Towards a sustainable peace

"resist..."?!????!

So Might = Right and it's ok to violate international humanitarian law and human rights if you've a big enough army and supporters behind you?

I wouldn't be able to look myself in the mirror if I didn't stand up and say I think that's morally wrong.

All this talk about not letting 7/10 be repeated again, and yet that's what Israel had done to have repeatedly since that date*

Again
And again
And again
And again
And again
And again
And again
And again
And again
And again
And again
And again
And again
And again
And again
And again
And again
And again
And again

19 times the number killed in that awful atrocity.

And still we are told that Israel must make sure it never happens again TO THEM whilst they are executing the 20th such level attack against a largely powerless population.

And yet we are told that the perpetrators of this should be the ones in charge of Gaza's security so Gaza is not a risk.

It's an abomination.

*I'm not going to get into a debate about whether being brutally raped and murdered is better or worse than choosing to let babies die in their hospital beds, knowingly allowing toddlers to slowly suffocate underground, shooting 85 year old ladies and letting them bleed to death for hours before running over them etc. It's all sick. Both sides.

@theoldweirdalbion Yes, there's a lot of talk about what Palestinians must do/accept, but not much about Israel. All a bit one sided, and that isn't going to help peace either.

I think that Hamas has to go, and can't be an option in any election. As the 'government' they committed terrorism on civilians. But I don't think the population should be punished by further occupation, siege and more oppression. As you say, this is not conducive to a peace mindset!
Yes, Hamas have to go. They are terrorists and mass murderers. My concern is that that Israel wants to drive out the entire population of Gaza not just Hamas. Plus current government of Israel has no more interest in negotiation/peace talks than Hamas does.

The Palestinians have been treated appallingly over the past few years. Thousands of them killed (before Oct 7). Land stolen by settlers. Detentions without trial. Gazans blockaded and functionally imprisoned.

Now thousands of innocent children slaughtered in three months and 1:5 million people made homeless. And talk in the Israeli government of moving them to the Congo.

Are they supposed to meekly take all of this without trying to resist?

A world where the “most powerful” make all the rules is not a nice world. This process is called bullying and will never lead to a sustainable peace.
(I apostrophise “most powerful” as in fact much of Israel’s “power” comes from billions of dollars of handouts from the US).

@theoldweirdalbion I think that Hamas has to go, and can't be an option in any election. As the 'government' they committed terrorism on civilians. But I don't think the population should be punished by further occupation, siege and more oppression. As you say, this is not conducive to a peace mindset!

I repeat, the problem isn't the power imbalance. I note you are so selective you decided to chop off the rest of it in relation to Germany and Japan
I wouldn’t push the Germany/Japan comparison too far. There may be factors that make this a slightly different scenario.

Power is what matters here. Palestinians are learning the hard way that Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist group actions will not and does not advance their cause or interests.
And they will have to accept various restrictions from now on
Let might make right? - well that mentality isn’t going to discourage any tendencies towards violent insurrection is it?
And the power imbalance IS part of the problem. Posters like the OP and yourself are saying “well Israel’s in charge and Gaza has to suck it up” and again that’s just going to encourage terrorism.

I can't see the similarity between Germany or Japan and Gaza. Both were sovereign nations and Germany took a lot of territory, even getting as far as the Channel islands. Gaza is a tiny strip of land, with no internationally recognised borders, living under occupation according to the UN. They have not taken additional territory, and their rocket attacks, while traumatic, do not seem to wipe out 10s of thousands of people.. As such, they are not the military threat of Germany or Japan either, so can't see why the comparison is being made really. In terms of occupation and complicated history Gaza is more like Greenland. The security threat to Israel would be mitigated by reviewing the procedures on Oct 7th and tightening security in the short term. In the longer term people with no hope of a future need to be given some - this will be helpful to developing a peace mindset. As to the dangers of revenge attacks and who will govern Gaza, it does look complicated, but solutions can be found when all aggression on both sides stops.

I repeat, the problem isn't the power imbalance. I note you are so selective you decided to chop off the rest of it in relation to Germany and Japan.

I repeat also the problem is fundamentally Palestinian rejection of every possible peace settlement ever tabled. When one party to multiple negotiations keeps rejecting it, they should not be surprised when they run out of road.

In such circumstances, there is NOWHERE else for a peace process to go. Again, your highly selective responses comes through in your cutting out of Clinton's point to Arafat. The Palestinian rejection cycle has continued after Arafat. 🤦‍♂️

Significant concessions have been made in the past by Israel only for Palestinians to reject it.

This leaves one route forward - defeat for various Palestinian terrorist groups and for the Middle East powers (including Israel) plus Western powers such as USA, UK and France to impose conditions.

It's very telling that various Arab States normalised relations with Israel decades ago after conflict (Egypt and Jordan, for example) or have come close to it (Kingdom Of Saudi Arabia). After all, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman in frustration told Palestinian leaders they have no power and should put up or shut up after rejecting another possible deal.

Power is what matters here. Palestinians are learning the hard way that Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist group actions will not and does not advance their cause or interests.

And they will have to accept various restrictions from now on.

Any further highly selective responses and I'll simply ignore them. 🤷‍♂️

Security WILL be a condition of any deal and Saudi Arabia will likely agree to Israeli security apparatus in relation to Gaza
I haven’t argued against that point?

But no, the power imbalance isn't the problem
Lol

The problem is fundamentally the constant, consistent Palestinian rejection of every possible peace settlement ever tabled. So much so that Clinton angrily told Arafat in 2002 that it was HE who was leading Palestinians and the region to catastrophe. Indeed, Palestinian Authority's Abbas has admitted it was a mistake for Palestinian leaders to have rejected the UN's 1948 plan. They'll never have a deal as good as that again
Hindsight tells us that they really should of accepted the 2 state solution back in 1948 as it was indeed the best deal they were ever going to get but at the same time I can see why they didn’t. They were living on the land at the time and didn’t want to give it up same as the Israelis don’t want to give up the occupied territories now.
It’s no good saying that everything is all the fault of the Palestinians. During the peace process in the 90s Israel made several missteps including the assassination of their prime minister (Rabin) and continuing to build settlements.

Security WILL be a condition of any deal and Saudi Arabia will likely agree to Israeli security apparatus in relation to Gaza. The Saudis understand Israel is a major power in the region, which history illustrates, and won't be going anywhere. Hence, Israel was able to beat back the five Arab States' invasion shortly after the declaration of independence.

But no, the power imbalance isn't the problem. See again the examples of Germany and Japan post-1945. Restrictions are inevitable in future.

The problem is fundamentally the constant, consistent Palestinian rejection of every possible peace settlement ever tabled. So much so that Clinton angrily told Arafat in 2002 that it was HE who was leading Palestinians and the region to catastrophe. Indeed, Palestinian Authority's Abbas has admitted it was a mistake for Palestinian leaders to have rejected the UN's 1948 plan. They'll never have a deal as good as that again.

The saying is "Don't let perfect be the enemy of good". Meaning a deal only has to be good enough and takes into account current realities.

Palestinian sovereignty in future cannot avoid being curtailed with various restrictions. Indeed, various Arab States haven't forgotten various Palestinian terrorist actions in their own territories in the past either, e.g., Jordan and the assassination of Jordanian Kings due to Jordan pursuing a normalisation of relations with Israel. These States will not ignore that history and will want a conditional Palestinian sovereign State. Hamas' actions in Gaza since 2006 has only strengthened the reality Palestinian sovereignty will not be full sovereignty just as Germany's wasn't since 1945.

Like it or not, power matters. Economical and militarily.

The Middle East is where it is today and must deal with it as it is. Not as Palestinians wish it to be in an idealistic sense.

You could then have international support for a two state solution with renewed impetus in a peaceful environment.

Hypothetically, yes. But having got to that point Israel will probably consider the issue resolved. If their considering shipping the Gazan’s off to other country’s i doubt their long term plan involves conceding any of their gains.

I would imagine a coalition of Israel backed by Western powers and Arab States, especially Saudi Arabia whose normalisation of relations with Israel was very advanced when Hamas attacked, would do it.
That Israel will re-occupy Gaza does seem inevitable at this point. Probably the best we can hope for is that they don’t follow through with their “voluntary” migration plan.

It will be those with power in the region who will be able to set conditions.
Not those without power.
I think the power imbalance is part of the problem to be honest.

I would imagine a coalition of Israel backed by Western powers and Arab States, especially Saudi Arabia whose normalisation of relations with Israel was very advanced when Hamas attacked, would do it.

It will be those with power in the region who will be able to set conditions.

Not those without power. Certainly not Hamas.

Politics is the art of the possible and a deal only has to be good enough, not perfect.

@mids2019 I'll stop protesting the killing of my friends, colleagues and people I care about, when they stop being killed by the IDF.

There WILL be restrictions Palestinians will have to accept in future and one of those is having no military capabilities - manufacturing and launching.

That seems likely but who would be the ones to enforce this? And who will be running Gaza once Hamas are gone? Israel probably don’t want the PA to do it but who else is there?

Consider also the strict conditions imposed on Germany post-war in regards to military power.

And the caveats on German sovereignty.

Similar for Japan, IIRC.

There WILL be restrictions Palestinians will have to accept in future and one of those is having no military capabilities - manufacturing and launching. They may not like it, but even Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sissi has stated this condition openly. And Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman was so frustrated with Palestinian leaders in 2018 he told them they should put up or shut up with peace deals on offer as they have no real clout in the region - militarily or politically.

That's the reality.

It WILL not be in our lifetimes when a Palestinian State will be treated as a normal democratic state. It is not one and electing Hamas highlights it. But the fact the Palestinian Authority's Fatah also has a terrorist wing is another thing that highlights this.

There will continue to be international restrictions on any Palestinian State as there was for Germany and Japan. Germany's Finance Minister admitted publicly in 2011 that they haven't been sovereign since 1945. Neither will a Palestinian State.

The price of peace in exchange for business and security.

In regards to Nazi Germany and Japan, total defeat for Germany and close to it for Japan is what ultimately led to a peaceful settlement.

The fact Germans and Japanese still feel immense cultural shame for their role in that history is another major driver towards sustaining the peace.

That's why both accepted the terms of the Western powers. Especially the occupation of Germany by USA, UK & France and the occupation of Japan by the USA.

Without it and the Atomic power, no peace.

The Japanese philosophy of Kaizen, for example, came to Japan via American businesses post-WW2. Not the other way round.

Business was the thing that ultimately sustained the peace. But the military might is what put it in place. Of course, economical might goes hand in hand with military might - a lesson China knows all too well.

Not surprised to see most posting here haven't really considered how peace really comes. They believe in the propaganda of the peace process instead.

@DownNative hey long time!

A solution imposed by external sources would ultimately fail since it wouldn't have the necessary popular support on the ground it will need on either side of the border.

And, by definition, such an imposition is not itself a solution.

As I have said many times before, political settlements to conflicts which are territorial and terrorism based is only possible once a terrorist group is severely weakened or defeated. That is the point at which they drop their fundamentalist position. Not before.

When the costs of terrorism mount up, they mostly think twice. Beginning with the leadership trying to save their own necks.

@mids2019 I think there are mechanisms to enforce reparations. Yes, Hamas would have to pay too, but in terms of wholesale destruction I expect the bill to be less. They have not destroyed huge areas of infrastructure. I think it's part of the Hague convention, but difficult to know if it can be enforced. Yes, it could run into billions, and I expect you are right. The west will think about how they benefit from investment in the area, I imagine there are opportunities there - Naomi Klein's book 'The Shock Doctrine' went into some detail about corporations cashing in on post conflict areas. But I imagine there will be annoyance about footing the bill also, since the public, at least, think you break it you pay for it. Especially if you break it when the whole world asked you to show some restraint.