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?!

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

@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.

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.

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.

This.

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

Nothing says ' we would like a ceasefire' more

So first of all it's not in the past. It's happening now and Netanyahu has said it will go on for some time.

Secondly obviously attacks from Hamas and others in Palestine would have to stop as part of a peace deal. They'd also stop if there was a genuine ceasefire. I thought that went without saying so I didn't say it before now.

My point is that for a peaceful solution after a ceasefire both sides will have to do things they don't want to. For Israel this means ending the occupation and handing back land they stole and I can't see them doing that.

In Ireland it meant releasing IRA/UVF etc prisoners who had committed heinous crimes. It also meant the Republic renouncing its claim to the North and the unionists had to agree to a border poll on reunification once the demographics in the North suggested it might pass.

None of these things were palatable to the various sides but that's what happens when you genuinely want peace. You make concessions.

@Toothyfruity how's that working out in Stormont at the moment?

Well there's been no war since 1999 so I think that's a positive. The importance of children growing up in peace cannot be overstated, in my opinion.

The issue in Stormont is that DUP politicians won't sit in a parliament with Michelle O'Neill as First Minister because they are bigoted supremacists. And anti-democratic. Ultimately they're probably just hastening the border poll.

Still better than war though.

@Toothyfruity: Secondly obviously attacks from Hamas and others in Palestine would have to stop as part of a peace deal. They'd also stop if there was a genuine ceasefire. I thought that went without saying so I didn't say it before now.

But that's exactly the problem. There's no reason at all for Israel to think they would stop.

I said earlier 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

Why did you jump to yeah I didn't think they would make concessions. instead of what kind of rock-solid reason ?

That's the key to peace. Don't you think it's worth the Palestinians doing something which causes them no harm to achieve that?

Oh, and I mean permanently stop. Not just stop for long enough for Hamas to rebuild their arsenal.

How realistic is this, though? I have a horrible feeling that Hamas have their eyes firmly on the prize... 😟

Presumably that's why Israel are determined to take Hamas out: because they don't believe they will ever genuinely stop attacking.

With Hamas gone, I don't know. Maybe? After a long time of no attacks?

Israel reached the peace treaty with Egypt in 1979 with some pretty substantial demilitarized zones in the Sinai. In 2011, Israel and Egyot agreed that Egypt could move troops into the Sinai. Ie after 30 years of Egypt not attacking Israel.

Gaza and the West Bank are too small for demilitarized zones, so presumably would need to remain entirely demilitarized. That's been a huge sticking point - but again, how does it harm Palestinians to remain demilitarized, even for a whole generation? I do understand that self-determination is really important to Palestinians.

@statsfun On your first point- Hamas stopped during the last ceasefire. Which is more than Israel did. So I'd be more worried about Israel not sticking to it.

"Why did you jump to yeah I didn't think they would make concessions. instead of what kind of rock-solid reason ?"

I mean are you watching what they are doing and saying? What is it about anything they've done that makes you think they want to make concessions to Palestine? They're flattening the place, have killed tens of thousands of civilians, they're starving the population who are trapped and they are talking about sending them abroad. It's a land grab. They don't want a peaceful 2 state solution. Netanyahu made this clear at the UN long before this latest conflict even started.

On your last point I do think most of the violence would stop if the Palestinians got what they want, which is an end to occupation and their own state. This isn't the extent of what all Palestinians want of course but I can't comment on that. I know people around here claim that Hamas want to end Israel and take over the world and whatnot but I think a return to 1967 borders and their own state would solve a lot of the Palestinians grievances. It seemed to be what Hamas wanted in 2016/2017 anyway, if my understanding of that process is correct.

By a Palestinian state I mean alongside an Israeli state by the way.

Like I say, I mean stop attacking permanently, not just in order to rebuild weapons.

Hamas wanted a temporary ceasefire, to take control within 67 borders, but without any agreement that they would respect those borders or that they would stop trying to destroy Israel completely from their new, strategically improved position. How can you possibly think that would be OK?

What is it about anything they've done that makes you think they want to make concessions to Palestine
Israel have very clearly shown through their successful treaties with Egypt and Jordan that security is their main concern and that they're willing to give up land in return for peace.

It's a land grab.
Of course. So they were willing to exchange the 23,500 square mile Sinai for peace with Egypt, but they're not willing to exchange 2278 square miles (West Bank and Gaza) - a tenth of that - with the Palestinians for peace?!? The Gaza strip is 141 square miles!! Hardly worth a land grab.

They don't want a peaceful 2 state solution
Netanyahu thinks that 7th October proves that he was right all along that the Palestinians couldn't be trusted not to attack. And that it would have been much, much worse from a militarized Palestinian state made up of both the West Bank and Gaza.

On your last point I do think most of the violence would stop if the Palestinians got what they want, which is an end to occupation and their own state
What basis do you have for believing that? They attacked Israel in 1948, when it was set up as a 2-state solution. They attacked Israel in 1967, when it was Jordan - not Israel - who occupied the West bank and Egypt - not Israel - who occupied Gaza. What has changed? How have the Palestinians ever shown that they are willing to give Israel security?

Again, Israel are the ones not respecting borders, not Palestine.

No idea what you're talking about "exchanging" Palestine with the Palestinians for peace. That makes no sense. Israel is occupying the land and feel it's rightfully part of Israel. And they're behaving accordingly. Palestinians just want control of their own territory.

Palestine has shown it is willing to sign up to peace agreements over the years. Israel has not.

My point all along is that Israel has to make concessions as a starting point. You obviously disagree with that. I'm not interested in going around in circles here so let's leave it at that.

Israel occupied the Sinai from 1967-1979, in order to protect themselves following Egypt's aggression. When I say that they exchanged it for peace with Egypt, it's a quick way of saying that they made a peace treaty with Egypt where Egypt agreed to respect Israel's borders and no longer attack them in exchange for Israel ending their occupation of the Sinai.

The same wording is used for the Palestinian territories.

Palestine has shown it is willing to sign up to peace agreements over the years.

Where have they stuck to it? And what other countries have they caused a problem in? Jordan? Egypt?

The Arab States do not want to solve the refugee problem. They want to keep it as an open sore … as a weapon against Israel. Arab leaders don’t give a damn whether the refugees live or die.”

Former head of unwra.