WHY!!!

[Mrsmulhern]

Literally, just WHY!! Like I just don’t get war/conflict and when I’ve had conversations with people their answer is well, it’s because of something that happened years ago, or religion.

I mean why as human beings can we not just put an end to everything!! And if your answer is well we don’t want ‘terrorists’.. Literally 99 percent of humans do not want that either.
l

I genuinely feel like I’m going insane, why is nobody questioning any war, anywhere?! WHAT does anyone have to be afraid of? People, like you and me are dying everywhere, all over the world and it’s ok with everyone.

I am genuinely curious as to reasons but I can’t see any. We’re on this planet for such a short time and people just blindly follow their ‘leader’.

Why can’t we just say no and stop it?!

I don't think the Palestinians are the Nazis in this analogy.

The 2 wars are obviously different. I think you're saying that you have a different opinion to me on who is the initial aggressor: Israel / Gaza / the wider Arab population in 1948. That's been gone over so many times that I'm not sure it's helpful to revisit. The start of WW1 was pretty murky too.

But it's perhaps worth considering the similarities. Gaza has been militarily defeated by Israel. There has been horrific violence and loss on both sides. There is a huge amount of trauma on both sides.

The problems in Israel/Gaza can seem insurmountable, but actually Europe overcame similar problems after WW2 and achieved lasting peace, so perhaps it is possible there too.

Eg, there was already generational trauma from WW1 (4% of the population of Germany and France killed in WW1, trauma in returned soldiers, social upheaval, loss of territory and destruction of the German economy due to war reparations). Then I don't think I need to detail the horrific violence, civilian loss and atrocities of WW2. There were terrible crimes on both sides: I can't imagine what social media would have made of the liberation of Berlin.

Infrastructure - and the ability to sustain the population - was shattered across the whole of Europe.

There was enormous animosity between the people too. A lot of Germans died of starvation within Germany in the aftermath of WW2, as aid was targetted to the Allies. And hundreds of thousands of Germans were killed in the surrounding countries after the end of WW2: either interned and allowed to starve, taken as slave labour and mistreated, or violently expelled from other countries and starved in the process.

Yet we were able to get past that within a generation. That's pretty incredible! So the question has to be: how?

Coming back to the Middle East, I observe that where there have been successes in gaining peace between Israel and its neighbouring states (Egypt and Jordan) it's always started with those countries recognising Israel's borders and ceasing their aggression.

The geography does make it harder for both Gaza and the West Bank. The land area is too small to fit meaningful demilitarized zones, and the West Bank almost cuts Israel in half.

But until Palestinians cease aggression, there can't be peace.

What a well thought out post.

Makes a change from the usual shouting and no solutions.

Your trauma is not turned to hate.

Just like Europe after WW1 and WW2 millions died, massive amount of trauma, yet Europe put aside hatred and revenge and moved forward rebuilding and all countries benefit

So the point I'm trying to make is that if you don't acknowledge Israel's part here there'll never be peace. Until Israel recognises that Palestine has a right to exist and stops occupying/stealing land/terrorising the population I can't see how any peace will be possible.

And the point I'm trying to make is that all that and more happened between Germany and the Allies before, during and after WW2. It was horrific! Seriously, read up about it.

And yet the Germans still chose to stop fighting, once they had been defeated. Their capability was destroyed too, of course - but they chose to rebuild for peace, not to pass on the hate and the burden of war to their children. My initial post was trying to understand how Germany managed that, in the hope that the Palestinians could do the same.

Palestinians still want vengeance, and think they can win militarily. So they don't stop. And that is such a loss and waste for everyone - and the biggest loss is to the Palestinians.

Getting rid of unwra and the bondage of permanent refugeeship would greatly help the Gazan's. All it does is enrich the corrupt and power hungry and shackle the poor and needy.

www.timesofisrael.com/israel-hoping-to-push-unrwa-out-of-gaza-post-war-report/

Well it's pointless talking about it if you apportion all blame to the Palestinians.

Not the only reason but there is poor leadership all over the world. Even Western democracies seem unable to produce someone with the ability to put forward real well thought out solutions with smart and out of the box thinking The patriarchal religious dictator/leaders also totally unsuitable. But we the people either vote these people in or tolerate the intolerable. With the fall of communism and the Arab Spring I felt hopeful but something went wrong somewhere - probably a lot to do with greed and avarice. We are all oppressed apart from the French who really know how to protest. Be more French!

I'm not apportioning all blame to the Palestinians, @Toothyfruity . I'm saying that they can choose a peaceful future.

Sure, and that might be possible if both sides get on board. If Israel continues to occupy Palestinian land, allow settlers to steal land and terrorise Palestinians and if the blockade on Gaza continues as it has until now then that won't be possible.

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 !!!!!!!!

Calm down dear.

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

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.

@Truthseeker456 oh your one of them.

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.

Because Israel is the occupying power, obviously.

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?

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.

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

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

As someone who specialises in trauma they are wrong.