Towards a sustainable peace

[mids2019]

I think for a peace to be obtained constructive dialogue has to be started but in order for this to happen in my opinion Palestine has to acknowledge and their leaders publically denounce the heinous acts of October 7th and make clear such an event will never be repeated.

There have been to many senior Palestinian politicians wishing their grievances to be heard without mentioning October 7th and this will only have the effect of enraging Israel.

We need Palestinian leadership that is willing to sit down with Israeli leaders and from the outset denounce violence specifically making it absolutely clear there will be no 'revenge' for the current Israeli incursion.

We also need to be pragmatic and understand Israel will not be giving Gaza any financial aid so it will be up to the richer gulf states primarily to discuss funding some sort of rebuilding within Gaza. Also eventually there needs to be opportunities for Palestinians to emigrate in order to gain jobs and allow future generations to thrive. I think ultimately you would have to view Gaza as a city state with a multi million rebuilding package coming from those supportive nations in the middle east.

We also need to ensure education in Gaza is such that anti semitiism isn't promoted from a young age so we have a chance for a generation of Palestinians growing up knowing the only way forward is peace.

I think there is a peace to be had if both sides want it and are willing to negotiate positivist with a commitment to prevent terrorism and ensure there is security for both parties.

@Scirocco .

I think the sooner the fighting stops and Hamas is removed the quicker peace talks can considered. The Israelis seems to have control over Northern Gaza so perhaps the fighting will lessen?

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.

I think to have a ceasefire to start the long process of peace establishment both sides have to agree to it and there should be the release of remaining hostages. In reality Hmas are going to fight to the bitter end in Gaza and only when Hamas is destroyed will the Israelis stop fightng. It may be better to wish for a swift capitulation of Hamas if people wish the fighting to cease.

Once Hamas has gone you can then think about security arrangements to prevent such a reoccurence. In reality it won't be exclusively up to Gazans as if the conditions were suitable for the rise of Hamas before then they are very much so now.

Imagine if Britain and France had imposed a rule that the German military could not be expanded for 50 years after the WW1 armistice how many lives (including Jews) would have been saved. Forced demilitarisation in the long term is not a bad thing.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 🤷‍♂️

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 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.

@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!

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).

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.

@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.

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.

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.

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

I think Palestinians have engaged in all kinds of resistance - from peaceful marches, where they have been wounded and killed - to appeals to international justice, to charities, government organisations and the media, from BDS to diplomacy. They are, I think, entitled to this. They have drawn attention to their plight with all these measures. I think everyone agrees that Hamas is a different matter and we can't accept their tactics.

@stormy4319trevor

it is is not the scale of conflicts that are being compared but the fact there can be ultimate positives for nations and peoples that have lost conflict and had their militaries removed. Germany suffered Dresden and Hamburg while Japan suffered Nagasaki. Germany and Japan did not decide to pursue terrorism as a way to make peace with their neighbours and both countries have successfully developed their economies massively. Both Japan and Germany are larger counties granted but the people made it work by trade and use of their own natural talent and resource.

if Palestinians could be assisted economically by the international community in combination with a peace plan to establish sovreignty then there is a way forward. I don't think continued talk of Palestinian military resistance is helpful because look where that has got Gaza currently ?

"resist..."?!????!
Obviously Hamas’s methods of retaliation are not acceptable as they involve the killing of innocent people but there does seem to be a cycle of violence/hate that needs to be broken somehow.

@mids2019 Yes, economic assistance and sovereignty is the ideal. However, Japan and Germany are recognised nations, with borders, able to profit from their own natural resources, not under blockade, not subject to regular bombing, have freedom of movement, freedom of engagement with the wider world, are not split into two separate occupied territories. If Gaza can be transformed to this state of affairs then I suspect peace will prevail.

Knowing @Thereissomelight I don't think that's what they were talking about.

@stormy4319trevor

so you look at the 2 state solution and hence borders based on international law

OK Japan and Germany have natural resources but there are wealthy nations (wish as the UK) that in reality do not have a huge amount of natural resource. Growing the Hasan economy is of imprtance.

how do you suggest dealing with problem of two territories being split given Israel is between? Maybe the split is just part of the future.

the war will end. No wars last forever.

the blockade is associated with swcurity. If security could be somehow assured for the Israelis I see no advantage to them in maintaining a blockade and there would be scope for interaction and trade.

Yes, it's like when Israel says "self defence".

@mids2019 Gaza has gas reserves which they currently can't profit from. They could also are limited on fishing. They had an excellent university but were restricted in forming academic exchanges and partnerships which might have helped. I am sorry, but it's stopped raining for 5 . and I must walk the dog. I'll get back to you later, hope that's OK!