WHY!!!

This.

Makes no sense for them to still be firing rockets into Israel, but they are.

The losses and devastation are utterly awful, @Toothyfruity .

I still think that the only possible way to find a solution is to see a difference between
'I can't make that concession because of what has happened in the past'
versus
'I can't make that concession because of what it means for my future'.

I don't see how continuing to attack improves the Palestinians' future.

It's also very hard for the Palestinians to come back from what Israel is doing to them right now. Nearly 10000 dead children including those dead under the rubble. No end to the slaughter in sight. It's a lot.

@statsfun yeah I didn't think they would make concessions. So I don't think there'll be a peaceful solution.

In every peace deal relating to disputes like this people have had to talk and make concessions for peace. Israel won't do that and I'm not sure what the current Palestinian position is so I don't think there'll be peace.

I actually think Israel is trying to remove Palestinians to take the land (ethnic cleansing) but that's another argument for another day.

After October 7th, I don't think it's reasonable to expect Israel to accept 67 borders without rock-solid reason to believe that it's a permanent peace. Ie none of this "we'll go back to 67 borders as a starting point, and then we'll see. "

An attack like 7th October from a militarized West Bank would have resulted in an order of magnitude more Israeli deaths. A military assault from the West Bank could destroy Israel. Can't you see that 7th October changed everything?

You're asking person B to jump into electrified water. They're not going to do it.

And why are you so against the Palestinians just stopping their attacks, given that the attacks are doing them no good anyway?

Well it begins with people taking responsibility for their part. I understand that Hamas has previously agreed to deals based on the 1967 borders, in theory anyway. Israel needs to agree to a deal alone along those lines but obviously it won't. Until Israel accepts it must make concessions I don't think anything will change.

So how does it end, @Toothyfruity ? In a way that can actually be achieved?

Where in the analogy is one side bombing 30000 people to death? I think that might be relevant.

Ok, the analogy is a bit of a stretch!

But it makes no sense to say that just because Israel is occupying territories and so has some obligations related to that occupation, that they should take the first step of faith.

Not when it puts them at high risk, and all the historic evidence says that it would just be used against them.

Whereas taking that first step wouldn't put the Palestinians at any risk. And historic evidence (successful peace between Israel and Egypt and Jordan) says that it would probably work.

Imagine a hypothetical situation @Toothyfruity where 2 people are in a sealed room which is gradually filling up with water. There's a cable touching the water, so going into the water might kill them.

Person A is standing on a chair, but can reach the tap. Person B is standing on a table and can't reach it without going in the water and risking death.

Both people contributed to them getting into this situation, but it was person B who turned on the tap. Person B is the official tap-turner, and it's their job to make sure the tap is turned correctly. Depending on your viewpoint, they might even have stolen that job (with associated perks) from person A.

Do you think it makes sense for person A to turn off the tap - since they can reach it without risk, and it will save both their lives?

Or should they insist that person B must get in the water (risking death) to turn it off, since Person B turned it on and it's their job? Remember, there's no risk to Person A in switching off the tap. They're also on the lower chair which will be submerged first, so have more to gain from switching it off. But they're really pissed off at person B and like the idea of Person B being submerged.

Personally, I think Person A should just turn off the bloody tap! And then they can maybe both figure a way out of the room.

And likewise, the Palestinians should just stop bloody attacking Israel with rockets and terrorists. Since they can stop the fighting, without any downside to them. And Israel can't stop without risking destruction. And then they can both figure out a way out of the mess.

As someone who specialises in trauma they are wrong.

Hamas still launching rockets into Israel overnight. No concern for their own people

@statsfun I have to commend you on articulating the realities of this war with such undeniable clarity.

I didn't say that Israel had military supremacy, though it obviously does, but it is an occupying power and has legal responsibilities as a result.

Not that it observes most of those responsibilities but still. They exist.

You'll have to fill in the next few steps, @Toothyfruity . Why does having military supremacy over the Palestinians mean that Israel should make the first unilateral concessions?

Because Israel is the occupying power, obviously.

Why is it that you expect Israel to make a unilateral concession towards peace, @Toothyfruity and not the Palestinians?

Is it because you think they can be more easily persuaded? Why?

Or is it that you think that a unilateral move from Israel is more likely to result in long-term peace than a unilateral move from the Palestinians? Why? I'd suggest that the evidence is to the contrary.

Or is it that you think harm flows from Israel to the Palestinians, and this outrages your sense of justice - so you want Israel to admit it and make up for it. Quite apart from whether this is in fact true, I'd suggest that ending the war would be of more benefit to the Palestinians than some abstract sense of 'making the bad guys pay'. Just as it benefitted the Germans to pursue peace, more than if they had demanded an apology from the Allies for carpet bombing German cities, nuclear bombs on Japan, the mass rapes in Berlin, and the German deaths from starvation in the years following the end of the war. An apology which wouldn't have come: given both that the Allies won and that the Germans had committed such atrocities themselves.

I think you have to go back to the prisoners dilemma and recognise that you can't expect either side to do something that is rationally harmful to them - bearing in mind they can only guess what the other side will do - even if trust on both sides would result in long term gain.

Israel has military supremacy - as the Allies did after the war.

• They can detain people they think might be terrorists. Even if only 50% of them are, they have stopped harm to Israeli citizens. Or put the other way, if they detain fewer people and miss some terrorists more of their citizens die
• They can bomb buildings which they detect rockets coming from, despite it putting Palestinians civilians at risk. If they don't and the rockets continue, Israeli citizens are attacked and sometimes die
• They can blockade Gaza, preventing weapons from entering as well as other goods. If they don't, more Israeli citizens die in an atrocity like 7th October

Stopping Israeli military action benefits Palestinians but harms Israel. Just as keeping silent benefits the gang member, but harms the prisoner themselves in prisoner's dilemma. And that's not a rational choice for Israel or the prisoner.

The Palestinians don't have military supremacy. They can send rockets, commit terrorist atrocities, and shoot individual Israelis. Doing those things might be gratifying, but it doesn't actually help them in any way. They don't stop Israel's military actions - in fact they incite them more. If the Palestinians stop fighting, fewer of their citizens will die, not more.

So why not expect the Palestinians to make the first unilateral move towards peace? It doesn't harm them in any way to do so - unlike Israel.

OP is hardly Ghandi or MLK. They both did a little bit more than post on the itnernet about how we should all hold hands and sing Kumbaya.

Why is it that you expect Israel to make a unilateral concession towards peace, @Toothyfruity and not the Palestinians?

Is it because you think they can be more easily persuaded? Why?

Or is it that you think that a unilateral move from Israel is more likely to result in long-term peace than a unilateral move from the Palestinians? Why? I'd suggest that the evidence is to the contrary.

Or is it that you think harm flows from Israel to the Palestinians, and this outrages your sense of justice - so you want Israel to admit it and make up for it. Quite apart from whether this is in fact true, I'd suggest that ending the war would be of more benefit to the Palestinians than some abstract sense of 'making the bad guys pay'. Just as it benefitted the Germans to pursue peace, more than if they had demanded an apology from the Allies for carpet bombing German cities, nuclear bombs on Japan, the mass rapes in Berlin, and the German deaths from starvation in the years following the end of the war. An apology which wouldn't have come: given both that the Allies won and that the Germans had committed such atrocities themselves.

I think you have to go back to the prisoners dilemma and recognise that you can't expect either side to do something that is rationally harmful to them - bearing in mind they can only guess what the other side will do - even if trust on both sides would result in long term gain.

Israel has military supremacy - as the Allies did after the war.

• They can detain people they think might be terrorists. Even if only 50% of them are, they have stopped harm to Israeli citizens. Or put the other way, if they detain fewer people and miss some terrorists more of their citizens die
• They can bomb buildings which they detect rockets coming from, despite it putting Palestinians civilians at risk. If they don't and the rockets continue, Israeli citizens are attacked and sometimes die
• They can blockade Gaza, preventing weapons from entering as well as other goods. If they don't, more Israeli citizens die in an atrocity like 7th October

Stopping Israeli military action benefits Palestinians but harms Israel. Just as keeping silent benefits the gang member, but harms the prisoner themselves in prisoner's dilemma. And that's not a rational choice for Israel or the prisoner.

The Palestinians don't have military supremacy. They can send rockets, commit terrorist atrocities, and shoot individual Israelis. Doing those things might be gratifying, but it doesn't actually help them in any way. They don't stop Israel's military actions - in fact they incite them more. If the Palestinians stop fighting, fewer of their citizens will die, not more.

So why not expect the Palestinians to make the first unilateral move towards peace? It doesn't harm them in any way to do so - unlike Israel.

@Truthseeker456 oh your one of them.

Yes.

Think of how Ghandi and Martin Luther King managed to find another way against all the odds ( though not against Putin so who knows when there are dictators) . Were they just childish?

Please no one call the OP childish. Use your grown-up knowledge to answer instead as best you can.

Oh and while your back I'd still like to know ow who these small number of people who control the media are.

Calm down dear.

Do you have any comprehension of what Israel is currently doing to innocent people ? This is completely nuts nothing justifies what is going on, have you even bothered to look ? Palestinians want peace !!!!!!!!