As a conservative former Muslim: As long as Palestinians chant “from the river to the sea” and tolerate Hamas any talk about a two state solution is a joke. By not rejecting Hamas, Palestinians make themselves a military problem rather than a civil rights issue. You don’t give civil rights to people who are military threat.
This isn’t a point about morality, but the simple reality of nations protecting themselves. If you don’t have military superiority then scrupulous non-violence is the only alternative.
The problem with peaceful protest is that it can only work if there is very strong international pressure to stop Israel, because they most definitely won't stop by themselves.
The problem with expecting any international pressure, is that America vetos any such event, and Israel work really hard to make sure they always have the backing of all the countries that matter.
In any case, Hamas's existence is completely orthogonal to the reason for Israel's aggression. They want more land and less Palestinians on it.
All Palestinian violence, especially by Hamas, is used very effectively to gain international sympathy for Israel and to excuse violent & unjust policies.
A much greater level of non-violence from the Palestinian side would result in far stronger international pressure, and also domestic American pressure.
> A much greater level of non-violence from the Palestinian side would result in far stronger international pressure, and also domestic American pressure.
The 2018-2019 Gaza border protests (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018%E2%80%932019_Gaza_border_...) began with extended peaceful demonstrations and dancing by Palestinians. This was met with live fire from Israel, maiming tens of thousands and killing well over 200 people.
There was no meaningful international response, with America only voicing support for Israel's "right to defend itself."
Of course that was gross criminality & basically mass murder from the IDF side, but they still used the excuse of Hamas using the protests as cover to attack, to breach the border, to fire flaming kites, etc. Nevertheless there was quite a significant international response and loads of reputational damage to the IDF. The difficulty is that the non-violence has to be deep and prolonged.. The current leadership of Hamas controlling Gaza makes things extremely sad/difficult & is a great gift to the Israeli militarists..
Israel currently will use that as a public excuse, but Israel will clamp down on non-violent protect and violent protest fairly equally. There is always an excuse for why Israel has to take land and also why it has to have racist laws.
The problem is that if you look into it, it is a demographic battle to ensure that Israel keeps the West Bank and also that there is a Jewish majority in that region at whatever cost.
And here is an Israeli ambassador making the case that Jews are reproducing more than Arabs and that is a great thing (although he excludes Gaza, which Israel hopes that Egypt takes over): https://www.jns.org/opinion/blinken-is-wrong-on-israels-demo...
Israel is a really strange nation these days. It is very racist and openly so.
I don't agree at all, and I don't think others agree either. Hamas is the government of the area in question. Why are they not allowed to fire into Israel but Israel is allowed to do all manner of crimes in Hamas' territory?
Shooting innocents, storming innocent gatherings, espionage, wounding and killing innocent people is always done by Israel especially in land it internationally has no right to (think East Jerusalem).
No government in the world would allow such unchecked aggression and militarism within their borders. Hamas does not allow it either.
Hamas is considered a terrorist organization by most of the western world. Hamas now runs the government in Palestine. Sounds like check mate by the israeli's to me. Palestine fucked up by letting a terrorist organization take over their country.
Because this is the first time murdering a bunch of hamas members wasn't par for the course historically. Now it's Palestinians not 'Hamas' for the Palestinians, but one-in-the same for the US and Israeli governments. The other side of this is that they are a terrorist organization and need to be exterminated. Hamas says the same thing about the israeli's.
Also, war crimes as a subject is always brought on by the winners, just like the telling of history.
The world is a brutal place. Hamas has proved they are not a military match for israel and the war will continue until israel has complete control of the region. That's how one sided conflicts have happened historically.
Unchecked illegal settlement makes anti-Israeli sentiment inevitable. If the obvious outcome of playing by the rules is losing all their land and livelihood anyway, people won't play by the rules.
>By not rejecting Hamas, Palestinians make themselves a military problem rather than a civil rights issue.
Why does this statement not work against Israel for supporting governments that build settlements? Surely the war crime of building settlements is worse than a chant?
I don't disagree with your assessment, though it's not like Israel is perfect either - Israelis have been happy to continually vote for people who don't particularly prioritize peace (to put it mildly), and Israel has basically been strategically strengthening their position in negotiations by building settlements for the past 50 years.
The situation is complicated exactly because there are few ways forward if neither side has any incentives to compromise (partly for real strategic reasons, partly because the people in charge have goals that are not equivalent to making their people better off).
> As long as Palestinians chant “from the river to the sea” and tolerate Hamas any talk about a two state solution is a joke.
Comments like this one are the gears that turn to prevent peace. As with many conflicts, both sides do things that are incompatible with peace, and will not give them up because they see what the other side does. The answer is not to blame one side for reacting to the other.
It's not a novel situation at all. There are well-established, well-studied ways to build trust and peace.
> the simple reality of nations protecting themselves
Israel is stealing from others (this is an established fact), its victims react, so Israel "protects itself" against that reaction. Are you ok with this? Do you think that robbers have a right to protect themselves from their victims?
This isn’t a point about morality, but the simple reality of nations protecting themselves. If you don’t have military superiority then scrupulous non-violence is the only alternative.