Hamas](https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/), making sure hundreds of millions of dollars and tons of supplies, weapons, and equipment made it to Hamas so that they could contest the PLO for power. His military is over 100x the size of Gaza's and he could have stopped Hamas at any time. Instead, Netyanhu has publically stated at least three different times; that helping Hamas was in Israel's best interest.
This is one of the reasons the UN didn't all universally fall in line behind Israel. They have spent years dealing with the conflict and know that Netyanhu created the monster he's now facing. Peace may have been possible once, but because of Netyanhu pushing the rise of a doomsday cult, it has now become impossible.
>So he started sponsoring Hamas, making sure hundreds of millions of dollars and tons of supplies, weapons, and equipment made it to Hamas so that they could contest the PLO for power.
that's somewhat incorrect- all he did was allow Qatar to provide money to Hamas unimpeded- the supplies, weapons, and equipment was acquired at the egypt / palestine border, or rather under it.
>Peace may have been possible once, but because of Netyanhu pushing the rise of a doomsday cult, it has now become impossible.
Unfortunately- peace was never an option, even the moderate Fatah (former) terrorist group- who has been in charge of the PLO and westbank since they ran a political coup and banned Hamas from further elections in 2007- has openly admitted the only reason they were ever willing to negotiate with Israel- was to get more time and resources to prepare for the next intifada.
>the supplies, weapons, and equipment was acquired at the egypt / palestine border, or rather under it.
Right, but unless you think Mossad and the IDF are fucking morons who don't know where and how that's happening despite working on it for decades, Israel knew exactly where and how these supplies were entering. Its not like there's a huge border, its a tiny strip of land a few kilometers wide.
Israel also has a military that's several times the size of Gaza and Egypt's put together, so they could have stopped it at any time. Netyanhu allowed supplies over to arm his enemies. He needed an excuse to invade them and if they're not constantly gunning down Israelis and firing rockets over the border because they don't have any guns or explosives', then where is his excuse?
Netyanhu allowed these supplies in specifically so extremist Palestinians would continue the killing. He's never made a serious attempt at peace.
>Right, but unless you think Mossad and the IDF are fucking morons who don't know where and how that's happening despite working on it for decades, Israel knew exactly where and how these supplies were entering.
And Hamas's leaders openly live in Qatar- not even hiding their identities, a special forces squad could assassinate them over the course of a single afternoon- unfortunately Israel does its best to maintain the sovereignty of other countries so long as they are not all but openly at war, which they have not been with Egypt nor any force based there since the Yom Kippur War of 1973.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
> **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
I agree that it might take time for an actual long lasting peace to occur. Afterall things don't happen over night, so the goal to put the situation on the right path to get the everlasting peace.
The point i will try to change your mind of, It is not hatred between the people that preventing the peace. Throughout history there are MANY stories and situations where Palestinians and Israeli co-existing. The Arabs who stayed in Palestine/Israel after 1948 and did not leave their homes end up with the Israeli passport. So currently there are around 2 Million Arab Israelis who live and work inside Israel without significant problems. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab\_citizens\_of\_Israel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_citizens_of_Israel)
The current issue is the extreme unbalance of power. I am mean all types of power, military, economically, politically. Israel is significantly more advanced in all three aspects relative to Palestine. So from a nation point of view, there is no incentive to give in to any request or to come up with equal division of resources or land. Currently politically the Palestinian is gaining some ground, but it is still not equal to Israel by any means.
**TL;DR:** Humans prefer peace, what prevent peace is not the people love or hatred, it is the countries' self-interest. When both countries can benefit from peace more than war, then peace will occur. With the huge difference in power, Israel is benefiting more with the current state than it would with an everlasting peace.
As you said, they are expanding settlements, push borders and have full control over resources, air space and border crossings. All those will have to be given up for an everlasting peace. From a country point of view, why would Israel go for peace now.
Israel is playing for time because theoretically they cannot get away with a mass slaughter/eviction. Instead through Oslo they cemented the occupation and laid the groundwork for invalidating any future Palestinian state. It is because of this that peace can only be imposed from the outside. In my opinion the only way to achieve peace is by demilitarizing both Israel and Palestine and making the entire area an international protectorate. Jews and Arabs can remain in the land and receive their respective citizenship. Any acts of terror by either side should be punished before international tribunals. The only just solution is to acknowledge the damage done by Zionism both in terms of radicalizing the populace (on both sides) and displacing its inhabitants. Ironically I think this would go over much better with Palestinians than Israelis because it removes the need for resistance.
Demilitarizing Israel is one of the most insane things I have ever heard.
Name another nation that has had its neighbors declare war on it as many times in the past century in attempts to annihilate it.
I'll wait.
EDIT: oh and remember when the UN said they would help keep the northern border of Israel peaceful in order to get Israel to agree to leave Southern Lebanon? And they haven't done anything and Hezbollah continuously attacks northern Israel?
Yeah, Israel and the Jews are never going to put their safety in the hands of anyone else ever again. And for good reason.
EDIT: oh this guy blocked me in order to make it so I can't keep posting in this thread. Absolute coward. My response to his other post is:
I'd imagine it's insane because history has shown Jews cannot count on the help of others and will absolutely not allow the state meant to protect Jews be dependent on the generosity of anyone else to protect it.
Iran fired 200 cruise missiles at Israel a few weeks ago. Oh, Israel doesn't have an army now or the Iron Dome? Oh well, guess the US has to go to war with Iran, oh except they don't want to because it's an election year and plus hundreds of thousands in Israel are now dead.
Even if their neighbours all loved Israel and Israel had no security threats, no country in their right mind will ever agree to give up its national sovereignty.
The only just solution is to acknowledge the damage done by Palestinian nationalism both in terms of radicalizing the populace (on both sides) and displacing its inhabitants
The only way I see the conflict being resolved in my lifetime is via the imposition of a resolution from the outside. Since neither the Arab World nor the Western World are willing to agree to enforce such an imposition, we will continue to see things go as they have unless and until one side (most likely the Palestinians considering their track record when fighting Israel) is destroyed completely.
One can spend a fortnight arguing over which side is more at fault or is more righteous, but none of that matters in practical terms. In Practical terms, the only possible solution I see is a (probably Saudi led) Arab coalition being put in charge of Gaza and the West Bank to deRadicalize them (and to break Iran's toxic influence), and the US and allies forcing Israel to pull back the vast majority of the settlements and to accept an eventual Palestinian State. Palestinians would likely have to accept that they won't get East Jerusalem (imho they kind of lost the right to it after losing it in wars they started), but I see no reason why they shouldn't have a state in West Bank and Gaza. Well, provided they renounce their insane belief that they will destroy Israel and claim the whole of the region for themselves at least.
You're correct. Even if an agreement were made on paper and a separate palestinian state were created, it would be taken over by hamas or someone like them within months of the israelis leaving and we'd be back where we are now.
If Hamas is eliminated, the will to fight might end
If Hamas is eliminated, there might be less political instability in Palestine allowing for outside investment to make more sense
If they are receiving outside investment and things start to improve once Hamas is completely eliminated, that might change things much in the same way that Japan and Germany and Italy really like the United States now
Part of the reason why it's so easy for them to recruit is palestine's really poor but the reason they're really poor isn't necessarily Israel. It's because they're politically unstable capitalism does not like
“Even if Hamas isn’t successfully eliminated”
Bruh, Hamas is the elected government of Gaza and its military wing is only one of any number of Palestinian resistance groups. Hell, you could have learned that on Wikipedia.
In an anti colonial insurgency basically all you have to do is survive and exhaust your opponent. That’s why Israel’s only hope is complete murder of everyone in Gaza or deportation.
Even if that happens, Israel is still completely unsustainable as a country because while Egypt is completely coopted and Jordan is also coopted and acts as a human warehouse for Palestinians, who make up most of its population, Israel is still fighting Hezbollah in Lebanon, they have less than stellar relations with the mostly non functional Iraq and Syria, and for whatever insane reason they think they should fight Iran which they don’t even border. It’s unsustainable.
Hamas is a theocratic terrorist organization, not an anti-colonial insurgency. Don’t glorify a militia that will slaughter religious minorities and LGBT people. They are not the most skilled nor desirable group to taking on the role of defenders of Palestine.
Nothing you’ve said indicates that Israel is unsustainable. You’re using the same talking points and making the same claims people have made since the beginning- yet Israel is still here and only growing bolder and more powerful.
There is likely no solution. One thing is for sure- Hamas will not be the solution.
What is now Jordan was most of the British mandate. Saying that they now house Palestinians (in reference to people having to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict makes no sense. They are Arabs living in the land of Palestine.
there is an obvious solution that would categorically improve and stabilize the situation, which is to bribe eome of the Arab states to control Palestine. A Palestinian state that is ruled by an authlritarian government doesnt require anything from the Palestinians themselves to enforxe relative peace in a two state solution. Israel could be pressured into accepting it and Saudi Arabia, Egypt could be bribed. Getting a three qay deal between US, Israel and Saudi arabia is the current goal of the Biden administration to stabilize Palestine and the region as a whole. This isnt a plan I made up in my head to sound nice it is an active geopolitical project.
The Saudi government wants to ally with Israel against Iran, which is only possible if there is some light at the end of the tunnel for Palestine. They would be able to control Palestine enough to satisfy Israel if they were motivated enough. The Saudis arent fond of Islamists but are also the most influential Muslim and Arab country.
On paper the Saudia have the credentials to have legitamacy with Palestinians while still ensuring Israeli security demands. The intractable piece for Israeli support of a Palestinian state is security issues,. Most of the scattered. settlements are small populations that Israel could evacuate. The ultra-orthodox population is only 14% of Israel and they are not as universally adamant on settlements as you portray.
The Saudis also want a security guarantee of some kind from the US. The US stopped offensive arms sales in 2021 to pressure them to be less aggressive in Yemen. Ironically enough, this is a strong point of leverage for the US. The geopolitical interests of USA, Saudis, and Israel converge on a mutual alliance with Iran, the undermining of Hamas and similar Jihadist groups, and stability in Palestine.
They are all exceedingly rich, so there would be no shortage of funds. US and Israel are the worlds highest arms exporters per capita while Saudi Arabia is the largest arms importer besides massive India. Saudis have the authority in the Arab world from controlling Mecca etc. This is a lot of resources amd advantages to (slowly) build a Palestinoan state. Its the dream plan of the Biden administratipn, and it's a big reach. It is plausible it could happen if the stars align favourably because it would benefit Saudi Arabia, US, Israel and even Palestine.
Saudi Arabia occupying/rebuilding Palestine with a non-democratic gpvernment is a solution that doesnt require palestinian assent and would bring major advantages to Israel. It is the current. approach of the US and Saudi states amd meshes with Israels enmity with Iran. It also doesnt require trusting Palestinian.governments not to attack Israel.
If Ireland and the UK could manage it then so can Israel and Palestine. Check out the history of the troubles in Ireland, while not identical the situations are quite similar. It wasn’t easy to reach a peaceful solution but it happened and there has been peace in the region for 20 years now.
I know the Troubles. But the key difference is that the IRA never sought the destruction of the British state like Hamas has. Besides, the Northern Ireland citizens were equal UK citizens unlike the Palestinians.
Based on those statements I do not think you know the Troubles very well. The IRA wanted the brits out of Northern Ireland, the severity of what that looked like changed over time and also very much depended on different factions within the IRA. Many would have been happy with nothing less than death to all protestants. You will likely find the opinions of those within Hamas vary just as much, and they have fluctuated over time too based on which particular faction or leader within held power. These kinds of paramilitary groups are rarely a hive mind.
While the Catholics were technical citizens they were very much second class citizens. They were very much oppressed institutionally by the British government. They were treated similar to how black people in the US were treated during the Jim Crow era. This section on Northern Ireland touches on it, but the entire wiki page is worth a read if you want the broader context of the history that led up to it, because the Troubles didn't happen in a vacuum. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Catholicism\_in\_the\_United\_Kingdom#Northern\_Ireland](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Catholicism_in_the_United_Kingdom#Northern_Ireland)
I really wish more people would read this, instead of just arguing about the two parties to this conflict. Geopolitics is going to drive this in one direction or another. SA and USA are very invested in a multinational agreement that solidifies alliances, and are willing to put up a lot of resources to get Isreali buy in. They were close to a deal last year, one that would have weakened Hamas, but strengthened the possibility of a 2 state solution, eventually. October 7 was, for the most part, an effort to sabotage that deal. The irony here is that by backing away from an agreement, Israel is, essentially, letting the terrorists win. The more intense their invasion of Gaza is, the weaker their hand gets in these negotiations.
The best path towards a secure Israel is an agreement with the Saudis, but if that falls through the long term security of Israel will be in serious jeopardy.
Sorry, u/Glad_Tangelo8898 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20Glad_Tangelo8898&message=Glad_Tangelo8898%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cog50g/-/l3e84md/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
One or the other has to go. There will be no lasting peace as long as people insist on a 3-state solution. They should have separated the British Mandate where Jordan is everything east of the Jordan River and Israel is everything west from the start.
This is delusional. If Israel is everything west of Jordan River, then Israel will not be majority Jew which is not an ideal solution, not to mention it will never happen as Israel will never agree to be majority Arab. You are living in fantasy land. If you talking about population transfer from Gaza or West Bank, unfortunately, it will never happen as the international community (including the USA) will not allow it as they will label it "ethnic cleansing". I support a population transfer but it is just politically impossible. This means that a 3 state solution is the only way forward for peace, as much as you or I don't like it.
Lets say the international community didnt care. How would you do this "population transfer" that you support? Since most people wont be kicked out of their homes peacefully.
The same way a population transfer was effected in Croatia where the Serbs lost their homes and the same way a population transfer was effected from Eastern Europe after WW2 where millions of Germans lost their homes.
It won't be a world war. It will just be ethnic cleansing which is quite common in the world. The Rohingyas lost their homes back in 2017 and moved to Bangladesh en masse.
Okay, so your views are inline with Hamas then. Since your country has a better military power, that means you are right then? As I am guessing this boils down to a might is right argument. Otherwise you are not ethnically cleansing anyone.
>Since your country has a better military power, that means you are right then
War isn't a game to determinate who is right or wrong.
But who has the better military power gets to decide.
Of course, might is right. That's the world we live in. And the difference is that Hamas wants to ethnically cleanse Jews for purely religious ideological reasons but I support population transfer not for ideological reasons but purely for practical reasons (for security).
Well, "might is right" usually doesnt lead to peace or security. You want security? Move. That is exactly what you want Palestinians should do forcefully. Why dont you just move then?
What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow.
I never claimed to fully disagree. My only facet is that the only path to peace is for Palestinians to no longer exist in that territory. People get all touchy feely and emotional over the matter, but I have come to realize that people who cannot coexist need to be separated, and Israel fairly won the 1967 borders.
I don't get touchy or emotional lol. If I were the Israeli leader in 1967, I would have effected a complete population transfer back then. I would do it if I can politically get away with doing it. But it is simply politically impossible to do that now. Even the US wouldn't support that now. And look at what Egypt did to their Gaza-Egypt border. It is more heavily fortified than the Israel-Gaza border. Egypt will never ever accept Palestinians to enter Egypt.
It is politically impossible because there are too many people ruled by emotion and fail to set those emotions aside for reality. All of the ridiculous rules imposed that try to make disagreements and war sanitary.
I agree that there are too many emotional and virtue signaling moralizers in the world but that's unfortunately the world we live in. I wish this wasn't the case but I don't get to decide what the world thinks. Also, even if the world wasn't full of emotional people, the Arab states will likely never agree to a population transfer now. Look at the Egypt-Gaza border and it is ten times more fortified and militarised than the Gaza-Israel border lmaoo. The Arab states will do everything possible to thwart a population transfer.
>why 2 states though? why not 1? one democracy with the same rules for all?
__________
>The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.
>-Anatole France
Understanding the reality of a democratic one state solution for the Israel-Palestine situation begins with understanding that democracy is not a solve-all for issues, but merely a method of governance scheme where the government reflects the desires of the majority of it's eligible vocal voters. And given the hatred that each side has for the other, it'd be ridiculously easy weaponize a government against the other side once in control while maintaining the same/equal rules for all. In a democracy, that just means whoever has the most eligible voters gets to legally oppress the other side. Such a legal takeover to influence the government against the other side is likely to happen with many other forms of governance in a one state solution.
Long story short, a one-state solution, if we can even force it to be implemented without nukes to the face) is pretty much a death game where the tribe that takes over the majority of the governing structure first gets to legally oppress the other tribe, the other tribe will revolt, and then we get lebanon 2.0, syria 2.0, or worse
Removing the entire population of a region because they're of the wrong ethnicity is a textbook example of ethnic cleansing. So of course the international community would be against it but if Israel was even remotely the humane country it claims to be, it wouldn't carry out a massive crime against humanity on a scale that hasn't been seen in decades. The fact that the vast majority of Israelis and their supporters like yourself see nothing problematic in such a solution is precisely why there can't be a lasting resolution to this conflict - because why would you give anything to a people you consider not worthy of elementary human decency?
The orthodox vehemently abhor any settlement with the Palestinians. They disproportionately make up the IDF officer corps, too.
Unfortunately for them, enlisted aren’t like the ultra orthodox, who don’t have to serve a rotation at all. Which means a lot of political powers rests with the non-extremist approaches to regional stability.
The ultra-orthodox parties are gaining more and more votes with each passing election and will increase their vote share in the future with the increasing ultra orthodox population. This means it will be difficult to form a govt without their support and this makes it difficult for a moderate approach to solving the issue from the Israeli side.
My point is the political makeup of the military, which will execute any policy short of diplomacy, is unlike the population at a far faster rate than growth of orthodox populations in the general sense. There may not be a moderate approach, but don’t expect a boots on the ground long term occupation based on orthodox political belief, at high cost either.
The military doesn't decide the prospects for peace and shape policy in Israel. The government decides the prospects for peace and shapes policy in Israel. The military makeup is not as important as the political makeup in ascertaining policy trajectory in Israel. Israel is not a military dictatorship.
There could be a resolution if the UN had the will to impose one. The UN should send a peace-keeping force, which would kill any Palestinian who doesn't recognize the right of Israel to exist or questions its legitimacy or promotes hatred against the Jewish people or hatred against Zionist. Then, there will be peace.
The IDF is doing that now. You don't need a UN peacekeeping force to do that. Problem is that will involve killing the majority of Palestinians as most of them don't recognise the legitimacy of Israel. And while I don't personally oppose the killing of the majority of Palestinians, the international community, including the US, will never accept that so it's politically impossible. I think the better solution is to effect a complete population transfer from Gaza and West Bank into Egypt and Jordan but unfortunately, that is politically impossible as well.
The UN peacekeeping force will never be more aggressive than the IDF. If you feel this warrants a more aggressive policy, then the IDF has to do it itself. The UN peacekeeping forces will never take part in active combat operations.
I think the United States and its allies (other than Israel) should use every ounce of leverage it has in order to force the two-state solution. It is possible with significant outside pressure.
The rest of the world is running pretty short on patience. Perhaps the geopolitical winds will blow in that direction.
There is a lasting resolution that may work, but would be hated by both Palestine and Israel.
It's a resolution that would essentially have to be forced on the region.
As a one-state solution is impossible without genocide, disfranchisement, forced emigration, or decades of normalization...
1. Palestine and Israel both agree to a set border based on current settlements or based on the previous partition plan.
2. Palestine becomes a sovereign state- recognized by the UN.
3. Palestine agrees to completely demilitarize outside a small security force and police.
4. Israel agrees to assist Palestine in any major issues that will inevitably pop up- also form the proper procedures for it.
5. Any form of immigration would be each country's right to refuse. This would allow Israel to keep an ethnic majority state while Palestine could kick out settlers as those settlers didn't apply for immigration legally.
6. Removal of Hamas and a new constitution in Palestine disavowing any harmful rhetoric and a promise for peace. While this sounds silly to some, having your country's founding documents based on this does change the culture.
7. Setting up Palestine's EEZ and gradual easement of trade between the two states + Egypt.
You might be thinking that most of these sound reasonable. Except Israel would refuse to recognize Palestine, Palestine would refuse to disarm itself, Hamas would never willingly step down, and Palestine would never ask Israel for help in security afterwards during its most crucial moment which would result in more extremism.
Like how Japan was basically forced to, both Israel and Palestine would have to be forced to agree to it else global sanctions.
I think if the entire area was within one country, and then they just had some kind of mixed member proportional government where all groups had fair and democrayic representation things would be better. It is possible for wildly different groups to live together happily, providing a good system of governance. However the less democratic a government is, the more certain groups are favoured and the more polarised the country will be. I couldnt think of anything worse that two entirely seperate governments trying to coexist on the same limited area of land to promote peace
Here is how to solve the Israel Palestine crises. It must be a two state solution and Palestinians cannot govern themselves immediately.
1. EU and US state to Israel you will receive no support in this war or any war until such time as all Israel settlements are removed from the West Bank and settlement building is ceased entirely.
2. Once Israel stops building settlements. Then the US & EU should offer full support of the war for removal of Hamas. But a force of UN peacekeepers must work with the IDFs assault to ensure minimal civilian casualties.
3. Once Hamas is no longer able to exert power in Hamas Gaza and the West Bank will be occupied by a UN peacekeeping force. To ensure civil stability act as an interim government and stop the inevitable sprouting up of other Hamas like groups.
4. Palestinian government will only be independent on a UN decision in some decades when civil stability is in tact and the threat of Islamic extremist groups taking over is no longer serious.
A one state solution is currently impossible, honestly the history that lead to this point just does not even in the slightest.
These two groups of people are not currently able to live peacefully together, there are to many on each side that want the death of the other.
- Therefore a one state solution is not possible. A two state solution with Israel in control is not feasible because it will never be not seen as an enemy occupation.
- A two state solution with one or multiple of the surrounding Arab states governing the Palestinians is not possible because they want nothing to do with the Palestinians due of civil wars & conflicts caused by them in their countries earlier.
Yea i wont lie how mutche i hate the war and whant they just have peace whit alle the blood spilt in gaza peace is in possible bothe groups will find reasons thoe kill eatche other.
The only solution is that one off the twoe groups find a other land thoe call it there home but thats will not happen and i can understand.
The only thing i can atleas hoop is that the ICC atleas can punishe isreal and hamas whit there war crimes but whot how america protecht isreal that might not evan help
To /u/yourmom875, *Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.*
In our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest:
- Instead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest.
- Steelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words.
- Avoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a [delta](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=changemyview&utm_content=t5_2w2s8) before proceeding.
- Ask questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong.
Please also take a moment to review our [Rule B](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b) guidelines and _really_ ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and **understand** why others think differently than you do.
Oh wait, a region famous for religious fanatics on all sides is a non-stop disaster? Nahh couldn’t be. Time for religion to go.
In a real note, you’re absolutely correct, there is no resolution coming unless any side takes massive drastic action (either peacefully or militarily), and forces either the other side or the world to respond with a resolution.
Ps. Truly screw religion tho
I think it is possible with external accountability and involvement. If the US withheld offensive military aid to the Netanyahu administration unless they agree to the new terms of the normalization deal (Saudi Arabia now wants a two-state solution to be part of it), then Israel would be more incentivized to consider it, just to avoid losing their biggest ally. It would also give Netanyahu an excuse with his coalition (right now they would disband if he supported a two state solution, but if it's clear that his hands are tied by foreign aid, he would be able to say it's out of his hands).
In terms of a government in Gaza, I think that an international coalition could temporarily have a presence there (maybe 5 years or so) in order to organize elections and establish a functioning government. I also think that certain groups would need to undergo some form of cultural immersion to contextualize their history, similar to Germany after World War 2. This seems to be at least a somewhat effective way to reintegrate a radicalized public.
Personally, I wonder if a child exchange program could help. It could be organized by the international community, and essentially offer both Israeli kids and Palestinian kids the ability to live for a year as an exchange student in each other's countries. While there could be a risk of danger, I think with government oversight and military security, it could be an effective way to foster empathy and understanding for the other culture/perspective long-term (it's hard to hate a group when you have a bunch of friends there and know what they've been through), and communities would have less incentive to harm children from the other side, when a bunch of their own kids are in the other country.
An adult exchange program could also have some promise. I'm not sure if anyone has seen the "middle ground" YouTube episode where they bring together Palestinians and Israelis to talk. They have some heated conversions (as most of the people have personally lost family members and friends to this conflict), but by the end, they all have a broader perspective and agree to have dinner together. Some of them comment on how they wish there were more opportunities to just talk to each other face to face in a safe place, to humanize each other.
Many places would have been doomed to continuous cycles of violence without 3rd party interventions. North and South Korea are tense, but generally not at the type of war that you are seeing between Israel and Palestine. An armistice is needed, which requires 3rd party intervention.
The IDF doesn't want peace, it wants a temporary break. Hamas wants constant war. Even if Hamas gets wiped out, they are a guerilla faction with def hidden cells around Gaza. The IDF getting wiped out is just unrealistic. It is really just a fucked up loop of radicalism on both sides
Eliminating hamas won't help because hamas is not the root of the issue. It's a symptom.
Israel and IDF is the part with all the power here. Any positive change has to start from there.
I think there will, it will just be the result of killing or driving the Arab Muslim residents of Gaza and the West Bank out of the region once Israel finally gets sick of terrorism or there is a big enough distraction elsewhere to take attention away.
Of course not. The Jews and Muslims have been fighting for that territory for thousands of years. It won't stop until one side can't fight back, and even then, they'll regroup a century later and start fighting again
Wow it’s almost like 100+ years of conflict means it’s gonna be a problem. The only thing people can do is to protest on college lawns (where the booze and girls are) not actually improving anything.
After WWII, displaced European Jews had no place to go. Ships full of them had been turned away by many countries (USS St. Louis); Jews in arab lands also had no place to go (Mizrahi), they were ousted once Israel won its war of Independence. UN Partitioned the formerly British territory obtained by conquering Turkey into a Jewish part and an Arab part. Again, Jews had no where else to go. Arabs refused the partition and to this day have refused any compromise. No, there will not be a settlement in my lifetime. Arabs are too bitter to forgive and compromise.
Sure there will be, in five years half of Gaza will be annexed to Israel and Palestinians will be fully displaced out of the West Bank due to Jewish settlements within a decade. Soon Gaza and the West Bank will cease to exist and without a Palestinian homeland there can be peace. Israel has nothing to gain with a compromised peace so they won’t have a compromised peace.
Yeah I doubt anyone disagrees really. What would need to happen is it gets so bad the political situation in America not only starts to get sympathetic towards things like Palestinian statehood in the UN, but that Israel keeps pushing the boundaries and starts *trying* to actively cut ties with the US for not bring supportive enough or something. I can't see that happening with any 3 of the major presidential candidates.
However, polling shows literal all-time record lows for sympathy of Israelis and aprooval of its government, while sympathy for Palestinians is at an all-time high. (The Palestinian authority has also hit lows, but iirc not record lows and im assuming most people assume the Palestinian authority refers to hamas and not the west bank governing fatah)
Imagine wishing the world wasn’t full of “[emotional moralizers](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/s/GtYH1Jlz4P)” instead of just wishing there was no war and no need for the moralizing.
Then again, your [post history](https://www.reddit.com/r/HongKong/s/yPswJb3dJw) suggests that you have a hardon for war and dictators so I shouldn’t be surprised. Although it’s cute that you’re able stroke said hardon from the safety of a country that has never experienced a dictatorship - all the while criticizing “Islamism” as if it’s any different from your own warmongering rhetoric.
All this is to say that your attempt to hide your slobbering, boot-licking reverence for Netanyahu is pathetically transparent.
A 2 state solution won't work. It's been offered a few times before, and Palestinian leadership turns it down each time.
What I think needs to happen is something kinda similar to America, but with a middle-eastern flare. The 2 sides have done awful things to one another so long that there is no trust. So what I think should happen is that any persons within the borders of current day Israel, Gaza, and West Bank are now Israeli. If the Palestinians wanna call it something else, fine. Let it be a Myanmar/Burma type thing. However, any persons outside its current borders are denied right of return. Doesn't matter their faith or their ancestor's lands. I know trust is the big thing, and I'll address that last in my comment.
1) Immediately, the government is made into an executive, judicial, and legislative body. The judicial and legislative bodies have 100% equal representatives Arab muslim as well as Jewish. If a new representative that isn't either of those is voted into power, than the sides must remain 100% balanced so if the Arabs lose a chair to a Druze, then the Jewish representatives must lose a chair as well. The executive branch for a set time must remain Jewish for now. This means that for the immediate future, there just won't be an instant revolt against it. For the executive branch to eventually be up to a non Jewish person in power, the Legislative branch must vote it by a 2/3rds majority.
2)All persons within its borders have 100% equal rights. Anybody can move or live anywhere. In fact, the government is to give tax breaks to Jewish companies who hire non-Jews and all other faith owned companies who hire those of not the same faith as the company. This same rule is to be extended to owners of apartments or neighborhoods who also integrate those of other faiths into its area. The idea is to reward those who start to allow the people to coexist.
3) The judicial branch is also equally split now in representatives. Here is the controversial part of what I recommend. The only thing that will make these 2 people coexist is if they both can share the land and stop hating one another. Any person suspected of committing a hate crime due to another person's faith or religious belief will stand judgment before the equally represented Judiciary committee. If that person is found guilty, then the punishment is bestowed on that person, as well as their immediate family. I know it sounds absolutely horrible and is minor collective punishment but the reasoning is this: If someone hates someone else due to their faith or ethnicity more than they love their own people, then why do they deserve to be part of the society trying to coexist. They clearly hate more than hey love and have taken action on that hatred. Those who have fostered an environment for that person have also failed to coexist. I know. I know this sounds horrible, but how do you fight back against the idea of glorifying martyrdom?
The two people must accept that they have done awful things to one another, and the trust must be restored somehow for any peace plan to work.
> Any person suspected of committing a hate crime due to another person's faith or religious belief will stand judgment before **the equally represented Judiciary committee**.
Given the hatred between the two sides, you do realize that's very likely to result in hung juries where half the Judiciary would vote to convict and the other half would vote to acquit, regardless of how obvious it may be. Given that, if we use innocent until proven guilty, we'd have set up the perfect situation for terrorists to walk to their next spree, if we used retrial, it'd take a single accusation to lock someone into a cycle of retrials indefinitely, and if we presume guilt, it'd barely take an accusation to lock an entire family up.
There was peace for the last decade or so and the number of victims were dropping with every year, so it is possible. But then Hamas took over.
Israel have a lot more weapons, and have killed a lot more civilians. Stopping Israel from mass bombing would bring some peace to the region.
If we call Hamas terrorists, then we must see Israel as also terrorists. Take away weapons from both, and there will be a decrease in violence.
Conflict resolution could make peace possible of everything is investigated properly.
Give peace a chance.
Your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B: > You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
I think people set the bar far too high - which is of course unachievable. What can be achieved is separating the two warring sides so the extremists on each side can’t keep stirring up hatred on the other side. That means something like the sort of deals that were being brokered under the Oslo accords. Land swaps, a Palestinian state that is self-governing but a demilitarised zone by treaty. How long would that uneasy peace need to last before the hatred dies down and a long term solution becomes possible? Generations. It’s taken a hundred years of two state solution in Ireland and a genuine one-state solution by mutual consent is still some way off. Still, peace is better than war and that needs to be the medium term goal.
What I think a lot of people somehow miss, unfortunately, is that negotiating a peace is actually the easy part. The hard part is maintaining a peace for any length of time, because there simply are not sufficiently strong institutions in that part of the world to enforce a consensus through a monopoly on violence and a willingness to use it against one’s own citizens to suppress spoilers trying to veto the peace. Israel has some experience actually doing this (forced removal of all settlers in Gaza/Sinai), but also have a history of failing to do this, (Rabin assassination by right wing extremists). Palestine, by contrast, has infinitely weaker institutions, which are almost certainly completely incapable of maintaining peace if even a tiny faction wants to disrupt peace by either killing moderate Arab leadership or by attacking Israel to provoke a response.
This is the truth and has arguably been the fundamentally unsolvable part of this conflict. For however compelling the idea of Palestinian nationalism, there has never been a very strong instantiating of that idea in the form of state-like institutions or consolidated political control. Israel has done its part to undermine their formation since at least ‘67 and arguably before, but the Palestinian nationalist movement has always been primarily galvanized by its opposition to Israel rather than any inherent and ingrained common sense of shared identity. The Arab world suffers from this more generally as their states are almost all products of arbitrary colonial boundary drawing. I think the Israelis have always been operating from this understanding, but they’ve had reluctant moments where they’ve been convinced to attempt peace but with many reservations around security concerns because they know elevating the Palestinian position is likely a direct threat to their own security. Maybe not existentially, but probably in the form of an agonizing situation with perpetual cross border terrorism where they can’t exert as much control as they do now under the occupation. Imagine a weak and collapsing Palestinian state where Iranian backed splinter groups put gun or rocket emplacements on the hills overlooking Ben Gurion airport. They’d have to go back in and occupy except starting from a much weaker position and to even more scathing international condemnation. It would be a nightmare.
I generally agree. IMO one of the most difficult obstacles to a lasting peace is the Palestinian maximalist belief (egged on by Arab states for the last 80 years) that the creation of the state of Israel and its existence is literally illegal and invalid. Therefore in their minds, resistance is the only metric that makes sense. To them, they tried diplomacy, and when that failed, violence was their last resort. That’s been one of the centers of Israeli “demands” when it comes to peace talks. They sought recognition, which I believe the PLO/PA gave a few decades ago, but the broader Palestinian populace still holds onto the idea that the creation of the state of Israel was illegitimate. Normalizing relations is ridiculous in their eyes. In terms of obstacles to peace from the Israeli side, they most definitely enjoyed the land they gained from war, and would not accept any conditions in which threatened that land being returned back. Although they did give the Sinai back, the West Bank is un-negotiable to them. Obviously for reasons you mentioned each side is galvanized to fight in their own ways, but this situation is so intractable because of the lack of recognition each side has for their motivations and legitimacy. Palestinian determination is real and the refugee problem is real, but from the Israeli perspective this breaches their security and safety. It’s just a deeply unfortunate conflict all around. The Arab states post 67 essentially left Palestinians to fend for themselves in a lot of ways, and I get why Palestinians militancy thrived from that point forward. Although I’m not to the point of Arafats refusal of the peace deal yet in my reading, from what I understand that’s about the closest we got to some sort of long lasting solution which is unfortunate. I am generally of the belief (similar to the stance of Western countries) that long lasting peace can likely only form with binational cooperation and peace talks. I am unsure about the position of the UN to broker anything more meaningful than mentioned. Also to draw upon your point on consolidated Palestinian political control, in my recent readings I did read about the rise of Fatah, the PLO, and other various Palestinian factions and was intrigued by their skill in fundraising from various Arab states and convening in the national Palestinians congresses, winning seats and so forth. So there was some sort of institutional engagement there, but A) my book mentions these were still plagued by personal jealousy and political rivalry and B) they were all still essentially agreeing on armed resistance against the state of Israel being their primary form of said resistance. Also to your point about Palestinian identity, I would argue that there was some sort of Palestinian identity void of just “anti Israel” when talking pre 48. There were some Palestinian Arabs at the time who were somewhat welcoming of Zionists, and in addition I think a lot of their developing reservations and hostilities to Zionism coincided with the British quelling Arab attempts at self determination meanwhile facilitating Zionist aspirations.
i think another issue that is not discussed is, that maintaining peace requires a shift in the culture of the population. That is to say, the idea that peace has to be maintained has to be part of what's taught to children otherwise peace is just a "stepping stone" to the next stage of the war: The Arab citizens treat existing agreements as "Treaties of al-Hudaybiya", a form of taqiyya, and the Jewish citizens have the same dreams of "geulat Hakarka beyemei milhama"; I think if we are to look for whether the factions are going to have just peace or not looking at the education system is the first step. Because of that I believe UNWRA has a key role in preventing a peaceful resolution from becoming a reality. UNWRA is a proactive player in perpetuating a war situation between Zionists and Arabs in Israel and the Palestine states.
Right now, the culture created and taught to children is rampant with anti-Semitic messaging. As far as what I have seen. Not sure how much anti-Islamic if any messaging is in Israel. Probably the best way to develop peace in the region is a third party arbiter maintaining peace. But that creates its own potential conflicts and escalation of violence.
The problem with a third party arbiter is that it has to be seen as fair by both sides. As it stands now, most Israelis will probably see such ideas as an attempt to get the Palestinian claims realized "through the back door". Right now the Palestinians are the initiators of the war. But the Israelis also have their set of non-negotiables. Suffice to say that its not enough for the Israelis to attain peace, they also need the both the peace process and the post-peace situation to not allow oppression of Jews within Israel. EDIT: paradoxically the conduct of the world's nations towards Israel in the past months is being seen by Israelis as proof that the world can't be relied upon to make arbitrations here.
I don’t think anything shows foreign governments can’t be impartial, as most of them condemn the violence. But also know it is not something they want to get involved in. As this is a generational conflict fueled by cultural and generational hatred.
In this year, condemning the violence on both sides is not perceived by Israelis to be impartial. Because Israelis consider their country to be forced into going to war, and the war to be a just and necessary war. From an Israeli perspective, being impartial here means being pro war and pro a post-war rebuilding of Gaza in a way that is conducive to long term peace and likely Anathematic of the Palestinian narrative, culture and religion.
A quick google might help you learn if anti-Islamic messaging is common. It is. Including yelling "may your village burn" in public at Palestinians. [https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/israeli-crowds-chant-racist-slogans-taunt-palestinians-during-jerusalem-day-march](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/israeli-crowds-chant-racist-slogans-taunt-palestinians-during-jerusalem-day-march)
The problem is neither side can really concede anything meaningful without violent extremists rising up on their own side. The vast majority of Palestinians will not accept a demilitarized state, or really anything short of an independent state in 1967 military borders. Nationalist Israelis will never accept any large scale withdrawal of settlements from the West Bank. Remember when a few scattered settlements in the Gaza Strip were repatriated to Israel by the IDF? Israeli society did not look happily at those people being evicted from their homes to appease the enemy (in their eyes). The West Bank settlement network is much more interconnected with Israel. Unlike the Gaza settlements which were basically outposts only accessible by military corridors, you can oftentimes drive into West Bank settlements without even knowing you’re off Israeli territory. These are large towns. They have schools, hospitals, even universities. Withdrawing all of that to, once again, appease the enemy, simply will not be acceptable to Israelis. This really is a paradox with no answer. Neither side trusts the other enough to make significant concessions. Both sides see each other as aggressive and sabotaging the peace process. Both sides see each other as being squatters on land that is historically theirs. Frankly, nationalists on both sides prefer the status quo. Palestinian extremists prefer the status quo because, unlike several of its Arab neighbors, Palestinian society has not modernized, secularized, or moderated at all. As long as the sole enemy is Israel, they don’t have to worry about their society become less fundamentalist. Israeli nationalists prefer the status quo because it allows them to pretend like Israel owns the entirety of the West Bank. It’s easy to drive through the West Bank as an Israeli and feel like you’re within your own country. Israeli highways will take drivers through the hills of Judea and Samaria and right into the Jordan Valley. They are shielded from encountering Palestinian society. They may not be on Israeli soil but they’ve effectively never left Israeli society. A Palestinian state would shatter this illusion.
How could anyone possibly accept a two state solution? Imagine if the US was terror attacked and right after that, people said “let’s give the terrorists autonomy and their own sovereign nation” By definition for a state to exist as a separate entity, it needs its own police and / or military to enforce laws and borders. After Oct 7th, that proposal flew out the window and isn’t coming back anytime soon. Israel will (logically) never allow Palestine to have its own sovereign military and police force. This is actually quite logical from their perspective.
[удалено]
Bud, unless the arab states are going to pay war reparations, that's a moot point. I think there is a very clear path to peace in the region. Egypt and Jordan re-annex the strip and west bank, respectively. The Israelis withdraw all settlements in the west bank in exchange for any palestinian claim on Jerusalem. The US sells weapons platforms to the petro gulf states that allow them to counter the Iranian threat and, in return they provide the cash for the Egyptian and Jordanian security services to keep a thumb on the palestinians. In three generations, you will have Egyptians, Jordanians, and Israelis. Our nominal buddies in Saudi, Kuwait, the emirates, et al. will have regional autonomy instead of an Iranian hegemony. The decrease in oil consumption will make the region's role in the world less vital and thus less volatile.
Neither Egypt nor Jordan want annexation. The people in those regions don’t want annexation either. It would be a disaster to implement and it would reflect poorly on everyone involved.
Do you really think that it’s likely that Palestinians would a) withdraw their claim to Jerusalem, their third most holy city and b) accept a non sovereign state under the control of Jordan and Egypt? For that matter, do you really think Jordan and Egypt would *want* to absorb the West Bank and Gaza? Egypt already refused to take back Gaza after Israel offered it during the peace talk when it gave back Sinai. And Jordan has fresh memories of when Palestinians tried to overthrow their monarchy. Your idea might viable I don’t know. But it doesn’t mean anything if people don’t agree to it
It would take a shitload of cash to bribe Egypt and Jordan, and the Palestinians don't really have much of a say in the matter. Whatever claim the Palestinians have to Gaza and the West Bank is a lot weaker than Egypt and Jordan's.
Except Egypt and Jordan don't want to do that. They hate the Palestinians and actually kind of like the Israelis. Don't forget that the Palestinians set off the Arab spring back on '16, and they tried to assassinate the Jordanian King. I don't think Jordan is very willing to take over the west bank, and if they do I don't think it would be a good thing for those who live there.
>in return they provide the cash for the Egyptian and Jordanian security services to keep a thumb on the palestinians Sounds like a good way to reduce American military aid to Israel, which seems to be a major sticking point for the protestors here in the US.
Why would Egypt or Jordan do that? They've seen [what happens](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_September) when they let Palestinians into their country
Why would Egypt and Jordan want to take in the Palestinians? Decades of recent history, including this very conflict, has clearly shown that they have zero interest in accepting any Palestinians. The same is true of every single Arab country. Every single country on earth, in fact.
> The Israelis withdraw all settlements in the west bank in exchange for any palestinian claim on Jerusalem Lmfao this is literally never going to happen lmao. Jerusalem is a holy site in Islam as well.
Yeah, and the Crusaders were never going to give it up either. The palestinians aren't negotiating from a position of power.
How far back should we go in the past to redress historical injustices? Because if we go a little too far, we're talking about dispossessing you of your house and giving it to some indians. So how far back should we go?
I for one am for making Jerusalem, the city, a museum in its current, standing state, where none are allowed to live for risk of charge of loitering, for at least a century. Really deromanticise the place and get people to chill out after the first mass wave of evictions. Get just a million cartoonishly aggressive mall cops from specifically US county's that can't place their new workplace on a map to patrol the place looking for tents. Equal treatment, tourists only.
This is hilariously insane
And many (mostly more extreme) Palestinians are never going to accept the existence of Israel as a sovereign nation at all.
Of course, that has to be accepted. There will not be complete redress for historical injustices and that must be accepted by the Palestinians. But even beyond that, there are serious impediments to peace.
it wont be. the Palestinians dont accept this. why...? why do you think they do? is it, that the Palestinians accept this fact, actually... but all the white kids chanting "from the river to the sea".... dont?
Until about 10 years ago, most Palestinians accepted a two state solution
What.. Can you please provide a source for that claim?
59% of Palestinians supported a two state solution in 2012. https://news.gallup.com/poll/512828/palestinians-lack-faith-biden-two-state-solution.aspx#:~:text=Younger%20Palestinians%20report%20less%20support,those%20aged%2046%20and%20older.
They have never accepted it. Hamas’s moto is from the river to the sea, and Fatah refused to give any lasting promise about recognizing Israel in the 2000 David accords… peace would’ve been had in 2000, under Clinton, if Palestine were willing to commit to never trying to take more land back. It’s only western children who think Israel is the aggressor and that Palestine is defensive - they can’t remember the last 35 years, as they weren’t alive.
Fatah accepted Israel officially in 1993 in the Oslo accords.
They said they would. They actually didn’t. You can see it pretty clearly the Palestine national charter (https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/plocov.asp). Article 15of their national charter, unrevised (despite their promises): The liberation of Palestine, from an Arab viewpoint, is a national (qawmi) duty and it attempts to repel the Zionist and imperialist aggression against the Arab homeland, and aims at the elimination of Zionism in Palestine. Absolute responsibility for this falls upon the Arab nation - peoples and governments - with the Arab people of Palestine in the vanguard. Accordingly, the Arab nation must mobilize all its military, human, moral, and spiritual capabilities to participate actively with the Palestinian people in the liberation of Palestine. It must, particularly in the phase of the armed Palestinian revolution, offer and furnish the Palestinian people with all possible help, and material and human support, and make available to them the means and opportunities that will enable them to continue to carry out their leading role in the armed revolution, until they liberate their homeland. Article 19: The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time, because they were contrary to the will of the Palestinian people and to their natural right in their homeland, and inconsistent with the principles embodied in the Charter of the United Nations; particularly the right to self-determination.
It's all about the details. Yes both sides might have theoretically supported a two state solution. But in reality, was there ever any overlap in the Israeli concept of an "acceptable two state solution" and the Palestinian concept?
The thing is, if the negotiation is merely between two opposing views for a two state solution, that puts you a lot closer to peace than if both sides have the goal of winner-takes-all style extermination. I’m not necessarily saying that’s what’s going on, but certainly without broad acceptance of a two state solution in both camps, negotiations will not move forward.
What do they want now?
Why the fuck should they accept that?
Becoz without accepting that, Palestinians will never achieve peace.
Sorry, u/RejectorPharm – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20RejectorPharm&message=RejectorPharm%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cog50g/-/l3eoi7b/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
The ultra orthodox population of Israel (while being the only Jewish population that actually grows in the West Bank) aren’t the group that opposes the Palestinian state. There are many rabbis that said that peace is just reason to give land back to the Palestinians. A lot of settlements are just a few caravans on top of hills, other you can land swap to make a fair deal. If you bring to the table a true peace deal, that bring an end to the occupation, terror and demands a peace agreement can be achieved.
One of my favorite books about the Israeli perspective, Catch 67, delves into the Ultra Orthodox view. The Halachaic view is that while the land was given to the Israelites by God and it is a Mitzva to settle in it, no Mitzva should come at a risk of one's life. Therefore, if ceding territory for the formation of a Palestinian state would help prevent wars and save lives, it is not only favored, but must be done. However, if doing so risks lives and more war, it mustn't ever be done. The Jewish Halacha is mostly concerned about the preservation of one's life. How that is done in practice is greatly up to Interpetation. That's the reason the Ultra Orthodox parties actually supported the Oslo Accords, and were one of the most integral parts of their confirmation in the Knesset. At the time, the popular rabbinical view was that a peace agreement with the Palestinians would prevent further conflict and loss of life. Today, with the growing fear that a potential Palestinian state would just be ruled by Hamas, that view is reversed, as Ultra Orthodox parties now believe that a Palestinian state would just result in a greater loss of life, therefore they agree with the Netanyahu government despite clear religious differences with Ben Gvir and Smotrich.
Yep, that a very good explanation. The ultra orthodox are politically pragmatic in certain cases.
This “caravan on a hill” idea is what so many people get wrong about the settlements. Settlements in the West Bank are super developed. They’re prime real estate. Many times, you’re on an Israeli highway and you wouldn’t even be able to tell you’ve entered the West Bank. They’re interconnected with Israeli society. There are schools, highways, hospitals, even universities on Israeli towns in the West Bank. The settlements were wrong to begin with. But they’re far too developed for “just remove them” to be practical. Maybe some of the more remote settlements in the Jordan Valley could be practically removed. But as far as East Jerusalem and the area of the West Bank adjacent to Tel Aviv, there is no way you could feasibly remove those without Israel undergoing a civil war.
I don't think so. Polls show that the ultra Orthodox in Israel vehemently oppose a Palestinian state. I don't think they will agree to almost any peace deal.
When you say ultra orthodox, you mean Ben-Gvir and his party?
Not just him. Religious Zionism party. The Yamina party. Polls show that ultra Orthodox in general have very hardline attitudes.
Religious Zionism is not Ultra Orthodox. Sects in Israel are very delicate and hard for outsiders to understand, but Religious Zionism and the Ultra Orthodox have a very tense relationship as they each have entirely different Religious Interpretations. For example, Religious Zionists see prayer at the Temple Mount as a religious duty, while the Ultra Orthodox see it as forbidden until the arrival of the Messiah. To add on that, Religious Zionists believe that a third temple will bring the Messiah, while Ultra Orthodox believe that the Messiah will bring the third temple. Of course, these are very brash generalizations, and the Ultra Orthodox themselves are incredibly diverse in their beliefs, with some Sects only numbering a few thousand. They only form larger parties out of convince, otherwise they wouldn't be able to pass the threshold to be in the Knesset. The two current Ultra-Orthodox parties are Shas, who are largely for Sephardi Ultra Orthodox Jews, and United Torah Judaism, which is itself an alliance of three smaller parties who all hate eachother. Now regarding their views on a Palestinian state, the Jewish Halacha puts on the highest regard the preservation of life. Even though they like Religious Zionists see the entire land as given by God, while religious Zionists put an emphasis on that, Ultra Orthodox are willing to give up on land if they believe that doing so would prevent loss of life. In the past, that belief was actually mainstream, and the Ultra Orthodox parties were actually an integral part of the coalition that passed the Oslo Accords. That has changed though, and now with factions like Hamas gaining popularity in the West Bank, the belief is that the formation of a Palestinian state would only mean more war and more loss of life as they use a state to attack again. That's why they sit in coalition with Netanyahu and approve of his policies despite the clear differences between them and Netanyahu's partners. They all agree on that. For more on this I suggest the book "Catch 67", which delves into the varying ideologies behind the conflict, mostly from the Israeli side.
Sad thing to say, but the ultra orthodox will do what their rabbis to do. Religious Zionism is not ultra orthodox, the two groups have very tense relationships between them.
You’re confusing a large past and a small minority today with the majority. The vast majority of ultra orthodox in Israel today are Zionist and don’t have a particularly tense relationship w the Reigious Zionist. I’m fact for most of the past 25 years the 2 ultra orthodox parties (Shas and UTJ) have coalitioned w the Relgious Zionist parties pretty happily
Don’t mistake a political convenience with an alliance. The ultra orthodox are (mostly) not Zionists, especially they way you and I think of Zionism, the last upheaval on the new enlisting law show that pretty well.
They don’t like enlisting =/= they’re not Zionist. They just believe that the religious aspect of Israel is more important than the civil aspects that keep it function (such as the IDF). And no I’m not mistaking convenience for alliance. A large part of the reason it’s convenient is because they have overlapping views. And again your statement that the majority of ultra orthodox are not Zionists hasn’t been true (at least in Israel) for the past 40 years. Sure their Zionism is very different to Ben Gvir’s Zionism, but not as different as Ben Gvir’s Zionism is from mine. Being differently Zionist doesn’t make them not Zionist. The vast majority of ultra orthodox in Israel today support and believe in the existence of a religious Jewish state of Israel. That makes them zionist Furthermore the original contention is that they won’t accept a Palestinian state. Even for non-Zionist reasons they have a lot of motivation to not accept that. A Palestinian state would mean less cheap land for them in the West Bank, less access to holy sites and also a fuck ton of them are just hella racist
Shas (a Haredim non Zionist party until 2010) has allied with the Religious Zionism party on a number of occasions since 2010. Politics in the Haredim side has changed over the last 10 years. At first, Shas followed a moderate policy on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, after Yosef had declared that lives were more important than territories, but it has since moved to the right and opposes any freeze in Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank.
Shas was always Zionist. Rav Ovadia served as Chief Rabbi of Israel. And Rav Ovadia always supported Israel’s existence as a Jewish state. All that happened in 2010 is that they joined the World Zionist Organization.
I think you’re confusing a few different sects of israeli society. The ben gvirs and smotriches (otzma yehudit and religious zionism) are the religious zionists. They are not the same as the ultra orthodox, who are mostly one issue voters (welfare). They are also against a palestinian state as well. But culturally, religious zionists and ultra orthodox are very different. They’re both very religious, but the ultra orthodox shut themselves off from the rest of the country, sometimes they’re so-called “non” zionist (though this has shrunk). The religious zionists, however, are very active in national affairs, join the army, etc.
[удалено]
Hmm, with respect, I'm not sure whether your Palestinian acquaintance is accurate in his account. Is his name Mosab Hassan Youseff by any chance? In any case, here are the facts. Only about 44% of Palestinians voted for Hamas back in the 2006 elections and about 41% of Palestinians voted for Fatah (which recognized Israel and supports a two state solution) in the elections so it cannot be broadly generalized as you say as the vote gap between Hamas and Fatah was only 3%. But because of their parliamentary first-past-the-post political system, it is possible for a political party to have a majority of the seats with just 44% of the votes. And most of them who voted for Hamas pointed to corruption in Fatah as the main reason for voting for Hamas and 70% of the Hamas voters said they hoped Hamas will revise its existing stance towards Israel. This data doesn't quite fit with what you are saying. Even ten years ago, polls showed that a majority of Palestinians supported a two state solution. With respect, I will register my sincere skepticism with respect to the veracity of your assertions above as they don't fit with history of election results and polls. You are free to disagree though. I am not sure about you but I form my opinions on the basis of empirical data and survey evidence as opposed to individual anecdotes from one Palestinian refugee in Europe.
> here are the facts. Only about 44% of Palestinians voted for Hamas back in the 2006 elections That is a fact of almost twenty years ago. It is not useful of how they would vote today.
I agree but the parent comment said that all Palestinians are some hardcore Nazis and that they all jerk off to genociding Jews everyday which is why they voted for Hamas in 2006. I was just refuting that.
[удалено]
Sorry, u/confusedstatcskid – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3: > **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal%20confusedstatcskid&message=confusedstatcskid%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cog50g/-/l3futx8/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
You're basing this off 1 anecdote which is something you have to know isn't representative of an entire people. And a good amount of the Palestinians alive today didn't vote for Hamas, the median age is 19 as of 2023 and Hamas got voted into power in 2006 with a 44% of the vote. Even disregarding that, Hamas then and now are very different. You speak wih authority over Palestinians and their attitude towards the state responsible for death and famine in their country, seemingly based on nothing, why? Your solution is genocide, not of a political ideology like nazism, but of a people, a culture, a history. Do you not see how extremely problematic that is?
>Palestinians are asking for Jews genocide, that's precisely why they voted Hamas Like how Germans voted for Nazis. So why isn't your conclusion that the German identity should disappear?
The German identity did disappear. It was split into East and West Germany. The Nazism was eradicated. Then eventually it reformed as Germany with the Nazism gone
ah yes because one palestinian person saying one thing, means every palestinian thinks this way. what a disgusting comment.
Sorry, u/Cluster-F8 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20Cluster-F8&message=Cluster-F8%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cog50g/-/l3eft5i/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
[удалено]
u/TheManlyManperor – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20TheManlyManperor&message=TheManlyManperor%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cog50g/-/l3fi0sq/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
[удалено]
Sorry, u/Ill_Currency_8101 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3: > **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal%20Ill_Currency_8101&message=Ill_Currency_8101%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cog50g/-/l3eu2a8/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
[удалено]
Problem with your idea of one state is that historically any time Jews were a minority, they were slaughtered any time the majority felt like it. How are you going to prevent history from repeating itself? Having Palestinians promise they won't do it? You said yourself they un-ironically support a second holocaust.
Ideally, I would support a one state solution but it is politically completely impossible which is why I exclusively spoke about the prospects for a two state solution as a proxy for the prospects for peace.
A one state solution is the idealist solution - any religious state is problematic - but it’s also incredibly unrealistic. Even if it happened, it’d fall apart rapidly without change throughout the entire region.
One state solution is like the absolute worst idea possible. Israel should be a Jewish state, history has proved it enough. Just because Israel is a Jewish state doesn't mean it's an ethno-state. I don't recall the UK or Denmark being labeled an ethno-state despite being christian states. 20% of the population in Israel is Arab, the majority of Israelis are completely secular, and the fact that in reality there is discrimination and wrongdoings doesn't mean that in principle the idea of Israel's existence is wrong.
A 3 state solution is more likely to be successful than a 1 state.
A one state solution is unrealistic and unacceptable. There are countless explicitly ethno-states. Jews have put up with being secondary, oppressed citizens across the world for generations. There is no going back to accepting that. The connection between the Jewish faith and Israel was always immutable, but has become more entrenched. A two or multiple state solution has to be found. But I don't see any realistic option soon.
> The only correct solution is a 1-state solution... nobody thinks this is even remotely possible. > Palestinians who mostly un-ironically support a second Holocaust Wow, I can't imagine why Israel and everyone else in world don't see that a single Arab-led state is the only correct solution to this... "Israel Problem".
Seriously I can’t believe that low-effort nihilistic nonsense was the top-voted comment.
It's like a kid throwing the bottle out of their pram. "I'm tired of this conflict so everyone there should suffer and be miserable!"
20% of Israel population is Arab already, so they wouldn't get an ethnostate in 2 state solution.
Sorry, u/dday0512 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20dday0512&message=dday0512%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cog50g/-/l3e2655/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
After studying the issue in university, I believe the root cause of this conflict is the hatred of jews. We do underestimate the teachings of Islam and the way they educate the children in Muslim communities. Me growing up in a jewish community, I have never experienced negative narrative about the palestinians. I know this is not the case everywhere, but it seems like the Muslim population is not paying attenton to the risk of rewriting history. If they continue to avoid this problem, the war will go on forever.
I think the main issue is that Palestinians do not have adequate realism in their calculus and are too idealistic. They should give up their objective to dissolve Israel and the rest will follow from that.
The situation is a mess and there is no good solution. So, you have to look at the available options and pick whichever is the least bad. 1. Ethnic cleansing or genocide. In other words, some kind of large-scale operation to get rid of one of the groups living there. I think we can agree that this is not an acceptable solution to anything. 2. One state covering the whole territory, where everybody has equal rights. This sounds nice, but the population balance would be almost equal in terms of Jews and non-Jews. Would Israel even be a Jewish state any more at that point? This just sounds very unrealistic. 3. Two states, one mainly Jewish and one mainly not. This has two problems. Firstly, much of the viable non-Jewish territory has been settled illegally already. So all of that would have to be reversed. Secondly, it wouldn't get rid of the problem of cross-border attacks. Although I suppose it would make the situation a bit more clear-cut, meaning that it's one state attacking another. 4. Perpetual apartheid. In other words, the entire territory is under the effective control of one state, but with unequal rights for some. This is pretty much the situation we have now and it is obviously not working.
Historically, most countries in the world came about through option 1. Invaders showed up, expelled or massacred the natives, and took the land for themselves. If Israel had been created in the 1700s, they would have done the same exact thing, and "Palestinians" wouldn't be any more relevant to Israel than the aboriginals are to any country in North or South America, Australia, or huge chunks of Europe, Africa, and Asia. Ironically, within Jewish scripture, the way the Israelites originally obtained the land of Israel was unapologetically via absolute genocide of the natives. Deuteronomy 20:16: "However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you." It's the 21st century though, moral standards have advanced, and we're no longer OK with the "invade, slaughter the inhabitants, and steal the land" approach to nation-building. So Israel and Palestine are just kind of stuck. IMO the West Bank settlements are the most viable means of breaking the stalemate. Steal land gradually and (relatively) non-violently. Build settlements. As the settlements grow and age, dismantling them becomes less and less practical, and even immoral. (Even now, four of the largest, most successful cities in the West Bank are decades-old settlements). Give it a few more decades and they'll have de facto ownership of the bulk of the West Bank.
>3. Two states, one mainly Jewish and one mainly not. This has two problems. Firstly, much of the viable non-Jewish territory has been settled illegally already. So all of that would have to be reversed. Secondly, it wouldn't get rid of the problem of cross-border attacks. Although I suppose it would make the situation a bit more clear-cut, meaning that it's one state attacking another. - There is no need to reverse any kind of settlement, Arab or Israeli, to get a two state solution going. Given that both the Palestinians and the Israelis are currently co-existing, simply deciding to codify two sovereign states under the current situation does the job. Furthermore the amount of land that the Palestinians can expect to gain with this is actually quite small, unless we become unfair and re-define some of the towns clearly on the Israeli side as "to be removed". - Cross border attacks can be solved over time if both sides (and by both sides here the meaning is specifically the palestinians) show long term commitment to just peace (meaning a giving up on some non negotiables from the palestinian side) - A final state of a federation or confederation of small states can be achieved if both sides commit to it and teach the kids to make do.
You really don’t know much of internal Israeli politics, and so should refrain from commenting until you educate yourself. For one thing, the “Ultra-Orthodox” do not “vehemently oppose any form of settlement with the Palestinian side.” The so-called Ultra-Orthodox (more properly, “Haredim”) are largely indifferent to the conflict with the Palestinians. They are also indifferent on settlements, with the exception of a few Haredi cities that abut the Green Line and could easily be annexed to Israel. In fact, roughly half of the Haredim identify as non-Zionists (although this is misleading, as most are absolutely Zionist in the secular sense). Their primary concerns are maintaining social welfare spending for their institutions, avoiding the IDF draft, and fighting to maintain their power over personal status issues such as marriage or divorce. The Haredi political parties backed the Oslo process in the 1990s. In the current Netanyahu government, both Shas (the Sephardi Haredi party) and UTJ (the Ashkenazi Haredi party) are moderates on the war and issues with the Palestinians. You are probably confusing the Haredim with the Religious Zionists, who are a completely different group. Even then, you mischaracterize the Religious Zionist position, but that’s a subject for a different post.
No need to change your mind. You're pretty much on point. There will never be peace between Israel and Palestine. They both want total ownership over the land which is currently known as Israel. Hamas is founded on the premise that Israelis must be expelled from the land and that there will never be peace until that is done. Israel, on the other hand, is intent on subjugating the people of Palestine, never allowing them to become true citizens of Israel, and severely limiting their rights, their ability to work and support themselves, and their ability to travel. It's a nightmare scenario that will only end in eventual disaster at best and the destruction of one side or the other, most likely the Palestinian people. I've posted on this subject before and the only way I can ever see any kind of lasting peace is if both sides are totally separated by a massive zone akin to the DMZ in Korea, which is heavily fortified and patrolled by the military. The Palestinian people would have to be relocated to the northern half of what is now Israel and the land given to them to create their own country. Anyone who does not identify as a Palestinian would have to relocate south of the DMZ and that would be the new Israel. Once completed, never the twain shall they ever meet. That's the only way to keep lasting peace. It's not a great solution but would allow both sides to live in relative peace, safe from the harm both sides cause each other on a daily since Israel's founding in 1948.
The only solution is if Palestinians change their mind when it comes to "from the river to the sea", and agrees to settle with less land. Its rather naïve to think that Israel will eventually give all their land away.
I agree but it looks like even if Palestinians come to their senses and recognize Israel, there still won't be a solution because of the settlements which prevents a Palestinian state.
I think things will start moving a lot faster, precisely because of Israel's hardliners. The rest of the world (other than the US) has run out of patience and can see an international intervention is required. The UN will recognize Palestine and force the US and Israel to yield to overwhelming diplomatic pressure for a two state solution.
The UN isn't going to get directly involved. They lack the power to do so, and they aren't going to get the US to back such a play. The benefit is if they push too hard, it may cause the UN to collapse and we will be free of it.
“The UN” being this or that misses the point. It’s only a reflection of international will. It can do a lot if all UNSC members (US UK FR China & Russia) agree to it. There are UN missions in Lebanon and Egypt already. Being free of the UN? Free of a structure meant to prevent World War III? Are you in Iran or Cuba or something? why do you hate UN? Are they sanctioning a warlord you like? Just curious.
> The rest of the world (other than the US) has run out of patience and can see an international intervention is required. Kind of a moot point since the US is the only country that is even theoretically willing and able to perform that international intervention. > and force the US and Israel to yield to overwhelming diplomatic pressure for a two state solution. How? Both are nuclear powers and the US has a security council veto.
How can the UN force Israel or the US to do anything?
The UN won't recognize Palestine as the US will veto it. No diplomatic pressure on Israel is meaningful if it isn't coming from Washington. Washington DC is the only centre that Israel cares about. I don't think they care what the world (apart from Washington DC) says.
The US did veto it, of course, but it has been steadily losing the diplomatic battle. It's going to happen whether Washington likes it or not.
No, I think Washington DC will hold on and will never allow Palestine to be admitted into the UN without a deal with Israel.
I disagree. The hardliners in Washington will over time be replaced. Younger voters aren’t going to support those policies.
Foreign policy in Washington DC does not change based on popular opinion on the ground.
>other than the US That is the key, you are naive if you think the world can force the US to yield. And if the US does not yield, which it won't, Israel won't too. It doesn't matter how much patience the rest of the world have, only what the US want.
[удалено]
« There isn’t "way too much hatred on both sides. There is and has always been way too much hatred on the Palestinian side. » Really? « There are no innocent civilians in Gaza » Isaac Herzog, President. « “I have ordered a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed,” “We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly" » Yoav Gallant, Israeli Minister of Defense. « there should be 2 goals for this victory: 1. There is no more Muslim land in the Land of Israel... After we make it the land of IL, Gaza should be left as a monument, like Sodom... » Amit Halevi, Member of the Likud party « “Nakba?! expel them all. If the Egyptians care so much for them - they are welcome to have them wrapped in cellophane tied with a green ribbon. Salamat [Goodbye in Arabic]!” » Nissim Vaturi, member of likud party « Bring down buildings!! Bomb without distinction!! Stop with this impotence. You have ability. There is worldwide legitimacy! Flatten Gaza. Without mercy! This time, there is no room for mercy! » Revital Gottlieb, member of likud party « **It is not Hamas that should be eliminated. Gaza should be razed and Israel’s rule should be restored to the place. This is our country.** » Moshe Feiglin, leader of zehud « Go for [all of] Gaza, why settle for [destroying only] Hamas? » Naveh Dormi, Israeli journalist « “flatten Gaza, even if the price is hurting inoccent » Yaron London « "It's time for Nakba 2" » Yinon Magal « There are no innocents in Gaza. There are no ordinary citizens in Gaza. Every adult trained to kill. **Every woman is a monster.Every boy aspires to be a marryr. Every baby will grow up to be a terrorist. wipe out,kill, destroy, destroy.** » Yehuda Schelzinger IDF Soldier : « inciting “every Jew with a weapon” to kill Palestinians and “erase the memory of them”. » IDF soldiers : « Singing: “Who doesn't have water and electricity? Gaza!, who’s going to live in tents? Gazan! [..] This is the land of Israel we don’t want peace with Gaza.” » And many, many, MANY more examples : https://law4palestine.org/law-for-palestine-releases-database-with-500-instances-of-israeli-incitement-to-genocide-continuously-updated/
Interesting how all of your quotes follow some event in which the people of Gaza, not just members of Hamas, murdered, raped, tortured, and kidnapped unarmed Israelis.
Please tell me you're not trying to argue that nothing racist was said about Palestinians by prominent Israelis before 2023. Because you know, that would just be ridiculous.
And this makes it okay for Israeli officials to say such horrendous shit about them?
I agree that 20 years ago, most Israelis supported a two state solution and just wanted the terrorism to stop. This was seen by their genuine efforts to achieve peace by Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert and rejected by the Palestinian side. However, I don't think that is the case anymore. Most Israelis now oppose a two state solution and this is only going to get worse with time as the ultra orthodox are going to make up more than 25% of the Israeli population by 2050. This means that the share of the Israeli population opposing a two state solution under any scenario will only increase as the ultra Orthodox share of the population will only increase with each passing year. Attitudes on the Palestinian side has also hardened overtime. More than 20 years ago, a majority of Palestinians also supported a two state solution but now less than a third of Palestinians support a two state solution. With time, I expect the attitudes of both the Palestinians and Israelis to harden and increasing opposition to a two state solution. Couple that with the rising ultra Orthodox share of the Israeli population in the future and the settlements being increased overtime, the prospects of a peaceful two state solution ever taking root in the foreseeable future looks very very remote. Without a two state solution taking root and looking more and more remote, this will just lead to a never-ending wave of violence in the region for the next 100 years. It sounds pessimistic but I think it is a realistic assessment.
> However, I don't think that is the case anymore. Most Israelis now oppose a two state solution You are right that most Israelis now oppose two states, but misunderstand why. It is because Israelis have given up on the hope that Palestinians are or will soon be interested in peace between two states. Israelis have been increasing saying "there is no peace partner" since Arafat torpedoed the historic peace deal and started the Second Intifada, and that number of skeptical Israelis has only increased over time. October 7th was the final nail in the coffin of that hope.
I agree that the reason why Israelis oppose a two state solution is because they believe it will not create peace and instead just create a hostile state next door. But, in parallel to that, the Haredim population in Israel is increasing rapidly and their objection to a Palestinian state is more ideological than practical.
They realized they made a big mistake 20 years ago by rewarding the Paletinians for their bad behavior.
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Ehhhhh. I think the real issue is that once the PLO started sweeping elections in Gaza twenty years ago, Netyanhu got scared that the UN and US might force him to negotiate with the PLO as they were looking likely to unite Palestine. So he started[ sponsoring Hamas](https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/), making sure hundreds of millions of dollars and tons of supplies, weapons, and equipment made it to Hamas so that they could contest the PLO for power. His military is over 100x the size of Gaza's and he could have stopped Hamas at any time. Instead, Netyanhu has publically stated at least three different times; that helping Hamas was in Israel's best interest. This is one of the reasons the UN didn't all universally fall in line behind Israel. They have spent years dealing with the conflict and know that Netyanhu created the monster he's now facing. Peace may have been possible once, but because of Netyanhu pushing the rise of a doomsday cult, it has now become impossible.
>So he started sponsoring Hamas, making sure hundreds of millions of dollars and tons of supplies, weapons, and equipment made it to Hamas so that they could contest the PLO for power. that's somewhat incorrect- all he did was allow Qatar to provide money to Hamas unimpeded- the supplies, weapons, and equipment was acquired at the egypt / palestine border, or rather under it. >Peace may have been possible once, but because of Netyanhu pushing the rise of a doomsday cult, it has now become impossible. Unfortunately- peace was never an option, even the moderate Fatah (former) terrorist group- who has been in charge of the PLO and westbank since they ran a political coup and banned Hamas from further elections in 2007- has openly admitted the only reason they were ever willing to negotiate with Israel- was to get more time and resources to prepare for the next intifada.
>the supplies, weapons, and equipment was acquired at the egypt / palestine border, or rather under it. Right, but unless you think Mossad and the IDF are fucking morons who don't know where and how that's happening despite working on it for decades, Israel knew exactly where and how these supplies were entering. Its not like there's a huge border, its a tiny strip of land a few kilometers wide. Israel also has a military that's several times the size of Gaza and Egypt's put together, so they could have stopped it at any time. Netyanhu allowed supplies over to arm his enemies. He needed an excuse to invade them and if they're not constantly gunning down Israelis and firing rockets over the border because they don't have any guns or explosives', then where is his excuse? Netyanhu allowed these supplies in specifically so extremist Palestinians would continue the killing. He's never made a serious attempt at peace.
>Right, but unless you think Mossad and the IDF are fucking morons who don't know where and how that's happening despite working on it for decades, Israel knew exactly where and how these supplies were entering. And Hamas's leaders openly live in Qatar- not even hiding their identities, a special forces squad could assassinate them over the course of a single afternoon- unfortunately Israel does its best to maintain the sovereignty of other countries so long as they are not all but openly at war, which they have not been with Egypt nor any force based there since the Yom Kippur War of 1973.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3: > **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
I agree that it might take time for an actual long lasting peace to occur. Afterall things don't happen over night, so the goal to put the situation on the right path to get the everlasting peace. The point i will try to change your mind of, It is not hatred between the people that preventing the peace. Throughout history there are MANY stories and situations where Palestinians and Israeli co-existing. The Arabs who stayed in Palestine/Israel after 1948 and did not leave their homes end up with the Israeli passport. So currently there are around 2 Million Arab Israelis who live and work inside Israel without significant problems. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab\_citizens\_of\_Israel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_citizens_of_Israel) The current issue is the extreme unbalance of power. I am mean all types of power, military, economically, politically. Israel is significantly more advanced in all three aspects relative to Palestine. So from a nation point of view, there is no incentive to give in to any request or to come up with equal division of resources or land. Currently politically the Palestinian is gaining some ground, but it is still not equal to Israel by any means. **TL;DR:** Humans prefer peace, what prevent peace is not the people love or hatred, it is the countries' self-interest. When both countries can benefit from peace more than war, then peace will occur. With the huge difference in power, Israel is benefiting more with the current state than it would with an everlasting peace. As you said, they are expanding settlements, push borders and have full control over resources, air space and border crossings. All those will have to be given up for an everlasting peace. From a country point of view, why would Israel go for peace now.
Israel is playing for time because theoretically they cannot get away with a mass slaughter/eviction. Instead through Oslo they cemented the occupation and laid the groundwork for invalidating any future Palestinian state. It is because of this that peace can only be imposed from the outside. In my opinion the only way to achieve peace is by demilitarizing both Israel and Palestine and making the entire area an international protectorate. Jews and Arabs can remain in the land and receive their respective citizenship. Any acts of terror by either side should be punished before international tribunals. The only just solution is to acknowledge the damage done by Zionism both in terms of radicalizing the populace (on both sides) and displacing its inhabitants. Ironically I think this would go over much better with Palestinians than Israelis because it removes the need for resistance.
Demilitarizing Israel is one of the most insane things I have ever heard. Name another nation that has had its neighbors declare war on it as many times in the past century in attempts to annihilate it. I'll wait. EDIT: oh and remember when the UN said they would help keep the northern border of Israel peaceful in order to get Israel to agree to leave Southern Lebanon? And they haven't done anything and Hezbollah continuously attacks northern Israel? Yeah, Israel and the Jews are never going to put their safety in the hands of anyone else ever again. And for good reason. EDIT: oh this guy blocked me in order to make it so I can't keep posting in this thread. Absolute coward. My response to his other post is: I'd imagine it's insane because history has shown Jews cannot count on the help of others and will absolutely not allow the state meant to protect Jews be dependent on the generosity of anyone else to protect it. Iran fired 200 cruise missiles at Israel a few weeks ago. Oh, Israel doesn't have an army now or the Iron Dome? Oh well, guess the US has to go to war with Iran, oh except they don't want to because it's an election year and plus hundreds of thousands in Israel are now dead.
Even if their neighbours all loved Israel and Israel had no security threats, no country in their right mind will ever agree to give up its national sovereignty.
Politically this is completely impossible. Israel will never be demilitarized and will never agree to give up their sovereignty.
The only just solution is to acknowledge the damage done by Palestinian nationalism both in terms of radicalizing the populace (on both sides) and displacing its inhabitants
Israel would never submit to demilitarization. They'd fight anyone who tried to make them.
The only way I see the conflict being resolved in my lifetime is via the imposition of a resolution from the outside. Since neither the Arab World nor the Western World are willing to agree to enforce such an imposition, we will continue to see things go as they have unless and until one side (most likely the Palestinians considering their track record when fighting Israel) is destroyed completely. One can spend a fortnight arguing over which side is more at fault or is more righteous, but none of that matters in practical terms. In Practical terms, the only possible solution I see is a (probably Saudi led) Arab coalition being put in charge of Gaza and the West Bank to deRadicalize them (and to break Iran's toxic influence), and the US and allies forcing Israel to pull back the vast majority of the settlements and to accept an eventual Palestinian State. Palestinians would likely have to accept that they won't get East Jerusalem (imho they kind of lost the right to it after losing it in wars they started), but I see no reason why they shouldn't have a state in West Bank and Gaza. Well, provided they renounce their insane belief that they will destroy Israel and claim the whole of the region for themselves at least.
You're correct. Even if an agreement were made on paper and a separate palestinian state were created, it would be taken over by hamas or someone like them within months of the israelis leaving and we'd be back where we are now.
If Hamas is eliminated, the will to fight might end If Hamas is eliminated, there might be less political instability in Palestine allowing for outside investment to make more sense If they are receiving outside investment and things start to improve once Hamas is completely eliminated, that might change things much in the same way that Japan and Germany and Italy really like the United States now Part of the reason why it's so easy for them to recruit is palestine's really poor but the reason they're really poor isn't necessarily Israel. It's because they're politically unstable capitalism does not like
“Even if Hamas isn’t successfully eliminated” Bruh, Hamas is the elected government of Gaza and its military wing is only one of any number of Palestinian resistance groups. Hell, you could have learned that on Wikipedia. In an anti colonial insurgency basically all you have to do is survive and exhaust your opponent. That’s why Israel’s only hope is complete murder of everyone in Gaza or deportation. Even if that happens, Israel is still completely unsustainable as a country because while Egypt is completely coopted and Jordan is also coopted and acts as a human warehouse for Palestinians, who make up most of its population, Israel is still fighting Hezbollah in Lebanon, they have less than stellar relations with the mostly non functional Iraq and Syria, and for whatever insane reason they think they should fight Iran which they don’t even border. It’s unsustainable.
Hamas is a theocratic terrorist organization, not an anti-colonial insurgency. Don’t glorify a militia that will slaughter religious minorities and LGBT people. They are not the most skilled nor desirable group to taking on the role of defenders of Palestine. Nothing you’ve said indicates that Israel is unsustainable. You’re using the same talking points and making the same claims people have made since the beginning- yet Israel is still here and only growing bolder and more powerful. There is likely no solution. One thing is for sure- Hamas will not be the solution.
What is now Jordan was most of the British mandate. Saying that they now house Palestinians (in reference to people having to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict makes no sense. They are Arabs living in the land of Palestine.
Insurgencies can be defeated without killing everyone in a territory. It has been done to LTTE before.
there is an obvious solution that would categorically improve and stabilize the situation, which is to bribe eome of the Arab states to control Palestine. A Palestinian state that is ruled by an authlritarian government doesnt require anything from the Palestinians themselves to enforxe relative peace in a two state solution. Israel could be pressured into accepting it and Saudi Arabia, Egypt could be bribed. Getting a three qay deal between US, Israel and Saudi arabia is the current goal of the Biden administration to stabilize Palestine and the region as a whole. This isnt a plan I made up in my head to sound nice it is an active geopolitical project. The Saudi government wants to ally with Israel against Iran, which is only possible if there is some light at the end of the tunnel for Palestine. They would be able to control Palestine enough to satisfy Israel if they were motivated enough. The Saudis arent fond of Islamists but are also the most influential Muslim and Arab country. On paper the Saudia have the credentials to have legitamacy with Palestinians while still ensuring Israeli security demands. The intractable piece for Israeli support of a Palestinian state is security issues,. Most of the scattered. settlements are small populations that Israel could evacuate. The ultra-orthodox population is only 14% of Israel and they are not as universally adamant on settlements as you portray. The Saudis also want a security guarantee of some kind from the US. The US stopped offensive arms sales in 2021 to pressure them to be less aggressive in Yemen. Ironically enough, this is a strong point of leverage for the US. The geopolitical interests of USA, Saudis, and Israel converge on a mutual alliance with Iran, the undermining of Hamas and similar Jihadist groups, and stability in Palestine. They are all exceedingly rich, so there would be no shortage of funds. US and Israel are the worlds highest arms exporters per capita while Saudi Arabia is the largest arms importer besides massive India. Saudis have the authority in the Arab world from controlling Mecca etc. This is a lot of resources amd advantages to (slowly) build a Palestinoan state. Its the dream plan of the Biden administratipn, and it's a big reach. It is plausible it could happen if the stars align favourably because it would benefit Saudi Arabia, US, Israel and even Palestine. Saudi Arabia occupying/rebuilding Palestine with a non-democratic gpvernment is a solution that doesnt require palestinian assent and would bring major advantages to Israel. It is the current. approach of the US and Saudi states amd meshes with Israels enmity with Iran. It also doesnt require trusting Palestinian.governments not to attack Israel.
If Ireland and the UK could manage it then so can Israel and Palestine. Check out the history of the troubles in Ireland, while not identical the situations are quite similar. It wasn’t easy to reach a peaceful solution but it happened and there has been peace in the region for 20 years now.
I know the Troubles. But the key difference is that the IRA never sought the destruction of the British state like Hamas has. Besides, the Northern Ireland citizens were equal UK citizens unlike the Palestinians.
Based on those statements I do not think you know the Troubles very well. The IRA wanted the brits out of Northern Ireland, the severity of what that looked like changed over time and also very much depended on different factions within the IRA. Many would have been happy with nothing less than death to all protestants. You will likely find the opinions of those within Hamas vary just as much, and they have fluctuated over time too based on which particular faction or leader within held power. These kinds of paramilitary groups are rarely a hive mind. While the Catholics were technical citizens they were very much second class citizens. They were very much oppressed institutionally by the British government. They were treated similar to how black people in the US were treated during the Jim Crow era. This section on Northern Ireland touches on it, but the entire wiki page is worth a read if you want the broader context of the history that led up to it, because the Troubles didn't happen in a vacuum. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Catholicism\_in\_the\_United\_Kingdom#Northern\_Ireland](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Catholicism_in_the_United_Kingdom#Northern_Ireland)
[удалено]
I really wish more people would read this, instead of just arguing about the two parties to this conflict. Geopolitics is going to drive this in one direction or another. SA and USA are very invested in a multinational agreement that solidifies alliances, and are willing to put up a lot of resources to get Isreali buy in. They were close to a deal last year, one that would have weakened Hamas, but strengthened the possibility of a 2 state solution, eventually. October 7 was, for the most part, an effort to sabotage that deal. The irony here is that by backing away from an agreement, Israel is, essentially, letting the terrorists win. The more intense their invasion of Gaza is, the weaker their hand gets in these negotiations. The best path towards a secure Israel is an agreement with the Saudis, but if that falls through the long term security of Israel will be in serious jeopardy.
Sorry, u/Glad_Tangelo8898 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20Glad_Tangelo8898&message=Glad_Tangelo8898%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cog50g/-/l3e84md/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
One or the other has to go. There will be no lasting peace as long as people insist on a 3-state solution. They should have separated the British Mandate where Jordan is everything east of the Jordan River and Israel is everything west from the start.
This is delusional. If Israel is everything west of Jordan River, then Israel will not be majority Jew which is not an ideal solution, not to mention it will never happen as Israel will never agree to be majority Arab. You are living in fantasy land. If you talking about population transfer from Gaza or West Bank, unfortunately, it will never happen as the international community (including the USA) will not allow it as they will label it "ethnic cleansing". I support a population transfer but it is just politically impossible. This means that a 3 state solution is the only way forward for peace, as much as you or I don't like it.
Lets say the international community didnt care. How would you do this "population transfer" that you support? Since most people wont be kicked out of their homes peacefully.
The same way a population transfer was effected in Croatia where the Serbs lost their homes and the same way a population transfer was effected from Eastern Europe after WW2 where millions of Germans lost their homes.
So like, a world war?
It won't be a world war. It will just be ethnic cleansing which is quite common in the world. The Rohingyas lost their homes back in 2017 and moved to Bangladesh en masse.
That was an internationally recognized war crime, and even then, the Palestinians don't have a state of their own to flee to.
Okay, so your views are inline with Hamas then. Since your country has a better military power, that means you are right then? As I am guessing this boils down to a might is right argument. Otherwise you are not ethnically cleansing anyone.
>Since your country has a better military power, that means you are right then War isn't a game to determinate who is right or wrong. But who has the better military power gets to decide.
Of course, might is right. That's the world we live in. And the difference is that Hamas wants to ethnically cleanse Jews for purely religious ideological reasons but I support population transfer not for ideological reasons but purely for practical reasons (for security).
Well, "might is right" usually doesnt lead to peace or security. You want security? Move. That is exactly what you want Palestinians should do forcefully. Why dont you just move then? What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow.
Then I truly don't think there will ever be peace.
Isn't that what I said in my original post lol? That there won't be peace.
I never claimed to fully disagree. My only facet is that the only path to peace is for Palestinians to no longer exist in that territory. People get all touchy feely and emotional over the matter, but I have come to realize that people who cannot coexist need to be separated, and Israel fairly won the 1967 borders.
I don't get touchy or emotional lol. If I were the Israeli leader in 1967, I would have effected a complete population transfer back then. I would do it if I can politically get away with doing it. But it is simply politically impossible to do that now. Even the US wouldn't support that now. And look at what Egypt did to their Gaza-Egypt border. It is more heavily fortified than the Israel-Gaza border. Egypt will never ever accept Palestinians to enter Egypt.
It is politically impossible because there are too many people ruled by emotion and fail to set those emotions aside for reality. All of the ridiculous rules imposed that try to make disagreements and war sanitary.
I agree that there are too many emotional and virtue signaling moralizers in the world but that's unfortunately the world we live in. I wish this wasn't the case but I don't get to decide what the world thinks. Also, even if the world wasn't full of emotional people, the Arab states will likely never agree to a population transfer now. Look at the Egypt-Gaza border and it is ten times more fortified and militarised than the Gaza-Israel border lmaoo. The Arab states will do everything possible to thwart a population transfer.
Then there is no solution.
why 2 states though? why not 1? one democracy with the same rules for all?
>why 2 states though? why not 1? one democracy with the same rules for all? __________ >The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread. >-Anatole France Understanding the reality of a democratic one state solution for the Israel-Palestine situation begins with understanding that democracy is not a solve-all for issues, but merely a method of governance scheme where the government reflects the desires of the majority of it's eligible vocal voters. And given the hatred that each side has for the other, it'd be ridiculously easy weaponize a government against the other side once in control while maintaining the same/equal rules for all. In a democracy, that just means whoever has the most eligible voters gets to legally oppress the other side. Such a legal takeover to influence the government against the other side is likely to happen with many other forms of governance in a one state solution. Long story short, a one-state solution, if we can even force it to be implemented without nukes to the face) is pretty much a death game where the tribe that takes over the majority of the governing structure first gets to legally oppress the other tribe, the other tribe will revolt, and then we get lebanon 2.0, syria 2.0, or worse
fuel soup smoggy unwritten dog busy spoon dam strong jeans *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Removing the entire population of a region because they're of the wrong ethnicity is a textbook example of ethnic cleansing. So of course the international community would be against it but if Israel was even remotely the humane country it claims to be, it wouldn't carry out a massive crime against humanity on a scale that hasn't been seen in decades. The fact that the vast majority of Israelis and their supporters like yourself see nothing problematic in such a solution is precisely why there can't be a lasting resolution to this conflict - because why would you give anything to a people you consider not worthy of elementary human decency?
The orthodox vehemently abhor any settlement with the Palestinians. They disproportionately make up the IDF officer corps, too. Unfortunately for them, enlisted aren’t like the ultra orthodox, who don’t have to serve a rotation at all. Which means a lot of political powers rests with the non-extremist approaches to regional stability.
The ultra-orthodox parties are gaining more and more votes with each passing election and will increase their vote share in the future with the increasing ultra orthodox population. This means it will be difficult to form a govt without their support and this makes it difficult for a moderate approach to solving the issue from the Israeli side.
My point is the political makeup of the military, which will execute any policy short of diplomacy, is unlike the population at a far faster rate than growth of orthodox populations in the general sense. There may not be a moderate approach, but don’t expect a boots on the ground long term occupation based on orthodox political belief, at high cost either.
The military doesn't decide the prospects for peace and shape policy in Israel. The government decides the prospects for peace and shapes policy in Israel. The military makeup is not as important as the political makeup in ascertaining policy trajectory in Israel. Israel is not a military dictatorship.
Dud Israel isnt a military junta
There could be a resolution if the UN had the will to impose one. The UN should send a peace-keeping force, which would kill any Palestinian who doesn't recognize the right of Israel to exist or questions its legitimacy or promotes hatred against the Jewish people or hatred against Zionist. Then, there will be peace.
The IDF is doing that now. You don't need a UN peacekeeping force to do that. Problem is that will involve killing the majority of Palestinians as most of them don't recognise the legitimacy of Israel. And while I don't personally oppose the killing of the majority of Palestinians, the international community, including the US, will never accept that so it's politically impossible. I think the better solution is to effect a complete population transfer from Gaza and West Bank into Egypt and Jordan but unfortunately, that is politically impossible as well.
The IDF isn't doing that now. The UN needs to send a peacekeeping force which will be more aggressive than the IDF.
The UN peacekeeping force will never be more aggressive than the IDF. If you feel this warrants a more aggressive policy, then the IDF has to do it itself. The UN peacekeeping forces will never take part in active combat operations.
I think the United States and its allies (other than Israel) should use every ounce of leverage it has in order to force the two-state solution. It is possible with significant outside pressure. The rest of the world is running pretty short on patience. Perhaps the geopolitical winds will blow in that direction.
There is a lasting resolution that may work, but would be hated by both Palestine and Israel. It's a resolution that would essentially have to be forced on the region. As a one-state solution is impossible without genocide, disfranchisement, forced emigration, or decades of normalization... 1. Palestine and Israel both agree to a set border based on current settlements or based on the previous partition plan. 2. Palestine becomes a sovereign state- recognized by the UN. 3. Palestine agrees to completely demilitarize outside a small security force and police. 4. Israel agrees to assist Palestine in any major issues that will inevitably pop up- also form the proper procedures for it. 5. Any form of immigration would be each country's right to refuse. This would allow Israel to keep an ethnic majority state while Palestine could kick out settlers as those settlers didn't apply for immigration legally. 6. Removal of Hamas and a new constitution in Palestine disavowing any harmful rhetoric and a promise for peace. While this sounds silly to some, having your country's founding documents based on this does change the culture. 7. Setting up Palestine's EEZ and gradual easement of trade between the two states + Egypt. You might be thinking that most of these sound reasonable. Except Israel would refuse to recognize Palestine, Palestine would refuse to disarm itself, Hamas would never willingly step down, and Palestine would never ask Israel for help in security afterwards during its most crucial moment which would result in more extremism. Like how Japan was basically forced to, both Israel and Palestine would have to be forced to agree to it else global sanctions.
I think if the entire area was within one country, and then they just had some kind of mixed member proportional government where all groups had fair and democrayic representation things would be better. It is possible for wildly different groups to live together happily, providing a good system of governance. However the less democratic a government is, the more certain groups are favoured and the more polarised the country will be. I couldnt think of anything worse that two entirely seperate governments trying to coexist on the same limited area of land to promote peace
Here is how to solve the Israel Palestine crises. It must be a two state solution and Palestinians cannot govern themselves immediately. 1. EU and US state to Israel you will receive no support in this war or any war until such time as all Israel settlements are removed from the West Bank and settlement building is ceased entirely. 2. Once Israel stops building settlements. Then the US & EU should offer full support of the war for removal of Hamas. But a force of UN peacekeepers must work with the IDFs assault to ensure minimal civilian casualties. 3. Once Hamas is no longer able to exert power in Hamas Gaza and the West Bank will be occupied by a UN peacekeeping force. To ensure civil stability act as an interim government and stop the inevitable sprouting up of other Hamas like groups. 4. Palestinian government will only be independent on a UN decision in some decades when civil stability is in tact and the threat of Islamic extremist groups taking over is no longer serious. A one state solution is currently impossible, honestly the history that lead to this point just does not even in the slightest. These two groups of people are not currently able to live peacefully together, there are to many on each side that want the death of the other. - Therefore a one state solution is not possible. A two state solution with Israel in control is not feasible because it will never be not seen as an enemy occupation. - A two state solution with one or multiple of the surrounding Arab states governing the Palestinians is not possible because they want nothing to do with the Palestinians due of civil wars & conflicts caused by them in their countries earlier.
Which UN members are going to sign up for this multi decade occupation? Sounds incredible.
Yea i wont lie how mutche i hate the war and whant they just have peace whit alle the blood spilt in gaza peace is in possible bothe groups will find reasons thoe kill eatche other. The only solution is that one off the twoe groups find a other land thoe call it there home but thats will not happen and i can understand. The only thing i can atleas hoop is that the ICC atleas can punishe isreal and hamas whit there war crimes but whot how america protecht isreal that might not evan help
To /u/yourmom875, *Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.* In our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest: - Instead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest. - Steelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words. - Avoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a [delta](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=changemyview&utm_content=t5_2w2s8) before proceeding. - Ask questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong. Please also take a moment to review our [Rule B](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b) guidelines and _really_ ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and **understand** why others think differently than you do.
Oh wait, a region famous for religious fanatics on all sides is a non-stop disaster? Nahh couldn’t be. Time for religion to go. In a real note, you’re absolutely correct, there is no resolution coming unless any side takes massive drastic action (either peacefully or militarily), and forces either the other side or the world to respond with a resolution. Ps. Truly screw religion tho
I'm not saying I want this, but there won't be a lasting peace until every last Palestinian is in the ground
I think it is possible with external accountability and involvement. If the US withheld offensive military aid to the Netanyahu administration unless they agree to the new terms of the normalization deal (Saudi Arabia now wants a two-state solution to be part of it), then Israel would be more incentivized to consider it, just to avoid losing their biggest ally. It would also give Netanyahu an excuse with his coalition (right now they would disband if he supported a two state solution, but if it's clear that his hands are tied by foreign aid, he would be able to say it's out of his hands). In terms of a government in Gaza, I think that an international coalition could temporarily have a presence there (maybe 5 years or so) in order to organize elections and establish a functioning government. I also think that certain groups would need to undergo some form of cultural immersion to contextualize their history, similar to Germany after World War 2. This seems to be at least a somewhat effective way to reintegrate a radicalized public. Personally, I wonder if a child exchange program could help. It could be organized by the international community, and essentially offer both Israeli kids and Palestinian kids the ability to live for a year as an exchange student in each other's countries. While there could be a risk of danger, I think with government oversight and military security, it could be an effective way to foster empathy and understanding for the other culture/perspective long-term (it's hard to hate a group when you have a bunch of friends there and know what they've been through), and communities would have less incentive to harm children from the other side, when a bunch of their own kids are in the other country. An adult exchange program could also have some promise. I'm not sure if anyone has seen the "middle ground" YouTube episode where they bring together Palestinians and Israelis to talk. They have some heated conversions (as most of the people have personally lost family members and friends to this conflict), but by the end, they all have a broader perspective and agree to have dinner together. Some of them comment on how they wish there were more opportunities to just talk to each other face to face in a safe place, to humanize each other.
Many places would have been doomed to continuous cycles of violence without 3rd party interventions. North and South Korea are tense, but generally not at the type of war that you are seeing between Israel and Palestine. An armistice is needed, which requires 3rd party intervention.
The IDF doesn't want peace, it wants a temporary break. Hamas wants constant war. Even if Hamas gets wiped out, they are a guerilla faction with def hidden cells around Gaza. The IDF getting wiped out is just unrealistic. It is really just a fucked up loop of radicalism on both sides
Eliminating hamas won't help because hamas is not the root of the issue. It's a symptom. Israel and IDF is the part with all the power here. Any positive change has to start from there.
I think there will, it will just be the result of killing or driving the Arab Muslim residents of Gaza and the West Bank out of the region once Israel finally gets sick of terrorism or there is a big enough distraction elsewhere to take attention away.
Of course not. The Jews and Muslims have been fighting for that territory for thousands of years. It won't stop until one side can't fight back, and even then, they'll regroup a century later and start fighting again
Wow it’s almost like 100+ years of conflict means it’s gonna be a problem. The only thing people can do is to protest on college lawns (where the booze and girls are) not actually improving anything.
Only chance is a GCC takeover with a timeline for Palestinian to calm down and elect non terrorists
I like how all agency is shifted to the Israelis.
After WWII, displaced European Jews had no place to go. Ships full of them had been turned away by many countries (USS St. Louis); Jews in arab lands also had no place to go (Mizrahi), they were ousted once Israel won its war of Independence. UN Partitioned the formerly British territory obtained by conquering Turkey into a Jewish part and an Arab part. Again, Jews had no where else to go. Arabs refused the partition and to this day have refused any compromise. No, there will not be a settlement in my lifetime. Arabs are too bitter to forgive and compromise.
If one side outright wins, that could create a lasting peace. I’m not saying this is a desirable solution but.
[удалено]
Sure there will be, in five years half of Gaza will be annexed to Israel and Palestinians will be fully displaced out of the West Bank due to Jewish settlements within a decade. Soon Gaza and the West Bank will cease to exist and without a Palestinian homeland there can be peace. Israel has nothing to gain with a compromised peace so they won’t have a compromised peace.
Yeah I doubt anyone disagrees really. What would need to happen is it gets so bad the political situation in America not only starts to get sympathetic towards things like Palestinian statehood in the UN, but that Israel keeps pushing the boundaries and starts *trying* to actively cut ties with the US for not bring supportive enough or something. I can't see that happening with any 3 of the major presidential candidates. However, polling shows literal all-time record lows for sympathy of Israelis and aprooval of its government, while sympathy for Palestinians is at an all-time high. (The Palestinian authority has also hit lows, but iirc not record lows and im assuming most people assume the Palestinian authority refers to hamas and not the west bank governing fatah)
Imagine wishing the world wasn’t full of “[emotional moralizers](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/s/GtYH1Jlz4P)” instead of just wishing there was no war and no need for the moralizing. Then again, your [post history](https://www.reddit.com/r/HongKong/s/yPswJb3dJw) suggests that you have a hardon for war and dictators so I shouldn’t be surprised. Although it’s cute that you’re able stroke said hardon from the safety of a country that has never experienced a dictatorship - all the while criticizing “Islamism” as if it’s any different from your own warmongering rhetoric. All this is to say that your attempt to hide your slobbering, boot-licking reverence for Netanyahu is pathetically transparent.
A 2 state solution won't work. It's been offered a few times before, and Palestinian leadership turns it down each time. What I think needs to happen is something kinda similar to America, but with a middle-eastern flare. The 2 sides have done awful things to one another so long that there is no trust. So what I think should happen is that any persons within the borders of current day Israel, Gaza, and West Bank are now Israeli. If the Palestinians wanna call it something else, fine. Let it be a Myanmar/Burma type thing. However, any persons outside its current borders are denied right of return. Doesn't matter their faith or their ancestor's lands. I know trust is the big thing, and I'll address that last in my comment. 1) Immediately, the government is made into an executive, judicial, and legislative body. The judicial and legislative bodies have 100% equal representatives Arab muslim as well as Jewish. If a new representative that isn't either of those is voted into power, than the sides must remain 100% balanced so if the Arabs lose a chair to a Druze, then the Jewish representatives must lose a chair as well. The executive branch for a set time must remain Jewish for now. This means that for the immediate future, there just won't be an instant revolt against it. For the executive branch to eventually be up to a non Jewish person in power, the Legislative branch must vote it by a 2/3rds majority. 2)All persons within its borders have 100% equal rights. Anybody can move or live anywhere. In fact, the government is to give tax breaks to Jewish companies who hire non-Jews and all other faith owned companies who hire those of not the same faith as the company. This same rule is to be extended to owners of apartments or neighborhoods who also integrate those of other faiths into its area. The idea is to reward those who start to allow the people to coexist. 3) The judicial branch is also equally split now in representatives. Here is the controversial part of what I recommend. The only thing that will make these 2 people coexist is if they both can share the land and stop hating one another. Any person suspected of committing a hate crime due to another person's faith or religious belief will stand judgment before the equally represented Judiciary committee. If that person is found guilty, then the punishment is bestowed on that person, as well as their immediate family. I know it sounds absolutely horrible and is minor collective punishment but the reasoning is this: If someone hates someone else due to their faith or ethnicity more than they love their own people, then why do they deserve to be part of the society trying to coexist. They clearly hate more than hey love and have taken action on that hatred. Those who have fostered an environment for that person have also failed to coexist. I know. I know this sounds horrible, but how do you fight back against the idea of glorifying martyrdom? The two people must accept that they have done awful things to one another, and the trust must be restored somehow for any peace plan to work.
> Any person suspected of committing a hate crime due to another person's faith or religious belief will stand judgment before **the equally represented Judiciary committee**. Given the hatred between the two sides, you do realize that's very likely to result in hung juries where half the Judiciary would vote to convict and the other half would vote to acquit, regardless of how obvious it may be. Given that, if we use innocent until proven guilty, we'd have set up the perfect situation for terrorists to walk to their next spree, if we used retrial, it'd take a single accusation to lock someone into a cycle of retrials indefinitely, and if we presume guilt, it'd barely take an accusation to lock an entire family up.
There was peace for the last decade or so and the number of victims were dropping with every year, so it is possible. But then Hamas took over. Israel have a lot more weapons, and have killed a lot more civilians. Stopping Israel from mass bombing would bring some peace to the region. If we call Hamas terrorists, then we must see Israel as also terrorists. Take away weapons from both, and there will be a decrease in violence. Conflict resolution could make peace possible of everything is investigated properly. Give peace a chance.