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.

@Humdingerydoo
Israel's security can't be neglected and therefore given October 7th happened and in reality there will be those that want a repeat of is imperative Israel maintains border defences with the strip. I think long term a real challenge will be about free travel between Gaza and the West Bank as that isn't going to happen any time soon.

Israel I guess would want guarantees that the U.N. are prepared to neutralise any Hamas operatives within Gaza as part of their remit and I actually think the U.N. may be reluctant to take on that role.

@Humdingerydoo

Thinking about it if there were US and UK troops within the U.N. peace keeping contingent then Israel may be more trustful of the security governance. However I see the US and UK being reluctant to put troops into juxtaposition given the recent isolationist stance of the US after Afghansitan. It would be interesting to see how it would play politically in the UK if British troops were part of that contingent.

Maybe you need some sort of arrangement between Arab nations and Western nations to put a suitably constituted force in?

@mids2019 why would the UK want to send their troops to be used as a security force in Gaza? I can't see that happening.
The UK's position is that post war Gazans should govern Gaza and any action taken should be towards a two state solution

@Parkingt111 .

The question is an interim security arrangements in Gaza and someone suggested the U.N. so wouldn't that potentially involve the U.K?

The Gazans would govern Gaza at a civilian level but Israel would need to be assured Hamas or an equivalent couldn't arise again so there would be a need for suppression of residual militant forces hence the U.N.

I think the grim reality is that there will be Palestinians that will want to support a military reponse of some kind from Gaza as retribution for the Israeli military campaign. I don't think you can easily dissuade Gaza from this course of action so security for both parties is paramount.

Yes, of course it applies equally. But like everyone likes to remind us, Israel has the bigger army and are the occupying force. They're not going to relinquish that unless they feel it's safe enough to do so. I'm trying to find realistic solutions as the ideal ones won't work.

What are those classic traits then that I'm supposedly displaying?

The Gazans would govern Gaza at a civilian level but Israel would need to be assured Hamas or an equivalent couldn't arise again so there would be a need for suppression of residual militant forces hence the U.N.

I think the grim reality is that there will be Palestinians that will want to support a military reponse of some kind from Gaza as retribution for the Israeli military campaign. I don't think you can easily dissuade Gaza from this course of action so security for both parties is paramount

Thinking in the long term suppression of militant forces will only get you so far. Some form of diplomatic intervention (from a 3rd party) would also be needed. Peace talks etc.

Ultimately the people in Gaza are not going to turn away from terrorism if they are in a situation where they feel that is their only option.

Obviously security is paramount but this has become a bit of a vicious circle. The more the Palestinians are suppressed the more radicalised they become and the more radicalised they become the more they need to be suppressed.

Looking at the proposals from Israeli politicians for what they consider to be reasonable measures for 'The Day After' is heartbreaking.

'The Day After', like it's been a particularly rowdy party and people need to just get the rubbish tidied away.

This is the destruction of a society, which was brutally oppressed before all this started. Their 'Day After' model is just more oppression.

@Scirocco I agree
And I hope Blinken atleast makes an attempt to point that out when he goes to Israel

@theoldweirdalbion

I think he question is what would be enough for the Palestinians to not resort to violence (and similarly for the Israelis).

given the current geographical boundaries of the Palestinian territories are there enough resources and infrastructure to create a functioning state where the lives of the Palestinians are such that there is no desperation?

One oncern is that Gaza is small area of land for 2.1 million people to be completely self sufficient so trade links will be important.

Who pays for any rwconstruction?

The Israelis would like the EU, US and the Arab world to foot the bill which may be costly and the West is going to be miffed given the amount already given for the building of hospitals etc. Will anyone want to build infrastructure which may be again bombed in 5 or 10 years time.

It's going to be a hard sell to the international community to supply massive aid (I assume loans to Gaza may be impractical).

Without the money for reconstruction Gaza may not the most hospitable place to live and we would have along term refugee problem and we would have to decide how best to advocate this??

Without the money for reconstruction Gaza may not the most hospitable place to live and we would have along term refugee problem and we would have to decide how best to advocate this??
Gaza gets huge amounts of aid anyway (which may or may not have been put to good use by Hamas). I don’t think raising the money would be a problem. The hope is they won’t be bombed again in 5 or 10 years time I guess.

given the current geographical boundaries of the Palestinian territories are there enough resources and infrastructure to create a functioning state where the lives of the Palestinians are such that there is no desperation?
I think if Palestine was established as an independent self-governing state that should be enough for most people though some would still hold more extreme views.
I’m sure most people just want to get with their lives though so in a more stable situation those extreme voices would not be listened to as much. I don’t think they would settle for the current boundaries though. I mean they might but they probably want the occupied territories back.

Israel should pay reparations towards rebuilding the hospitals, roads, homes etc. that they have destroyed. Other countries may contribute, but they should not foot the whole bill, since many did not agree with the maximum damage strategy anyway. Legal measures should be taken if necessary. I don't think any other countries should govern Gaza. There should be incentives for peace, such as allowing them access to their own oil and gas reserves, water in the WB and measures to create a Palestinian state

I agree with the first post on the thread.
It may be we need a big barrier, no man's land area between Israel and Gaza to ensure Hamas can never again what they did.

@Xenia I think Israel/Gaza is too small for that. The only solution is making peace a better deal than war. So a solution that is too good for both parties to jeopardise. I think the international community should be able to come up with that.

@stormy4319trevor

I wonder how that would work under international law and could it ever be enforced. I suppose you could say how much should Gaza pay in terms of recompense for October 7th? It's tricky.

In reality it will be other countries rebuilding Gaza so the West need to decide how big their pockets are and how they can benefit from a peace dividend.

I don't think rebuilding Gaza will be that cheap. 50 billion maybe?

@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.

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.

@DownNative hey long time!

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.

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.

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?

I think there a lot of good points here. Fundamentally the Palestinians are going to be prevented from exacting any type of revenge on the post war land scape. I think this is important as there will be those in Gaza that will want revenge;. Look at pictures of Gaza and the reason is simple.

I think once this reality has been accepted there can be progress. The faster a peace process can be begun the better the result for both Palestinians and Israelis. At a social level new generation of Palestinians and Israelis will have to learn to respect their neighbours and even though relationships won't be exactly friendly there will be a commitment to non violence.

I would like to see a reduction in marches in Western capitals at this point by pro Palestinians or at least signs saying 'constructive dialogues in a two state solution which respects territorial integrity now!!!!!'. The sight of protesters effectively carrying banners calling for expulsion of Jews from Israel doesn't exactly help the peace process.

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