Public sentiment regarding the Israel-Gaza conflict is largely critical and outraged over humanitarian crises and perceived injustices associated with military actions, particularly those of Israel. The narrative is underscored by calls for justice, empathy for suffering civilians, and a demand for humanitarian intervention alongside significant frustration towards both governments and media representation.

Israeli Government

Palestinian Authorities

International Community

/u/PloppingSmock (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.

All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1l9v7jh/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_the_only_likely_end_to_the/), in /r/DeltaLog.

Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.

^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

DeltaBot

Since nobody seemed to read the actual post where OP said This is NOT a discussion of the morality and bothered trying to change their view, I'll chime in.

I don’t think Gaza’s total destruction is the only likely outcome—just the most extreme one. A more natural and historically consistent outcome is that, over time, the Palestinian population adapts. Romantic arguments about “you can’t kill an idea” make for great slogans, but history shows people abandon causes when the costs become generationally unsustainable.

Eventually—maybe after a couple more cycles of war and displacement—the dominant will likely shift from resistance to survival. That could mean accepting a much smaller, weaker, and more fragmented version of a state—far worse than what was on the table in 1948, 1967, Oslo, 2005, or 2008. Not because it's fair, but because it’s what’s left.

Obsidian1000

I'm a lot more optimistic than yourself. Here are few things to consider -   
1) At least currently, the rate of death/removal of land isn't compatible with "wiping out Gaza". That is not to say that there aren't a lot of dead Palestinians and that is not to say that any life of a single Palestinian person aren't valuable - just that for more than a year now there are more Palestinians born in Gaza than Palestinians that died, and this is when you include Hamas militants in the calculation.  Same goes for Palestinians that left Gaza. At the start of the war a meaningful amount left, but after that not so many.  
This is not to diminish the suffering or anything, just to say that for your end to be the "likely" end, we would have to see a significant increase in those parameters.   
  
2) Majority of Israelis have showed in polls consistent support for the end of the war - and this majority grows as time progresses. (I know, some people in the comments would want to bring the one outlier poll with the poor methodology about the 82%, this is not how statistics work). This is already seen in Israel reducing the number of reservists they enlist, because many of them simply don't want to come for a war they want to end. This makes the increase from (1) significantly less likely - there is no internal support for such a move. That being said - the current Israeli gov (which according to polls loses by a large margin to its opposition) still has about a year+ left in office.

3) Lastly, IDK how close you follow the news, but there are some signs that Hamas loses its power completely. Some of these signs include the PA saying worse and worse things about Hamas (for the first time they said that October 7 was horrible), there are armed militias (that Israel helped arm - something that isn't consistent with occupying Gaza btw) that openly go against Hamas, and the Gazan protests against Hamas continue. The weaker Hamas are, the less commanders they have remaining, the better the offers that Israel is likely to get. Currently, any offer that was put on the table had Hamas remaining in some capacity in Gaza. Once this is gone - ideally it's easier to push Hamas to relinquish power and give back the hostages. If this happens - it's really hard to justify the continuation of the war - both to the Israeli public (that its opinions matter) and to the US. 

4) Lastly, notice that there are reports in recent days about Trump saying to Netanyahu he wants to see an end the war soon. Seems like Trump went back from his riviera plan.

comeon456

Why would that end the conflict?

The West Bank would still be a source of contention, and enough former-Gazian Palestinians live overseas to cause trouble at some future point.

The only end to the conflict is a diplomatic one, where both sides make concessions and find agreement over common grounds. Unfortunately, the leadership on both sides is probably going to have to change before this becomes a possibility—but it's still the only real resolution; anything else is just a pause while one side or the other regroups.

Wheloc

A one state solution is possible. Everyone can live together under a free, fair, democratic country. 

Israel supported and tolerated the religious groups that became Hamas. Their goal was to allow the religious extremist groups to gain power to squash the secular Palestinian Liberation movement. 

This just ended with the fight for Palestinians in gaza being tied to religious extremism. Which was great PR for Israel. 

However, it's not true. These are real people, both in Gaza and in Israel, who just want to live their lives. They could easily live in harmony. 

Jews, Muslims, and Christians lived together in the area for centuries. The modern conflicts began after the rise of Zionism, and specifically the Balfour declaration, where the British promised the Palestinians a nation if they revolted against ottomon rule, and they also promised the same area to Zionists for a Jewish state. Then European settlers started coming and in displacing natives from their homes and villages. That's when the fighting started. 

It's not impossible for them to coexist. 

This can be ended by a state where all people have equal rights, instead of the apartheid system that is currently set up. 

The issues that prevent that: 
The right of return. Palestinians aren't given the right of return to their ancestral homelands, but Jewish people who's families haven't lived their for millenia are given that right. 

Ethnonationalism: Israel is a Jewish state. That automatically puts a certain group in a higher social status than the others 

Mutual mistrust and trauma: the decades of fighting will leave lasting scars that need to be addressed to be able to allow healing. 

I don't see a reason why these issues would prevent them from being able to live together. They're certainly much better than genocide.

mddnaa

Since the prompt is to set morality aside, the simplest way to refute this is to mention that wiping out Israel would also end the conflict. Maybe some hypothetical where Iran or Russia infiltrates their nukes and sets them off in their silos?

A more realistic option though is to get peace partners on both sides. Maybe after all of this carnage, Palestinians oust Hamas (there are already protests going on now). Then, without Hamas as a boogie man, the Israeli far right loses their appeal/seats/power. Maybe whoever replaces Netanyahu and Hamas are both so sick of the carnage that they finally make a lasting peace.

Not sure how likely that is, but I think that could happen. It would require a lot of sacrifice from both sides though.

TJaySteno1

Generally speaking, Israel is willing to make peace.  They have long term peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan.  They just recently negotiated a ceasefire with Lebanon.  

For gaza, there is one non-negotiable requirement, and one likely requirement to peace.  Fulfilling both would probably avert the complete destruction you anticipate.  

Non-negotiable:

The hostages simply have to be returned.  Israel is not going to agree to any peace treaty that leaves hostages in the hands of Hamas to star in some future snuff video.  

That’s not even just a Netanyahu thing.  Even if he is removed from power, any government that takes its place would have to get the hostages returned before ending the war. 

Note that any “peace first, then the hostages get returned” is not going to work.  The war will continue until the hostages or their bodies are recovered.  There is simply no way for it to end before then. 



Likely requirement:

Hamas probably cannot remain as the government.  Unlike the hostages, I think there is some wiggle room on this one.  But, most likely, Israel would prefer war than allow Hamas, which has promised to launch a similar massacre in the future, to stick around.  

So, can the conflict end without the destruction of gaza?   For sure!   They will have to return the hostages and probably surrender unconditionally. Gaza may choose mass death over surrender, Japan almost did that in WW2, but it doesn’t have to happen that way.

Knave7575

Is part of your belief that Hamas will never surrender and never accept a Jewish state alongside itself?

Ok_Owl_5403

I'm relieved that your post isn’t cheering for Gaza’s destruction - it’s wrestling with the fear that it might be the only end left. That sense of inevitability is what I want to gently challenge.

There’s a bitter irony here. The last time a superpower ended a major war with overwhelming force was America dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was framed as a necessary horror to stop a greater one, and it did end the war.

Fast forward to Gaza: over the past 18 months, more explosive force than both atomic bombs combined - an estimated 60+ kilotons, has been dropped on one of the most crowded civilian areas in the world.

But it hasn’t ended Hamas. It hasn’t ended the conflict. The suffering has multiplied, and peace feels more distant.

If annihilation worked, we’d already have peace.

What actually ended WWII wasn’t just devastation - it was what followed. America didn’t just flatten Japan - they rebuilt it, invested in it, and created the conditions for peace.

That’s never been done for Gaza.

If we truly want an end, maybe the answer is world leaders finding their humanity and investing in justice, not perpetual wars and the kind of peace that is supposedly going to exist when Gaza becomes  apartheid apartments by the sea, built on the rubble of an unmarked graveyard for children.

throwawayfem77

[deleted]

That would be contrary to a now seventy year piles of evidence of how these things generally go.

A more logical and likely outcome is a partial depopulation of the area, with an exodus to nearby regions that encompasses a substantial part of the population, with the utter collapse of any organized Palestinian command, or its reorganization around the handful of people controlling what aide is given, or the ability to take it by force.

It is unlikely that Hamas in its pre-war form will be in that role, but entirely possible that different factions of it change the label or take over different parts of it.     Its also possible that a new violent extremist group emerges with a decisive edge in internal violence use, and uses its lack of track record to be considered a temporary benign influence to the Useful Idiot class of the West. 

This isn't ethnic cleansing, it isn't genocide,  it is a rinse and repeat political pogrom, that likely will be revisited over and over for the rest of our lifetimes, until the Palestinians forsake violence.

ErieHog

Okay. While I think the ending you’ve suggested is possible, I also think it’s far from likely. Here are my reasons.

1.) Israel doesn’t want to become a pariah state. There are definitely some Israeli far-right politicians who don’t care what foreign states think of Israel, but that’s not yet the majority. And while Netanyahu has snubbed the President on occasion, it’s a thin line. 

Without American and European support, Israel would be dramatically weakened. They might be the strongest state in the region now, but a few decades down the line? Who knows. Level heads in the IDF of all places probably understand the threat international isolation poses better than Ben Gvir and his imbecilic posse.

2.) It’s too much money to continue the war indefinitely. Some kind of diplomatic agreement has to be reached, because total mobilization isn’t cheap.



The most likely solution, in my view, is another partial occupation/full occupation and a truce, not with Hamas but with some kind of puppet Palestinian authority. Kicking this can down the road has become an Israeli specialty at this point.

byzantiu

Hamas could surrender.

That always been an option. That prevent it.

Surrender has always been an option for Palestinian that they refuse to take. Take the L that they lost the war (and such lost major political capital) and decide to move on with their lives rather than try to take back what they lost.

If we take the premise that Hamas would rather all of Gaza burn then surrender to Israel, then yeah you're correct. Probably war will end with Gaza destruction.

But do you accept that premise that Palestrina people prefer death to surrender.

SnooOpinions5486

What does "wipe out" entail?
98% of Palestinians are still there after 2 years of war.


So infrastructure? Political system? Economy?

biteme4711

I will continue base on the assumption that you are only pointing out that Israel wants to complete the genocide and occupy the Gaza strip and other Palestinian lands, not endorsing or supporting their action.

* Politically speaking, Israel will most likely continue their effort because there is no opposing forces, thanks to the US' constant nays at the Security Council, if it was not Israel but another country with no lobbists paying US politicians, that country would have been bombed to oblivion two years ago.
* Militarily speaking, while Houthis are still launching missiles at Israel, but TBH it's only a nuisance at this point, and it will continue to be, base on the distance and all the arab countries that are not too keen on helping Palestine.
* Economically speaking, Israel has what it takes to keep going, of course I'm refering to the US tax dollars, while Palestine has next to nothing.
* Culturally speaking, Israel now shares the reputation of the Third-Reich and Militarist Imperial Japan, so they can't go lower, so nothing is holding them back in this regard.

It's likely Israel will continue down this path, but there is hope --

1. US will come to its senses when they realize Israel is becoming too strong in that region and starts to hurt their profit. (Not the first time, look at Al-Qaeda, Saddam Hussein, Taliban, Iran, Libyan rebels, Syrian rebels, the list goes on)
2. nternational pressure, shifting regional alliances, and global public opinion can create new dynamics that force Israel and its ally to stop.
3. Palestinian people’s resilience and the broader Arab and international solidarity movements continue to exert pressure, demanding justice and a sustainable resolution.

In short, while the current trajectory appears grim, complex geopolitical realities and historical precedents suggest that total annihilation is not the only possible end. Change—though difficult—remains within the realm of possibility.

CanadianGangsta

I unfortunately think your view is not... unlikely, but we have to keep in mind that past peace breakthroughs in the region also were unfathomable before they actually occurred. Nobody thought peace between Egypt and Israel would ever be possible before the brave, extended campaign on the part of Egyptian leadership to normalize relations.

It certainly isn't guaranteed, but a unified leadership on the palestinian side, willing to embrace peace and negotiate in good faith, and with the backing of the international community could force israel into a position where they *must* negotiate peace. I have my disagreements with Israeli leadership, but historically Israel has pretty astutely responded to the political realities on the ground, whether or not those aligned with their (often distasteful) political aspirations. 

if, by some miracle, a coherent palestinian leadership emerged that was dead-set on peace, it is not unlikely that Israel would have to negotiate a peace agreement with them - just like Jordan, Egypt, and now even Saudi Arabia

I think that with proper public pressure, the US and European governments will eventually have to do less and less for Israel, until Israel is forced to make peace.

Israel’s unpopularity and waning support will eventually make it collapse.

So the only way to stop a genocide is to let the people be completely destroyed and finish the genocide? Great insight sis 🤣

rkhatri

I'll take this one step further:
The only way to achieve true peace on earth is for the human species to be wiped out entirely.

TwilightFate

If America stops giving weapons to Israel the war will end

Invinciblez_Gunner

It depends what you mean by "the annihilation of Gaza". Large swathes of the strip have been reduced to rubble at this point, and Israel is certainly in favor of large scale emigration of Gazans from the strip. I don't think they'd have the political backing to carry out forced expulsions, but you can argue that the systematic destruction of infrastructure in the strip is a tacit endorsement of ethnic cleansing (and it's not hard to find hardcore voices in Israel who proudly call for that and worse).

If what you mean by "annihilation of Gaza" is that all 2 million residents will be killed, that's nowhere near a reality. The death toll in this conflict is far below the death toll in the Russia/Ukraine war, or many other conflicts in recent history, in raw numbers. The impact on civilians is egregious, and the fact that civilians haven't been able to flee is somewhat unprecedented. When all the dust settles, and the full death toll is tabulated, I don't know if it would reach double digits in terms of percentages (ie; &gt;10%). That's just a death toll - not a casualty toll, or a psychological trauma toll.

What would it take for Israel to end the war? Bibi wants to end the war with what is seen as a decisive victory. As it stands, Israel has largely dismantled Hamas's military capabilities and commanders. They've destroyed Hezbollah, and are eyeing possible normalization of ties with Syria.  Meanwhile, there's a huge focus in Israel in dismantling Iran's nuclear program, which requires freeing up additional military resources. There's also a strong pressure internally in Israel to wrap up the war in Gaza - the economic toll is huge, the diplomatic toll has been enormous, Israelis broadly prioritize returning the hostages, and there's increasing political pressure to bring the war to an end. For example, you mentioned Trump - while it's true that America won't stop providing arms to Israel, Trump also wants to be seen as a peacemaker, and has been exerting pressure on Israel recently to bring the war to a close and declare victory.

I think you can expect that the two sides will sign an agreement somewhat soon, under the proposed "Witkoff plan". That would lead to 10 living hostages freed over the course of 60 days, and the final living hostages' release to be negotiated pending a full end to the war. Israel might make a big push to get Gazans to leave for other countries, but even if 1 million people leave (which is unlikely - nobody wants to accept Gazan refugees, especially on mass), there will still be 1 million people living in the strip.

Over the coming decade, there will be an enormous amount of money poured into reconstruction efforts. There are billions of people around the world who want to donate money to that cause, and every country in the middle east would benefit from a stable and prosperous Gaza. Obviously, that's not possible with Hamas in control, but the current deals on the table would theoretically see Hamas cede control. The political future of the conflict is uncertain, but the continued existence of Gaza is not. 

Happy to provide citations for anything you have questions about here.

MostlyAffable

So you have accepted now that a two state solution is not sustainable, and it never was, not when once side refuses to live peacefully in coexistence. I’m glad. 

You later stated ‘a one state solution with equal rights seems great but does not seem likely in the near future’ I’m not sure if this is just genuine lack of knowledge or naiveness but I’ll go with the first. There is a one state, that has offered a tremendous number of solutions, that offers equal rights for all citizens irregardless of race, religion, political views, sex or sexual orientation - This is called the state of Israel. Where 2 million Arabs live peacefully in coexistence, more so they are in the Knesset, they are all doctors or bankers or high court judges.

StartMiddle

Human brains seek simple, easily understood solutions to complex problems. Real life is hardly ever so simple. 

Israel has already pretty much destroyed most of Gaza so you're correct there. But I think the idea that Gazans will be relocated or killed is not realistic. On relocation - there is nowhere for them to go. Egypt will not have them in Sinai. Its not practical in any way. And on extermination... also not really realistic.

Despite the brutality of this war only a small fraction of Gazans are dead. There is a very very large gap I between war with heavy civilian casualties and systemic extermination. Gazans are still having babies. The current pace of the war, devastating as it is, can continue for a very very long time without resulting in extermination. 

The fact is that there is really no gain for Israel in extermination. That would only radicalize Palestinians in Israel and the West Bank and move the conflict elsewhere. Israel knows that there is no realistic solution in which they do not still have to deal with a substantial Palestinian population in territories they control. 

Extermination doesn't suit their interests. Domination does. There will be a harsh occupation and strict apartheid-style laws for the foreseeable future. They believe they cannot live peacefully with Palestinians and cannot exterminate then either, so they aim to control them as closely as possible.

Prince_Marf

With all due respect, your comments reflect deep ignorance about the social structure of the Palestinian territories. Further, your comments suggest a significant disconnect between your media diet and current events in Gaza. 

In the Palestinian territories, a small number of clans (essentially extended families, but the concept not completely analogous) hold tremendous social and political power. In the past few weeks, three different clans in Gaza have denounced Hamas and begun working with Israel in opposition to Hamas. This is a significant turning point in the war.

If the clans are able (with the help if Israel) overthrow Hamas, they will replace Hamas as the governing body of Gaza.

Was that the solution for slavery of black people in America or South Africa?

Seems like equal rights tend to be the most likely if we go by history.

Unless you think jews are some special kind of evil

Giardian_of_Israel

If it's okay to be this existential then lets get rid of Israel by stopping all its funding. The West has thrown so much money into making this barbaric and unnatural project work but all it would take to make it fall is let go and let gravity do its work. 

DustyFalmouth

Total genocide of Gaza won't end the war. Once Gaza is empty the West Bank will be next. They're already running operations there and the leadership of the West Bank *has* recognized Israels right to exist.

After they empty the West Bank they move on the Jordan and Sinai. Remember, the Israeli right believes Israel should stretch from the Nile to the Euphrates.

So sure, you can take the morality questions out of it. But your question in inherently flawed because whether you empty out Gaza or not it still won't end the conflict.

Acceptable-Fig2884

Not to be a doomer but it’s entirely possible with the recent evacuation of US military families and Israeli/American intel talking about a strike on Iran, that this could escalate into a regional if not global conflict. If Iran decides to bomb US military bases or Saudi oil fields and tank the oil market it would almost certainly mean US intervention. Considering Iran is allied with China/Russia it’s very possible they would supply weapons and even military support to protect their interests with Iran

Confident-Football-2

I am looking at it in the following way:

  
1. Israel can't murder 2M people in Gaza, it would make them pariahs for the rest of their existence, which wouldn't be long when arabs finally attack it and Western countries turn a blind eye.

2. Israel can't occupy Gaza forever, it's just too expensive for a 10M nation to occupy 2M Gazans.

3. Israel can either withdraw - and return to pre-October 7 status, which doesn't make a lot of sense to do.

4. Or push all Palestinians from Gaza - the best scenario for Israel. But if Palestinians won't leave, then we come back to point #1 (Israel can't kill all of them), then point #2, and finally to point #3 (Israel must withdraw because it can't afford)

So, if Palestinians don't move away and suffer for some time, Israel will withdraw.

ScrupulousArmadillo

Hamas could always just release the hostages and surrender.

Cyan_Kurokawa_

Frankly, the most likely scenario is as follows:

1. UN and international diplomatic pressure force Israel to agree to the Hamas terms: Israel to pull out and Hamas pinky-promises to release the hostages afterward.
2. Israel pulls out.  Hamas releases some but not all of the hostages.  Hamas comes up with some lame excuse like "the hostages converted to Islam" or "we can't find them."
3. Israel complains about its hostages and Hamas' failure to abide by the deal.  Nobody listens or cares.

3a. Hamas shoots off a few dozen rockets into Israel in celebration and to show it is not under control and as a symbol the fight goes on.  Israel is pressured not to retaliate.  It might, it might not, either way is purely symbolic.

4.  International aid pours in to rebuild Gaza.  Iran, Qatar, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other groups continue to send military supplies to Hamas.

5.  5-7 years from now, Hamas breaks the ceasefire and attempts "Al Aqsa Flood 2." Once again, Muslims and Leftists around the world gather to celebrate the beginning of war and the gruesome murders.

6.  Israel invades Gaza again, reminding the world that its hostages have been in captivity for over a decade, now.  Once again, Gazan civilians refuse to evacuate and the "Pro-Palestine" countries refuse to accept any refugees anyway.

7. No matter how Israel responds or to what extent, the UN and international left will restart the histrionics and label its actions "genocidal."  Pressure mounts on Israel to accept another "ceasefire" which will almost certainly be broken within a few years.

8.  Rinse, Repeat, Ad Infinitum.

XhazakXhazak

I think Israel will take all of Gaza and people will be shipped elsewhere eventually. 

But the US will not support Israel for much longer (less than 20 years?) as more and more young people are trained in thinking that all physical conflict is unjustifiable. 

The young and even most millennials today don’t believe in peace through strength

Moonwrath8

Wiped out? Logistically and optically too expensive.  Rather - likely reduced to about 20% of the land in tightly controlled enclaves with a barely functional economy that causes a majority of the population to eventually leave.  And that 20% will be heavily monitored and checkpointed, like West Bank. The 80% of land left over will be military reserve for Israel with anti-tunnel measures, and land given to settlers.  

No-Dinner-5894

There is always the possibility of a collapse of the Israeli government; if the ruling coalition somehow breaks apart, there's a chance that their replacement will seek to end the war in the interest of making a clean break. Particularly, the ultra-orthodox parties have been increasingly vocal members of the coalition, with their protests against the possibility of ultra-orthodox men being drafted into the IDF. 

But that would only really be a stopgap measure. The current state of affairs, even if the fighting stopped tomorrow, is unsustainable. Barring an actual miracle or the complete collapse of Israel as a state, Israel will eventually absorb Gaza and the West Bank; the only real question is whether there will be anyone left when they do.

Doc_Mercury

The likely end to the conflict is that Israel trades Gaza for Iran. Israel bombs Iranian nuclear reactors, but ends the war in Gaza. 

Israel will accept this because they view Iran as the bigger threat and ultimate funder of Hamas. They'll get to Hamas eventually. 

Hamas will accept it, because they need the war to end so they can stabilize their control on Gaza and regroup. 

America will accept it, because it ends the Gaza war while removing the threat of a nuclear Iran. 

(The Iranian people will accept it if it means the overthrow of the Mullahs, well see if that happens.)

The only real losers are Palestinians, who are still under Hamas dictatorship.

Technical-King-1412

Maybe the destruction of Israel would be more likely

ArcangelLuis121319

Gaza will be occupied, and large parts of it will be destroyed but not necessarily wiped out. If Genocide was the intent, the civilian death toll is too low, considering how destructive modern weapons are. The most likely answer is that Gaza will be occupied indefinitely while Israel or another Arab country administers the region and rebuilds civilian infrastructure and economy.

Under current conditions, a two-state solution is impossible. It will only ever become possible when extremist ideology is wiped out.

1ncest_is_wincest

Jews were once expelled from the same location, and this has not ended the conflict in the region. Diaspora groups always carry the memories and stories of their land of origin and will feel a pull towards it. They will export their conflicts and act them out in immigrant neighbourhoods. As for the Israelis, the oppressed have become the oppressor. History repeats itself. The Middle East will be forever cursed with this conflict. 

The only solution is mass conversion to Van Halen.

Popular_Ad_4934

I agree with everything except one thing. They will not massacre the palestinians to a man. Right now 1% of the civilian population has been killed. We are a long way off from killing off the palestinians in Gaza. If Egypt doesnt open its border i dont see them going anywhere else. In that case they will probably be hoarder into southern Gaza and kept there. They said before that Gaza is an open air prison, but i think we havent seen anything yet....

FitDeal325

I agree. I don’t see this ending any other way, especially given the people in power.

I will take it a step further and say my tin foil hat take. I think Israel knew about the Oct. 7 Hamas attack and chose to ignore it. They knew it was a prime opportunity to take over Gaza once and for all. The military over there is far too advanced for them to of not known about Hamas falling out of the sky.

Zestypalmtree

I think it's fairly obvious that this war will be over once Hamas has been removed from power. If Hamas continues to refuse to return the hostages and surrender unconditionally, then the destruction will continue.  But I don't see anything that justifies the contention that Gaza will be wiped out "entirely."

Other peoples have weathered wars. The Palestinians will, too.

flossdaily

Actually the only way for the conflict to end is to

A) arrest Netanyahu and his administration for war crimes
B) remove every settler and put them on trial for war crimes.
C) implement 2 state solution


What you're describing is literally just genocide.

BatmanxX420X

The Prodestant vs Catholic conflicts in Ireland. Violence happened between the two groups for hundreds of years and the last conflict lasted 30 years. Some people back then had the opinion that the conflicts would never end but peace has lasted there today. You can never know what will happen in the future. It may not happen right now, but things do change.

Godlesspants

I, unfortunately, agree with your prediction. I think Israel will not stop, and while sympathetic western nations might highly encourage a two state solution and peace, they won't bring any real force of consequence to bear to make it happen, and the Palestinian people will be slowly pushed further and further out until they are effectively completely exiled from their own homeland.

That is a big part of why, and every time I say this I get a shit load of people clutching their pearls and being dead set on deliberately misunderstanding me, but that is why I understand and sympathize with Hamas.

Like I always have to do when I say that, I must make it clear that I completely reject and have the utmost disdain for the practices of fundamentalist Islam from basically every social and human rights angle. I also have the utmost disdain for terroristic violence.

However, I know that I hold those disdains from a position of extreme privilege. That is to say, my people aren't facing extinction and banishment. My people aren't having their homes and land stolen.

If my people were facing that, and had been for now multiple generations, then that alternate reality version of myself might very well be an extremist. That alternate reality version of myself might very well have clung to apocalyptic religion and martyr fetish radicalized sects. That alternate reality version of myself might well have come to harbor a bristling hatred of the entire rest of the world.

I don't want that to be the case, but it's true. I will admit openly that if I rushed home, seeing a pillar of smoke coming from where my house used to be, and dug through the rubble of my home to find my daughter or wife or son or parents blasted into meat and effluence that I could barely tell used to be them, or even worse yet found them still alive with their skin sloughing off and what's left of their jaw flopping open as they try to call for help.....if that happened to me, It would radicalize me. I'm telling you, boom, snap, that's it. I would be an extremist from that day forward. Nothing else in life would matter. I would cease being me on that day, and what's left of me would be nothing but hate and desire for revenge then my own death.

And I think the same would be true for most of us.

Jimithyashford

Because countries don't want to take refugees from Gaza and birth rates are high (population doubled itself in the last 2 decades). You will end up with milion of people living in tents for the rest of their life, gaza in ruins and it doesn't look like someone going to build that city soon

Special-Resource-375

Is there no way to collapse Hamas without eliminating all of Gaza? Regimes have been deposed before historically without eliminating everyone under the rule of that regime.

Israel could negotiate with the Palestinian Authority such that the Palestinian Authority would agree to take over Gaza and return the hostages while maintaining Gaza as separate from Israel proper. From there Israel could structure their offensive into Gaza strategically around building the Palestinian Authority against Hamas (create safety zones for civilians ran by the PA, build PA infrastructure, etc.).

As far as I’m aware Israel hasn’t tried anything along this route. It seems less a matter of likelihood but more that Israel doesn’t want to make the concessions in the West Bank that such negotiations will necessitate and doesn’t want to invest the time and resources into building a new regime in Gaza.

Typically deposing a regime means propping up another to take its place and not eliminating the people under that regime entirely. I don’t see why that can’t be done in Gaza outside of Israel not wanting to.

RealJohnBobJoe

A corner stone of this conflict is Israel's power to act with impunity due to unconditional support from the US administration. Therefore Israel is not motivated to really seek peace.

So an alternative and realistic option is the U.S. withdrawing all support for Israel. Now, this might seem unrealistic—but I think, over time, it’s actually quite realistic. Here's why:

Firstly, why do many US politicians support Israel? Well, the answer is—they actually don’t. They support their own careers by staying on the good side of AIPAC. The American public, in general, is not nearly as pro-Israel as the government traditionally is. An enormous amount of support for Israel comes from AIPAC and Christian Zionists (not the US public in general)

So Israel, although powerful, rests on a precarious foundation. With some strategic political action, Israel’s hijacking of the U.S. government could be reversed. Focus on the undue influence of AIPAC and expose the irrational foundation of Christian Zionism—whose support for Israel is not based on justice or anything that makes sense. It is based on the apocalyptic belief that God is at war with the forces of darkness, and Israel is His chosen one in this war. So hy should the American public support this nonsense financially and send their soldiers to die for this cause?

Once U.S. support (or servitude) is withdrawn from Israel, this will force Israel to actually negotiate with surrounding nations. It will no longer have the power to target their children. It will no longer have the power to steal more land in the West Bank. It will no longer have the power to behave with impunity. It will be forced to compromise and will no longer be able to provoke without consequence. Basically, Israel will be forced to accept terms that actually consider the other side.

After decades of heavy funding from the U.S. government, Israel will still retain a lot of power—but it will now need to use it wisely and will be forced to seek peace in a genuine way.

*And to help the OP get their idea across: they are not saying anyone SHOULD wipe out Gaza - even if it was the only way to end the conflict.*

LostSignal1914

I agree that this is the most likely, UNLESS the international community steps up. Unfortunately it seems like they wont.

SorryImDunk

No, there is a better way.

The war on Hamas is one against the Hamas government and military.  The non-combatants (civilians) are not the issue.  Gaza just needs government that works to lead the people to a future that is not focused on the destruction of Israel, rather focused on building a sustainable economy and country for the Gaza people.

The war will remove all traces of Hamas, this is step 1.

An Israeli security force will keep peace after the war and maintain security, step 2.

Israel has no interest in leading the people of Gaza, they are all done with them.  Israel would be best served by brining in a multinational group from the countries in the Abram’s Achord to lead as the government of Gaza and de-radicalize the remaining people, rebuild the country, and focus on building an economy so the people can have a better life.

Things got off track because Hamas got into power and committed to war.  New leadership can commit to peace and globalization to bring in economic support from around the world to build an entirely new path for Gaza.

This is what happened in Germany and Japan after WW2, and both countries are amazing now.  It can happen in the Middle East as well.  Particularly if the Iranian government is defeated and is replaced by a government that will stop pumping aid into terror groups around Israel. This process has stated already as well.

Please be hopeful, other areas in the world have been consumed by hate in the past and were able to move forward to become better places.  It can happen in Gaza as too.

Co-flyer

I see this dragging on for a very, very long time. Israel remains resolute in executing a slow-motion genocide, and it’s doing so with unconditional U.S. backing. No significant policy shift seems likely in the foreseeable future, even under a non-Trump administration.

While resistance movements often collapse into resignation or adaptation, I don’t see that happening in Gaza. This monstrosity - it’s a genocide - plays directly into jihadist narratives.

On one side, many Palestinians are raised with an all-or-nothing view: “It’s our land, all of it”. The doctrine of Islam also is not especially yielding or forgiving; although this conflict can’t be framed as purely religious, it does make compromise less likely. On the other side, Israelis are taught that their “biblical birthright”, collective trauma, and existential fear justify exclusive claim to the same land.

Even if we imagine a future in which a new generation of Palestinians genuinely tries to integrate (a hopeful but unlikely scenario), the Israeli vision remains fundamentally ethnocratic. The goal is not peaceful coexistence, but the realization of Greater Israel, with Jews as the primary citizens and Palestinians as permanent outsiders.

You can’t expect recovery or de-radicalization under conditions of daily humiliation: your house taken, your rights denied, your people dehumanized. It really look like Israel and Palestine are locked in a never ending conflict fuelled by their respective collective trauma and fragmented identity.

lovely-complex

Late comment, but you are correct to be concerned. What people don't understand is that Israel technically did not displace anyone. They were afforded their state (a very small country) in 1947 by the UN to provide refuge of Jews from the still anti-semitic post-WW2 Europe. The Palestinians have been kicked out at least 4 times, dating back over 100 years. Egypt and Jordan gave Israel more land, including the Gaza Strip and Western Bank, under the auspices of the UN. And England (what was England doing there?)

The Palestinians need their homeland returned, safe and sound. But Israel is not the only bad guy here, they actually were given their land. And the Israelis and Palestinians got along great for a couple decades before Netanyahu and Hamas took over. I know because we took care of Palestinian people in our Israeli hospitals.

The October slaughter of innocent Israelis told me that Hamas is not to be trusted, they knew of the consequences that they're now complaining about. I say, feed the Palestinians, and get rid of Hamas!! They care nothing about their own people (obviously), they are terrorists that hide behind the innocents. And Netanyahu can take a quick exit, too. 

But notice how Germany (the country whose history started this whole mess), Egypt, and Jordan are hiding their heads, as well as the other countries involved in the UN, expecting the US to solve everything they caused. Cowards!

maxmurray1957

I can’t convince you otherwise. The Jewish government’s goal is to annihilate the Arab people living in the area. The ones who don’t die through bombardment are starved and left without medical supplies. They will bomb everything until conditions become unlivable. No one can live in rubble alone. Some rubble can be cleaned up but if it gets too much, there are no supplies coming in to rebuild and enough people are killed or injured, the remaining will die consequently without any Jewish intervention necessary. Yes, of course the US will send them more money and weapons they can ever use “to defend themselves” Why do you think Israel has other goals? 

Imagine someone would come to the US would take your house and lawn and would put you, your kids, your parents and neighbors in an internment camp. Would you be upset and think that this was unfair? That is what Jewish settlements are. Jewish SETTLEMENTS violate the Geneva convention. This means they violate human rights. I am surprised that everyone expects the people who live there give up their livelihood, all their possessions, their kids’ future, and their work and move to a camp in a tent without a fight. It would just be appropriate to call it what it is, a genocide. The annihilation of a people with the help of the US. If the US wouldn’t support it, it would not be possible.

Vegetable_Profile315

Whether or not it's justified, and whether or not it's a genocide, at the current rate it'd take decades to kill everyone in Gaza. The rate could change, but I don't see this happening at the moment, and we can discuss _that_ when it appears to be going that way.


What I think _will_ happen, is that eventually everyone will get tired of this crap and go home. Hamas will stay in power, Israel will keep the siege up, Gaza will still be a shitty place to live, but the Gazan population will not be wiped out. And this situation can keep going for so long that Netanyahu will die of old age, and the whole political map would reshuffle. 

megalogwiff

There is no way to “eliminate” Gaza - it lives on in the hearts of every Gazan forced to flee their homeland, and they will always have the right to return there.

colaptesauratus

The Gulf Arab / Egyptian peace plan is that after the war is over, a new government will come in and take control of Gaza. Possibly the Palestinian Authority - the prior PA ruler of Gaza, Mohammad Deif, is on the staff of the ruler of the UAE. The plan calls for Gaza to be rebuilt using Gulf Arab money and secured with Egyptian soldiers (Egypt shares a border with Gaza). The plan calls for several industrial zones and ports to be built in Gaza, so that people there can have jobs and choose industry over terror.

The plan doesn’t call for Hamas to be disarmed, which is mandatory for Israel after Oct 7. And who knows if any of that would happen or work - maybe the Gazans will use the new ports to smuggle weapons and do another Oct 7 attack, as Hamas previously said they would.

But it’s an ambitious idea that offers a real alternative to endless grinding conflict. People in Gaza have been indoctrinated by decades of Hamas propaganda, but a new government with intl support that improves people’s lives could bring real change. If they can give up on the idea of destroying their neighbor, they have a real chance of building something meaningful.

LateralEntry

While Judaism is both an ethnic and a religious identity, the same cannot be said for Christianity and Islam. If the suggestion is that Palestinians, a people with a history and culture tied to the land they’ve lived for over a thousand years, are “interchangeable” with any other Islamic group of people, that’s not correct. There is diversity of traditions and beliefs throughout the Islamic world. Palestinians (who are not only Muslim) see themselves as people whose existence and history is tied to Palestine. 

Israel has the right to sovereignty but that does not give it the right to violate the human rights of other indigenous inhabitants on the land which the nation state of Israel was created not even a hundred years ago. 

Frankly, my opinion of the legitimacy of Israel defining itself entirely as a Jewish state as opposed to a more inclusive perspective of who has an equal claim to live in their homeland, is getting increasingly sour. I guess my bias as an American (a racial minority but not a religious minority) is that it’s imperative of nations that have a history of modern state creation, religious, ethnic and cultural diversity, to define their nationhood in the most inclusive framework possible. That’s the goal. Clearly this is a big struggle in the USA but due to my experiences and those of generations of my family, that’s my bias. 

Religious wars don’t end until you get to the point where nobody thinks martyrdom is worth it. Framing the violence between Palestinians and Jews and Israelis as being about religious identities, and given the sacred religious place Jerusalem holds in the three Abrahamic faiths, this thing is never going to end. 

In the long run the only resolutions I see is Israel ridding of all the Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza (expelling, genocide etc.) or working (with equally invested Palestinians) to create a more inclusive and nuanced history  and national identity that protects Jews and Jewish indigenousness to Palestine/Israel but equally validates the identity, rights of Palestinians to be equally included in the political community/nation of Israel. I can’t see a two state solution ever being a stable framework of peace.

mBegudotto

Respectfully, and I mean this because you clearly put a lot of effort in here, I think part of the problem here is the way you’ve set up the questions. They start from a premise that October 7 happened in a vacuum after Israel patiently absorbed decades of unprovoked rocket fire, when in reality it came after decades of blockade, military occupation, mass displacement, settlement expansion, and repeated large-scale bombardments. You can choose to see Hamas’ actions as the start of the clock, but you could just as easily start it at 1967, or 1948, or the Balfour Declaration, or 3000 years ago, etc... and the moral arithmetic would look very different.

I don't say this to excuse Hamas’ atrocities, they remain indefensible, and they’ve made the situation worse for civilians in Gaza as well as Israel, but "defensive strategy" doesn’t mean anything in a vacuum either. A siege that’s starved children, bombed refugee camps, flattened neighborhoods, and killed tens of thousands of civilians is not self-defense in any meaningful moral or legal sense, especially when it’s paired with statements from senior Israeli officials making clear they see Gaza’s population itself as a target.

As for the most Gazans support Hamas claim, polling under siege and occupation is inherently unreliable, but even in better times, support has been fluid and more often tied to lack of alternatives than to deep ideological alignment. Right now I can tell you, most I've spoken to hate them now, for good reason - but that also I couldn't claim is a scientific sample. Regardless conflating a civilian population with an armed group is exactly how collective punishment gets rationalized.

On your points about religion, I’ve worked in enough conflict zones to know you can find extremists in any faith. I've seen Buddhist monks calling for the extermination of Muslims in Myanmar, and Catholic gangs in Colombia threatening to cut up old ladies for not paying protection money in the name of God. The difference is whether governments and armed groups act on those extremes. Plenty of Israelis and plenty of Palestinians want a future that doesn’t involve annihilating the other, but the current political and military leadership on both sides are locked into cycles that make that future impossible.

So in sum, I do understand your perspective, I just think it leaves out too much history and too much of the present reality for Palestinians, and when you put all of it on the table the idea that what’s happening now is defense becomes much harder to sustain.

No-Baker-2864

Deliberately starving children is not national security. 

Flooding Gaza with food will not destroy Israel.

gamys77

&gt;There is so much blame put towards Israel for its part in the war, but the actions of Hamas are accepted without the same pushback.

Sure, no country condemned Hamas at all. In fact, a lot of countries still support Hamas with weapons and diplomatic support. Or is it Israel?

Ok_Row_6627

*"There is so much blame put towards Israel for its part in the war, but the actions of Hamas are accepted without the same pushback."*

This is because of antisemitism. Ideally, both sides should be treated equally and condemned equally for their respective war crimes.

*"I understand many take the moral high ground and call it a genocide but that seems to be regurgitated rhetoric to me."*

And here in lies the rub. Believing Israel is a genocide because 'everyone says so' is foolish. And on the flip side, dismissing what 'everyone' says just because 'everyone is saying it' is also foolish. Personally I am past debating if it's genocide or not: there's good evidence for it, good evidence against it, and it'll all come out in court. What I care about is if people have good, solid reasons for believing it is or isn't genocide, and can back those reasons up.

*"What I ask is why would Israel just lay down and accept the terms of terrorist?"*

Simple answer is, they won't. At this point, it's not even about Israel fighting terrorism. It's also about wanting to prove the rest of the world wrong.

*Isreal has caused devastation across Gaza there is no doubt but it isn’t like it was an out of the blue attack on the people of the strip.*

Pro-Palestine people would argue Israel also caused an out-of-the-blue occupation on the people of the strip in the 1940s.

*Oct 7 was the last straw but Israel doesn’t want the death of all in Gaza.(Before this statement causes arguments they want them out of Gaza not dead if they truly wanted them dead they would be simple as that.)* 

 I'd caution you that there are some Israelis who seem to want everyone in Gaza dead. I'd also point out that if they *were* planning to kill everyone, they aren't going to announce it on national television. They'd do it slowly and carefully to avoid detection. This is one reason some people believe that Israel is committing genocide, and is just stringing it out over years.

*Hamas is the main perpetrator of this but the citizens on mass support the actions and more worryingly the message of Hamas. Remember they have voted for Hamas to get and keep power.*

Hamas kills anyone who opposes them. If you were a Gazan with a family and children to look after, would you risk your family's safety by speaking out? Or would you just quietly vote for Hamas and hope they leave you alone?

*the entire Muslim world hates the jews and all the radicals(mind you the majority not minority) wish death to those outside of their world view especially the jewish people.* 

This is Islamophobia. There are many Muslims who don't hate Jews, and are in fact friends with, or even spouses with, Jews. There are Muslims who have been raised to hate Jews but who are trying to rid themselves of these feelings. And, frankly, there are Muslims who don't think about Jews at all.

You have a good understanding of the Israeli side of things, and a good understanding of Hamas's tactics and rhetoric. However, you're choosing to tar all Muslims with the same brush, instead of seeing them as individuals. If you want them to fight back against Hamas, why on earth should a Muslim listen to you if you seem to have already decided you dislike them?

Prudent-Matter317

Just a small correction - Journalists (Israeli or International) are not restricted from entering Gaza, they are restricted from roaming it alone. They can enter with IDF escort, and many have done it already. (and many journalists refuse, claiming this is not free press, and categorizing it as de-facto restricting them from entering)

To be clear, I don't like that policy, be if you talk about facts, it needed to be corrected.

TalMilMata

The only point I would quibble with is the number of journalists.  Yes, there have been journalists killed but people who are both militants and journalists are not given the same protection as journalists.  If an IDF soldier wrote a byline in a newspaper that does not make them an illegitimate target (same thing for a Hamas militant who wears a press jacket and takes pictures).  Therefore, the number of journalists killed is higher than 0 but fewer than 186.  How many fewer?  I don’t know but I’d surmise a substantial number.  And I don’t know how the remaining numbers compare on a per capita basis (per journalist, really) to previous urban wars.

NoTopic4906

&gt;4. At Least 186 Journalists Killed

Not everyone with a camera is a journalist and plenty of so called journalists are combatants. I'd hardly consider this factual.

I highly recommend [reading this thread](https://x.com/MiddleEastBuka/status/1933125048878895242) which breaks down the status of alleged journalists listed by the CPJ. Unsurprisingly, many of them were combatants.

Additionally, this is [the list](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GxLWyBiWMAAb2Ot?format=jpg&amp;name=large) published by the CPJ with combatants highlighted in yellow and cases of collateral damage highlighted in blue (this was done because the CPJ does not distinguish between civilians and combatants). All the other names have not yet been verified as such information tends to be scarce since Hamas has warned people not to publish the combatant status of Palestinians killed by Israel.

CreativeRealmsMC

in 3 your title says destroyed the source says destroyed or damaged

CaregiverTime5713

Number 5 here is totally out of place. What's the message?

itscool

&gt;Over 60% of Gaza’s Housing Has Been **Destroyed**

&gt;According to a joint UN, EU, and the World Bank report (as of March 2024), more than 60% of housing units in Gaza have been **destroyed or** ***damaged***.

Do you see a problem here?

knign

We would have said the same thing about the Bosnians and Serbians twenty years ago, but it’s two decades later and even the Balkans are starting to stabilize, with Serbia even donating some vaccines to Bosnia during the COVID pandemic. That’s the Balkans, a region that was so universally hostile its name was treated as a byword for endless conflict for the last century.

Nowhere is hopeless, but it requires real work and help from the international community. If the US steps out of the way there is a real path that has been implemented across the globe.

Anonymous_1q

The solution is simple.  Occupy the weakest extremist government, ban their extremist elements for all time and attempt to foster a democratic society.

Go throw up a nazi salute in germany today and let me know how that goes for you.

"Peace"  doesnt always mean all parties walk away from the negotiating table getting what they want.  Peace is very often imposed on people.

Potential_Wish4943

You need to see this: https://www.wsj.com/opinion/new-palestinian-offer-peace-israel-hebron-sheikh-emirate-36dd39c3?st=7cuCn3

TL;DR: Some Palestinian sheikhs, led by Sheikh Wadee' al-Jaabari of Hebron, are seeking to break out of the Palestinian Authority, establish an emirate, recognize Israel, and join the Abraham Accords.

ScottBurson

Some kind of two state solution (no idea what borders could possibly be agreed on) with a massive 50m wall all the way round constantly monitored by an independent party.

Powerful-Union-7962

Sure there is, and it's the most obvious and logical solution to this entire war.

Hamas surrenders, turns over all their weapons and their fighters.  Done . . . The war they started will end. . . it's as simple as that.

The Palestinians have been offered their own State and lands multiple times over many decades - every single time they refused.  They'd (or at least their leaders) would much rather focus on killing all the Jews and doing away with Israel - this is far more important to them that to have their own country.

generallydisagree

You should zoom out a little bit... Things look bleak now but they can change. every generation has had shifts in attitude, although not always in the direction we hope, change has been a constant of political life.

As far as ending in a total genocide of one or the other - they've been fighting each other (this is including 5-7 Arab nation states committed to the elimination of Israel across the years) and by some measures trying to fully eliminate the other - for close to 100 years. No genocide yet. That's a pretty good precedent against your assertion.

LowRevolution6175

The only realistic solution or implementable outcome should’ve been done 60+ years ago but wasnt. 

What should’ve happened was that Israel stuck to the land it had bought originally from the Ottomans and what the Brits had laid out. Then Jerusalem should’ve been made an international city for both states to call their capital with oversight, happening from a combination of 5ish countries (Britain, USA, Russia, Egypt, and Saudi maybe?). This only could’ve been done if the UN actually was used as it should’ve been used and enforced this. 

There is plenty of evidence that proves that Jews were more than happy to work with Palestinians in the early days and vice versa.

But now that there is like 60+ years of violence from both sides nothing good will really happen. Unless there is an agreement made by countries in coalition to stop this and maintain some force/policing  in the region for a few decades to help ease up tensions from both sides, you are right in saying nothing good can happen here.

Safe-Storm6464

In theory, over the next 15-ish years, it's plausible Israeli iron beam defenses develop to the extent that they render rocket attacks, which is the most common Hamas attack, obsolete, and security in Israel becomes more relaxed as a result 

Jew_of_house_Levi

Are all tragedies equally bad? For example if Israel left Palestine, and Hamas was allowed to rearm and do more terror attacks resulting in X Israeli deaths, but the alternative was the status quo resulting in X+1 Palestinian deaths in the same time period, would both of those be equally tragic by your standards? I'm asking because I think saying there's no meaningful end to the conflict that isn't tragic seems to ignore the many small but meaningful ways the current tragedies could be mitigated. Even if there will always be deaths on both sides that doesn't mean we can't reduce that number.

Vesurel

Although I share your general sense of pessimism about the conflict, I'd challenge your assertion that it "will keep on going until one side eventually extinguishes the other." What are you basing that on? It's been over 75 years, and this hasn't happened yet; rather, the conflict just continues to slowly grind out, with both sides killing some percentage of the others' population but not coming anywhere close to "extinguishing" the other. The war in Gaza is one of the most sustained assaults by the Israeli military on Palestinians since the country was founded, yet it's only resulted in 3% of the Gaza strip's population dying. I don't mean to minimize those deaths, because it's still horrific, but it's also nowhere close to a complete extinguishing of Palestinians. 

If past is any precedent, it seems a lot more likely to me that the conflict will just continue as it has for the last 75 years than result in an all-out extermination of one side or the other.

BrockVelocity

I scrolled very far but couldn't find anyone mention this.

In a very recent development, the sheikh's of Hebron suggested leaving PLO and joining the Abraham accords (as per [WSJ article](https://www.wsj.com/opinion/new-palestinian-offer-peace-israel-hebron-sheikh-emirate-36dd39c3))

&gt; “We want cooperation with Israel,” says Sheikh Wadee’ al-Jaabari, also known as Abu Sanad, from his ceremonial tent in Hebron, the West Bank’s largest city located south of Jerusalem. “We want coexistence.” The leader of Hebron’s most influential clan has said such things before, as did his father. But this time is different. Sheikh Jaabari and four other leading Hebron sheikhs have signed a letter pledging peace and full recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. Their plan is for Hebron to break out of the Palestinian Authority, establish an emirate of its own, and join the Abraham Accords.

As far as I'm concerned this is the most promising news with regards to this conflict in a very long time.

&gt; The letter seeks a timetable for negotiations to join the Abraham Accords and “a fair and decent arrangement that would replace the Oslo Accords, which only brought damage, death, economic disaster and destruction.” The Oslo Accords, agreed to by Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization in the 1990s, “have brought upon us the corrupt Palestinian Authority, instead of recognizing the traditional, authentic local leadership.”

&gt; The sheikhs’ letter pledges “zero tolerance” for terrorism by workers, “in contrast to the current situation in which the Palestinian Authority pays tributes to the terrorists.”

If this deal materializes we will see a completely new development, and put the ball squarely in Israel's corner. It will also put Israel's claim that the Palestinians are not interested in a peaceful solution to the test, should it be implemented and tried. It basically calls for the end of armed resistance towards Israel's existence, mutual recognition and cooperation.

It is often claimed that as soon as a Palestinian leadership who's genuinely interested in peaceful coexistence rises up and offers it, Israel would accept and peace would materialize. I guess we'll finally see how that claim shakes out should this come to fruition.

dronten_bertil

Israelis are currently coexisting with 2M Arab citizens. I have no idea what you are talking about.

Ok-Pangolin1512

I will try to change your view. There are lots of examples where long-running, bitter, seemingly intractable civil conflicts, end.

The IRA in Northern Ireland. The Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka. The PKK in Turkey. The FARC in Colombia. These are all violent insurgencies, claiming to fight on behalf of ethnic groups or political ideologies, that fought for decades, and eventually laid down their arms or transitioned to political entities.

And this is SORT OF what the PLO did in the Oslo Accords, transitioning from a terror group to the Palestinian Authority, a governing body, and recognizing Israel. Obviously, they eventually resumed terrorism during the second intifada, but peace with the PA has mostly held since.

There are also long-running insurgencies that were defeated or eliminated, such as the Shining Path in Peru. In that case, the government brought a level of brutality that matched or exceeded the insurgency’s, which the insurgency couldn’t survive. This is what Israel is trying to do with Hamas in Gaza now.

The Israel-Palestinian conflict isn’t so unique, and there’s no reason it won’t end some day, just like all these other conflicts ended. No one expected Assad to fall so fast. Things can change quickly.

giving the Indigenous ppl -palestinians- their land back, that's what every colonization ended with

Wise_Arrival_6801

Realistically the war will end with the total annexation of Gaza and possibly all of Palestine. A good solution would probably include forcing the Israeli population to move a location on one side of the planet to have as their own nation, and to force the Palestine population to the other side to have their own nation and then burning the entire region of Israel/Palestine to the ground. That would all but ensure either the hostilities ending or make hostilities extremely difficult

ConceptCompetitive54

As an Israeli I like to think that we are still heading in a more positive direction. Despite what I see in a the media in the US, Netanyahu’s coalition still polls below the threshold for a majority. I think we are heading towards a swing to the left (or at least center). His collation is seen as the fault for the lado in security for October 7, and ultimately why we are still this long into a war that we tired of. 

I think the question for Israeli society will be how can we maintain our security - does this mean we trade land for peace? Do we actually annex the settlements and swiss cheese the PA? October 7 really challenged even the most pro-2 state among Israeli society. The conversation has been one of how to maintain our security vs. finding a solution. The sentiment is strong that before we make a move, we want to see the Palestinians make a real effort and be a partner in peace. 

We’ve come incredibly close before and we can again. I just think we need to sunset the idea of a two state solution as we had envisioned and prepare for something different. Right now we wait - we wait for a change and see what we can do.

Majestic_Radish_9910

what exactly is unique about israel/Palestine when compared to Angola?

or even rwanda, Mozambique, south Sudan, Nigeria or Zimbabwe all of which had ethnic conflict as soon as they gained independence from colonialism. all had unforgivable atrocities committed on and by each ethnic group. but all are moving towards an Angolan style peace and away from an israel/palestine war?

saintRobster

I think a genocide/ethnic cleansing is less likely than the status quo. Periodic wars and ongoing violence.

There are many realistic paths forward to peace and eventually even this conflict will be history, but that may take generations. In the near term, Gaza ceasefire is being negotiated, Syrian-Israeli peace deal is being negotiated, expanded Abraham Accords, and Iran/Hezbollah/Hamas are all weakened, and new Israeli PM in 2026.

Weak-Virus2374

Takes a look at Israel , it has a growing Muslim and Arab minority, with Arabic as an official language on public signage, in schools, and throughout government services. Arab citizens serve as judges, Knesset members, doctors, lawyers, and in the IDF.

Now compare that with Palestinian society, where not a single Jew lives or holds any position of influence in fact, Jewish presence is explicitly unwelcome in many areas.

So no I don’t agree with the claim that Israel can’t coexist with other cultures. Yes, there are extremists in Israeli society (as there are in every society) but the structural inclusion of minorities in daily life, government, and national institutions speaks for itself.

Real coexistence is built on pluralism and mutual recognition and Israel, despite its flaws, has done far more to reflect that than its neighbors.

This to me is indisputable based on basic math and actually visiting the region.

Maple_Moose_14

There are several solutions that are possible. I'm going to disregard the political correctness factor and just suggest based on a practicality.

First a few assumptions:

(Israel)

1. Israel has an acute lack of strategic depth.
2. Israel is the most frequently attacked nation in the region. (#1 + #2 are intertwined)
3. Public gets increasingly hawkish and skeptical of a diplomatic solution over time.

(Palestinians)

1. Assume that narrative of non-representative leadership is true.
2. Will continue being hostile to Israel regardless.
3. They are never going to win a war and "exterminate Israel".

(All)

1. The goal is to allow all people to live peacefully, or at least significantly reduce friction.

Solutions (sorted by most complex and effective to least):

1. Relocation (fresh start) - Diametrically opposed cultures cannot coexist. Extermination is out of the question, so relocation remains as an option. The middle east is full of empty spaces, including some shorelines, that provide ample economical growth opportunity.
2. Relocation (Jordan) - Jordan is a Palestinian state with a non-Palestinian rule. It would still be hostile and bordering Israel, but largely separated by natural borders.
3. Buffer zones - Palestinians stay in Gaza and J&amp;S (West Bank), but give up some territory that serves as depopulated buffer zones that allow Israel to better monitor the borders and prevent attacks.
4. Proxy cycling - Israel assists in overthrowing Hamas and the PA, and lets other groups take their place. Rinse and repeat until the new groups agree to take sweeping de-radicalization measures. Once a population is largely de-radicalized (1 generation at minimum), it can be granted statehood and integrated into regional treaties like the Abraham Accords.

I'm sure there are more, but these are just 4 solutions off the top of my head, with varying levels of complexity and long term effect.

OkGuest3629

So assuming your conclusions are evidence based - they have to be- 

How did you come to the conclusion that Jews would never share land with the Arabs? 

If your opinion or conclusion is based on evidence, then your belief is flawed.. incorrect - it’s not accurate. And if your assumptions are incorrect then the entire premise is inaccurate therefore no matter what conclusion you come to- it will be inaccurate or a false belief. 

Why your premise is flawed?

All of the available historical fact about this proves your premise wrong; we have too much evidence the Jews have tried to share the land, therefore would have shared the land. If the Arabs would have agreed. 

The Jews wanted to share the land (as defined by action based evidence NOT feelings and intentions. As defined by what actually happened in the past.) 

FOR EXAMPLE:

There have been 8 official offers for an independent state for the Palestinians AND the Jews 

( not one offer was ever for the Jews to have all the land) 

The offers ranged from the Jews to have 15% of the land in 1936,  to 48% of the land. 

There have been 8 offers for the Palestinians to partition the land; for them to have their OWN country. 

For an independent Palestinian state or a path to statehood.

Last offer was in 2020 and the same thing happened as always happens. 

Jews accepted them all, Arabs rejected them all. 

Then the Arabs either declare war and invade or attack or escalate their violent terrorist attacks. 

Another thing is- every big violent outbreak and mini war they have had ? The Arabs started it. Every time..

As far back as you can go in this region- even to the seventh century- the Arabs always attacked the Jews first. 

Every war has been declared by the Arabs. On the Jews. 

Not the Jews on the Arabs. 

Jews never declared war on them. Not one time. 

So in reality the Jews have tried this entire time to share the land. 

Some of the modern offers were more generous than the UN partition plan. 

Also- another great point as far as this is concerned. After the Arabs rejected the Peel plan in 1936, WW2 happened and obviously the world was sad for the Jews .. the surviving Jews were sitting in refugee camps in Europe and there was a real life or death feeling about the Jews having this country of their own. 

The UN voted on it, it passed. 

Just as many other countries have been created - the same exact way. Splitting the land, population transfers. ( both the Jews and the Arabs would have had to do a population transfer ) 

Except this was less than 1 million people and the transfer was less than 20 miles. Not a big deal by any standards. 

So the UN declares the state of Israel and Palestine and guess what happens? 

The Arabs declare war, and eight different countries invaded- and that was after the UN forced a partition plan on them ( it was put to a vote and the vote passed) but they bucked it, even after that. 

Repeat this pattern many times. 

So now that we have our facts straight - we need to rephrase the question.

Lopsided_Thing_9474

There is a solution, though it would probably never realistically happen, especially now. Whether anyone thinks it's fair or not, change needs to start with Israel. They are the superior power and they are the ones in control of the region.

The only feasible solution is a two-state solution. Israel is never going to go away, and all of the people who think that Israelis should just "go back where they came from" don't understand that *most of them do not have anywhere else to go.* Even if they weren't born there, which a lot of them were, whatever property they had back in whatever country they came from isn't just sitting around empty waiting for them. Israel is their home, and creating 7 million refugees isn't a solution. Nor is a single-state solution viable. People like to call Israel an ethnostate as a derogatory term but they forget *why* it has the policies it does. It's not like the ethno nationalists in the US and Europe who are motivated by supremacist ideologies. I'm not saying those sentiments don't exist there, but Israel is a Jewish defensive ethnostate formed because they understand exactly what can happen to you when you are a minority in a nation that wants you dead. They will never agree to any solution in which a Muslim majority could seize political control of Israel, nor should they.

So the only way forward is a two state solution, but it needs to be a real proposal and Israel needs to make actual concessions to the Palestinian people. They need to abolish the illegal settlements. They need to rebuild all of the civilian infrastructure they destroyed. They need to allow independent investigators into their prisons to evaluate whether anyone is being held there illegally. They need to help establish independent routes by which aid can be delivered to the Palestinian lands which Israel cannot blockade. And they need to help build up a functioning Palestinian state. Just giving them the land and saying "here you go, it's your problem now" isn't good enough. That's how groups like Hamas gain political control.

This would not solve the problem overnight. There will still probably be terrorist attacks for years to come. Some people will never accept any Israeli presence in the region. But the longer Israel can show they are dedicated to a peaceful solution and the prosperity of the Palestinian people as neighbors, the less sway those terrorist organizations will hold. If Israel is not willing to do at least that much, then the fighting is just going to continue.

Crowe3717

100% correct. But the propaganda arm on this platform will shoot slogans and simply simp for one side. 



According to a December 2023 poll by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PCPSR):


82% believed Hamas’s decision to launch the attack was “correct”.


Over the past several decades, Israel has made or accepted multiple peace proposals aimed at resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. These offers often included the establishment of a Palestinian state, significant territorial concessions, and shared control over Jerusalem. In each case, the Palestinian leadership either rejected the proposal outright or did not provide a counteroffer. Various Arab figures and observers have, over time, expressed disappointment over these missed opportunities for peace.


1. 1937 – Peel Commission Plan

Proposal: British plan to partition Mandatory Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states.
Israeli Response: The Jewish Agency accepted the plan with reservations.
Palestinian/Arab Response: Rejected outright by Arab leadership.









2. 1947 – UN Partition Plan (Resolution 181)





Proposal: The United Nations proposed partitioning Palestine into a Jewish state, an Arab state, and an internationally controlled Jerusalem.
Israeli Response: Accepted.
Palestinian/Arab Response: Rejected by Palestinian leaders and the Arab League. Arab states launched a war following Israel’s declaration of independence.









3. 1967 – Post-Six-Day War / Khartoum Resolution





Proposal: After the Six-Day War, Israel signaled willingness to exchange land for peace.
Arab Response: The Arab League adopted the “Three No’s”: no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and no negotiations with Israel.









4. 2000 – Camp David Summit





Proposal: Israel offered Gaza, 94%–96% of the West Bank, and shared control of East Jerusalem.
Israeli Response: Accepted with support from the United States.
Palestinian Response: Yasser Arafat rejected the offer and did not present a counterproposal.









5. 2001 – Taba Talks





Proposal: A more generous offer than Camp David, with up to 97% of the West Bank and all of Gaza, including shared sovereignty in Jerusalem.
Israeli Response: Negotiators reached significant progress, but talks ended due to Israeli elections.
Palestinian Response: Talks ended without an agreement.









6. 2008 – Olmert Peace Offer





Proposal: Israel offered 93% of the West Bank with land swaps, a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem, and shared control of holy sites.
Israeli Response: Prime Minister Ehud Olmert extended the offer.
Palestinian Response: Mahmoud Abbas did not accept or formally respond to the proposal.









7. 2020 – Trump Peace Plan





Proposal: Included parts of East Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state and economic investment.
Israeli Response: Accepted the plan in principle.
Palestinian Response: Rejected it immediately and refused to negotiate.
Meanwhile the Palestinians destabilized Jordan and Lebanon. 

Even among left-leaning or centrist Israelis, there is widespread resistance to negotiating peace immediately after October 7, for several core reasons:





1. 

Loss of Trust





The scale and brutality of the October 7 attack — targeting civilians, including women and children — shattered Israeli public trust, even among peace advocates.
Many Israelis believe Hamas exploited previous peace gestures (e.g. Gaza withdrawal in 2005) to build up weapons and launch attacks.






2. 

Perception That Palestinian Society Supports the Attack





Polls showing strong Palestinian support for the attack convinced many Israelis that the issue isn’t just with Hamas, but a broader societal hostility to coexistence.






3. 

Security First, Diplomacy Later





The dominant view — even among moderates — is that Hamas must be destroyed first before any peace can be considered.
There is fear that offering a peace deal now would reward violence and send the wrong signal.






4. 

Collapse of the Israeli Peace Camp





Left-wing parties and the peace camp in Israel, already weakened, were further marginalized after October 7.
Even voters who once supported two-state negotiations now see it as naïve or unsafe.






5. 

Fear of a “West Bank Next” Scenario





Israelis worry that any Palestinian state in the West Bank could turn into another Gaza — launching rockets or staging attacks.
There’s growing insistence on long-term demilitarization and tight security control, which Palestinians reject.

After October 7, many Israelis — including former peace supporters — see the conflict not just as a political dispute, but as an existential threat. Support for peace talks collapsed, not because of rejection of peace as a concept, but because faith in a viable partner for peace was shattered.

Dannidude16

I couldn’t change your view if I tried. I am 70 years old. I always read the paper even as a child I can remember being about 10 years old and seeing all the stuff about the “Middle East conflict” never understood it then never understand it now and it seems there’s no end into it.

moverene1914

If some future generation of Israelis and Palestinians finally have the ability to talk to each other without outside interferance and corrpution imposing a positive feedback loop on violence, then eventually their kids will play with each other and those kids will take over never intimately experiencing the violence of the past. After that, peace will be easy.


Despite the narrative that Israel is an occupying outside force propped up by the US/west, Israelis generally have nowhere else to go. Nothing will make them stop fighting except peace.


Despite the narrative that Israelis generally want to exterminate all Palestinians, the population of Palestinians has never stopped growing and they too have nowhere else to go.


There is corruption on both sides that fuels violence. Israel made peace with Egypt and Jordan, and all states and their people are better off for it. Seems like normalization with other Arab states is on the way, even Syria. There are obstacles on all sides, but as obstacles go away the opportunity for Israelis and Palestinians to talk and play together will fall into reach. One day the Islamic Republic of Iran will cease it's lukewarm war against Israel, and perhaps one day the Israeli version of MAGA will piss off other Israelis to the point that someone actually interested in peace takes office.

IceNeun

The conflict is already a tragedy, but I think you're wrong that it will end in a tragedy "finale". Not all conflicts have an ending, the conflict can continue for centuries with ups and downs.

Israel isn't going to genocide or ethnic-cleanse the Palestinians - putting morals aside, Israel has too much to lose, even if they can use Palestinian's vicious terror attacks as an excuse to do so. It's a developed country with a successful economy and still relatively good relations with most of the other developed countries.

Yes Israel builds and develops settlements in the West Bank but they're built over agriculture lands or uninhabited hills, the Palestinian villages and cities pretty much remain unchanged although their lives do become worse and worse due to these settlements and the security restrictions they bring with them, along with ultra radical violent settlers.

The Palestinians aren't going to ethnic-cleanse or genocide the Israelis, even if large parts of their population wish for that, simply because they're not powerful enough.

So your view is incorrect. I don't think there's a realistic solution to the conflict in the near future, but it doesn't mean that it's going to end in a genocide or ethnic-cleansing.

suckages

Upvoting not because I agree but because this post is important and extremely wrong and people need to see. Your post has a bunch of problematic assumptions. For one, the Palestinian side can't "extinguish" the Israeli side. The latter is too powerful and backed by the US. 

Second, The issue is not a religious one, genocidaires are doing the opposite of acting religiously. Third, having lived somewhere once, thousands of years ago, and leaving voluntarily, is so past beyond any statute of limitations, let alone evicting an entire nation of people. It would be one thing to try to live peacefully together, but that's not what happened. 

My question to you is: if you don't want these outcomes, are you doing anything to advocate for justice (whatever that means to you)? With politics, people usually don't do anything to advance their goals. They treat it like sports they watch on TV. Movements have the power to stop these kinds of tragedies, get involved.

FunnyDirge

It just takes time. Not one or two human lifetimes but possibly a few Centuries. That conflict is really so small that it is obvious to me that there are old generation leaders in Muslim World that want for it to continue and blow it out of proportion. With new generation of leaders coming into power in many Muslim countries a more pragmatic approach is already emerging. The way I see it; passions would cool with time and agreements will be struck. Mutual cooperation between Muslims and Jews and economic/technology exchange would benefit both sides.

Look at Turkey today. If we take religious zealotry view of Turkish state we would be on the streets screaming for "Two-State solution" and "Greek's right of return!". But no one in its right mind does that.

Rational minds prevail eventually. It just takes longer than human life.

OldAdvertising5963

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced plans for military control over Gaza City, asserting that the goal is to 'free' Gaza from Hamas.

Israel-Gaza Conflict

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want