Does anyone else feel like this about Gaza/Israel?

[Rattanlamp]

I know it sounds awful, but I’m desperate for a break from Gaza. I feel like we’ve had 2 straight years of hearing about absolutely nothing else. It feels like you can’t switch the radio on, or open Facebook, or even pop to the shop without hearing chants of PALESTINE and having flags waved in your face. It’s been absolutely relentless, and wildly disproportionate compared to other conflicts and atrocities around the world.

Of course it’s hideous that so many civilians have been killed, in particular children. But it feels like Palestine truly believes it is the only population who suffered during the 1940s and is the only country to ever lose territory or be reshaped by global events. I feel like everyone else adjusted to their new normal, for the sake of peace, while Palestinians just continue what seems like an infinite grudge which is then met with harsher repressions by Israel as they have to defend themselves.

It’s utterly exhausting the globe and I have zero hope they will now smell the coffee and take the opportunity to kick Hamas out because ultimately they don’t want peace. Hamas did not drop out of the sky, they and Oct 7 had high support until they started losing, and I think it’s very unlikely they will ever be willing to move on from past events.

AIBU to think we now just need to leave them to it for the sake of all involved?

Thank you.

To be honest, Poppy, a Dessert Storm would be very welcome around now. I always get peckish late afternoon.

Mrs Bennett, you said:

Please provide evidence for your claim that they think "it's over". Because I don't think that's what they're saying at all.

I provided evidence.

You then got a bit embarrassed and have now tried to change the parameters to say we were talking about ‘a complete resolution and final peace agreement’ when we were talking about the war.

Now you’re desperately flailing at the life ring @nomas has tossed you and trying to make this a matter of semantics.

The war is over. Hamas say it’s over (as you haven’t acknowledge despite my providing evidence as you requested). Israel say it’s over. The Middle East say it’s over. The USA say it’s over. The only one saying ‘it isn’t over’ is @MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack , so pardon if I take the word of 10+ countries rather than an internet poster who seems bereft she no longer has an active conflict to feel righteous about.

And here is the quote confirming she was talking about the WAR, not the resulting negotiations which are not war.

I think the people of Gaza would like a little break from the events too.

And, I pray sincerely, that is what is happening now (and not just a little one either)

This is the kind of double speak that would be laughed at a generation ago

I think everybody wants an end to the CITME, but this isn't most people's first rodeo and people can see there are still hurdles ahead.

Israeli soldiers are still in many parts of Gaza.

Both Israelis and Palestinians have said they will not participate in the Gaza summit with the UN, scheduled for Monday.

For someone 'desperate for a break' from Gaza, you've spent the best part of a day discussing it, which suggests you also know it's far from over.

You think the continued encroachment of Israeli settlers on Palestinian land is not war?

She says 'I haven't "had enough" of hearing about Gaza because the conflict has not yet been resolved. Of course I want the fucking war to end. I just don't expect it to go away because I'm getting bored of hearing about it.' and she's right.

Of course there are hurdles ahead but that doesn’t mean the conflict isn’t over. It is over. All parties have confirmed it’s over. Will it stay over? Who knows. But wars end when the conflict stops, not when a final peace agreement has been reached and all matters resolved forever. Otherwise we are still in the thick of WW2, were at war with Mauritius until the summer, and are still at war with Scotland and Ireland spanning hundreds of years now.

I'm not remotely embarrassed. Yes, you provided a single quote to support your absurd claim, but your evidence that the war is actually over is anything but convincing.

There is no agreement yet on key issues such as a two state solution, Hamas disarmament etc. If you think everything is resolved and the conflict is over, then that merely reflects your own naivety.

There is a ceasefire. That is good. We do not yet have a peace deal.

Is a quote not accurate unless reported by multiple outlets of your choice?

YOU DIDNT SAY PEACE DEAL. YOU SAID WAR. Stop changing the parameters because you were wrong. Just graciously admit you were wrong - it doesn’t mean you need to change your position, just that you were incorrect about 1 detail.

Ah, why am I bothering, the Palestine marchers have no integrity or shame.

I wasn't wrong. I said that the conflict wasn't over yet, because it isn't.

I said that I wanted the war to end. That is true.

I said that the war wouldn't end simply because I might have had enough of hearing about it. That is also true...I don't suppose Israel or Hamas are particularly interested in what I think or feel about the issue.

I didn't say that the war hasn't ended for the time being. That's obviously what the ceasefire is all about. But if you think that means the the conflict is over, then I'm afraid you'll be sorely disappointed.

God this is one of the most disingenuous posts I’ve seen in a very long time. I’ll just let other posters make their own mind up. The lengths some people will go to, to avoid admitting they made one (small) mistake, is madness.

There is nothing remotely disingenuous about it, but I'm entirely happy to let other posters make their own minds up.

Can you at least bring yourself to admit the war is over as confirmed by Hamas, Israel, the USA and the ME? Can you at least do that?

I agree that the active war is over, at least for the time being. Only time will tell whether or not peace can actually be sustained. I certainly hope so, but there are major points of difference remaining which it may or may not be possible to resolve.

What we have at present is a ceasefire. A ceasefire signifies the end of the fighting right now. It doesn't necessarily represent the end of a war. History will determine this.

Of course, we all hope that it's over. No right-minded person could possibly want the suffering on either side to continue. But this is not the first time that we've had a ceasefire, only for things to fall apart again when the differences cannot be reconciled. So some of us are cautious in our optimism.

In that case what is ‘inactive war’?

And I’m pretty sure WW2 ended in 1945 on VE Day. It didn’t wait for history to decide, did it? Or am I grossly mistaken?

Isn't it obvious?

A war in which active fighting has stopped, at least temporarily, but the underlying conflict has not been resolved through an agreed peace deal.

Actually, WW2 didn't end on VE day. The war in Asia was still active at that point.

Regardless, there were peace treaties which formally ended WW2. We don't have any formal peace deal in the Middle East just yet, and it isn't at all clear that either side is going to back down on their demands in a way that will make a peace treaty likely.

There was no peace treaty at that time. The only signed paper was Germany’s unconditional surrender. If Hamas and Israel have said the war is over why on earth can’t you just acknowledge it even if you personally think it isn’t? All this just to avoid one moment of embarrassment and a small concession to somebody you’re in disagreement with.

There is no such thing as ‘inactive war’. You’re now making things up and changing the meaning of words as you go, all because you’re too proud to admit you made a mistake.

WW2 was formally ended by a series of peace treaties, but yes, it was obvious that the war was over before those treaties were formally signed because the defeated parties had surrendered. We are not in a position now where either party has given up on their objectives, so the situation isn't comparable.

And yes, wars can remain unresolved but inactive, whether you choose to accept that or not. Google is your friend if you want to know more. I'm not here to educate you.

Why was it obvious under your logic given the peace treaties hadn’t been signed? You’ve just spent the afternoon telling me war isn’t over until peace treaties are signed.

There is no such thing as inactive war.

You’ve messed up here. Own it rather than digging.

Technically, a war isn't officially over until peace treaties have been signed. But if one side has surrendered, then it's reasonable to assume that the treaties will be concluded on the victor's terms. Who do you believe has surrendered in this scenario?

If you don't accept that a war can continue after active fighting has ended, how would you describe the current situation between North and South Korea, for example?

I am always ready to own when I've messed up, but I still don't understand why you think I have on this occasion. I stated that the conflict isn't over yet. Are you seriously telling me that you think the conflict has now been resolved?