Public sentiment is overwhelmingly critical of the military actions in Gaza, with many decrying them as genocide and expressing deep concern for civilians caught in the crossfire. Users express frustration over media bias, call for accountability from both Hamas and Israel, and emphasize a strong desire for peace and humanitarian intervention. There is a significant divide in opinions, where some criticize violence on both sides, while others focus blame specifically on Hamas for instigating the conflict, contributing to a complex public discourse characterized by outrage, empathy, and a plea for resolution.

Israeli Government

Hamas

International Community

Media

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

[deleted]

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.

LateralEntry

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

I'll preface that I'm not unbiased, but the "extremes" on both sides are not equivalent.   The extremes on the Israeli side are largely nationalistic.  Some very fringe elements are religious, but they are quite fringe, even in the Israeli right wing.  On the Palestinian side, the harsh reality is that moslems, even the most liberal among them, are unwilling to allow even the smallest, most docile Jewish state to exist in the middle east, as that is an affront to the concept of the "ummah" and the "caliphate."  They consider the entire middle east "Muslim land," since it was conquered at one point, and any land conquered by Islam is considered eternally moslem.  Therefore, a non-moslem state can't exist in the middle east.

Excellent-Duty4290

That depends on your definition of "tragedy."

tolgren

It's easy to be pessimistic about finding a peaceful solution, but it's not impossible. One of the major barriers to peace is a profound lack of trust — polls have indicated that nearly 90% of both Palestinians and Israeli Jews believe that the other side wants to kill them and/or take their land. You can't build a serious deal on that kind of foundation.

I can't find the relevant polling right now, but it does appear that both Israelis and Palestinians are more willing to engage in serious negotiations for a two-state solution when it's paired with certain guarantees. Cracking down on extrajudicial violence against Palestinians, no funding for terror attacks, halting the expansion of settlements, and so on. 

Building the necessary trust won't be easy, and finding the political will to try will be even harder. It's hard to imagine that happening right now, but we're not even two years out from October 7th, and the war in Gaza is still ongoing. Slim majorities of both Israelis and Palestinians have supported a two-state solution within the past decade, and the biggest political leaders on both sides are growing old (especially Abbas). There's room for positive change, especially as the situation for Palestinians grows more dire and Israel's international standing deteriorates.

Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of barriers to this. Many attitudes are hardened, and I don’t see any viable future leaders that make me feel particularly encouraged. But peace is a realistic possibility, even if it's not necessarily the most likely outcome.

slightlyrabidpossum

Egypt and Israel fought for years, then they completely stopped.  

Egypt simply gave up on the idea of genociding the Jews, and that was it.  It has been almost 50 years since they last fought.  

Palestinians can do it as well. The fact that they still have the hostages is a good sign that they have not yet given up their genocide dream, but maybe soon!

Knave7575

I was gonna answer another comment who was blindly and simplistically calling for hatred against the Palestinians, but I'm writing my own comment instead.




I wish an Israeli leader had the strength, because yes, it takes a tremendous amout of strength, to come forward and say "we have made a mistake, and we've been perpetrating this mistake for 80 years. We're not going anywhere, but we'll stop colonizing the west bank, give a fair slice of the lands to the palestinians, and help rebuild what we have destroyed." They would win the hearts of the entire world, and the first people to renounce Hamas would be the Palestinians. 




Israel in its current state can't do that. Its only language is violence. Its only language is violence because its leadership is still represented by the poster children of the extreme reactionary zionist movements of the late 19th/early 20th centuries that were victims of the pogroms, except this ideology got exported in the middle east with nothing to stop it. It wins all the wars but it can't win peace. 




Netanyahu will never in a billion lifetimes utter such a statement, neither will his successor, neither the one after. Who knows when Israel will have a leader capable to make such a statement? 




I'm assuming most people will disagree with me. "It's ideology, it's islamism, they want all jews dead anyways". But Israel has never tried not munching on Palestinian land since 1967, has never tried not violently expulsing people from their houses in the West Bank, has never tried not imprisoning Palestinian civilians for arbitrary reasons, has never tried to not finance Hamas to dismantle the PLO. Again, its only language is violence. Can we really put the blame on ideology if everything the Palestinians know about Israel is senseless brutal murder? Have they tried showing humanity?

Unnwavy

tandemxylophone

Lets run through a few scenarios;


1. Netanyahu and his right wing party lose power. A moderate, or even left, party comes in. They work to de-escalate.
2. The rest of the world ceases supplying Isreal with support. Thus the conflict becomes far more costly for Israel.
3. The rest of the world actively takes a hostile stance to Isreal, sanctioning and threatening intervention.


Of course on the current trajectory with the current people in power and empowered (within both Israel and in Hamas) - the trajectory is not one toward peace. Neither side will back down.


But are you really saying that any of these is impossible?

wibbly-water

I understand why you would feel this way, but I can't accept this to be the case. Especially because succumbing to this idea is basically admitting that the side that would be extinguished in all likelihood is the Palestinians. Israel has all the firepower and backing of powerful countries. Even if Hamas or Iran or a coalition of Arab countries were to attack Israel in full force the rest of the world would come down upon them tenfold, which would in all likelihood result in the extinction of the Palestinians anyway.

People who think Hamas surrendering or being eliminated would end the conflict are wrong. As it ignores the deep-rooted Far-Right, Anti-Arab, and Ethnic-Cleansing-Zionist mindset that's rife in the Israel population. Regardless of Hamas there are powerful Israeli leadership that has majority support that want to expel Palestinians off their land and to colonize said land.

Any implementable solution would involve actual unified international pressure or force. The international community has coddled Israel and allowed it to suppress Palestinians for decades. There has never been a solution, treaty, etc. offered that did not favor Israel, and despite years of abuse and killing, Israel has been platformed as the superior side. Which has only led to more Palestinian oppression and more terrorism.

Your title says "realistically", and some may argue this is not realistic, but what needs to happen is international intervention and the US's withdrawal of Israel support – and responding with measures to halt active hostilities. This includes arresting and trying war criminals on both ends. The world needs to be faced with the conditions of the West Bank and the genocide in Gaza and shamed for them the way they were with the Holocaust. Maybe *maybe* then will a switch happen. Because Israel already has its support. Palestine needs its proper international support/allyship that steers its liberation away from terrorism.

ntt307

I always figured we could force them apart remove all governments and force them all to move to random countries with randomly assigned IDs. Then nuke the precious God land from orbit. So that if you truly want to meet God. You really will by going there.

🤷‍♂️

ShopMajesticPanchos

Your assumption is factually false when it comes to Israel and basically ignores the Israeli attempts to reach out for peace and the Israeli society.

How can you claim that Israel is being controlled by religious fundamentalists when it offered the Palestinians a separated Palestinian state?

In the 30's - the Jews agreed to discuss to Peel Commission offer even though it gave 60% of the whole land to the Arabs. The Arabs completely turned it down.

Then in 1947, the Jews celebrated the UN partition plan which granted both of the sides a separated state - the Arabs once again declined it and opened a war. 

In the 90's - the Israeli government sighed on the Oslo Accords while Arafat openly admitted that he never planned to respect them and compared them to the Hudeybah agreement, where Mohammad basically fooled his enemies.

When Bibi was elected for the first time  in 96' he gave the old Jewish city of Hebron to the Palestinians (PLO).

During the early 2000's Ehud Barak and Clinton offered the Palestinians a state over 90% of Judea and Samaria with a shared control over the old city of Jerusalem. Arafat turned it down.

Then in 2005 Israel completely pulled out of Gaza every single Jew - including the dead ones - and left it with green houses, investments from international groups, and the Europeans on the border of Egypt and Gaza. The Palestinian answer? Electing Hamas in 2006. 

In 2007 Ehud Olmert offered the Palestinians a state over 97% of Judea and Samaria including parts of East Jerusalem and a shared mamangmnent over the old city.  Abu Mazen turned it down.

As for the Israeli "religious fundamentalist society" - recently there was an attempt by far right groups to spark the idea of re-settle Gaza. The vast majority of the Israelis strongly opposed the idea - including the PM Bibi.

Echo693

There are multiple absolutely obvious solutions.  Not all palatable by West for various (mostly racist) reasons.

Option A: Genuine Arab strongman (preferably a King). Supported by Israel, Saudi and Jordan - maybe a splinter of the Hashemites or Saudis for a sprinkling of Islamic legitimacy. MUST be allowed to kill whoever opposes them. Doesn't sign a peace agreement right away, Hudna will do. Kick the can down the road. Once he is fully established, sign the peace agreement. 20 years.

Option B: Mordechai Kedar's emirates solution. Palestinians are tribal. Cities are their capitals. Treat each "emirate" independently, and they all roll up to a federated solution that has limited military capabilities and signs a peace deal. Refugees can go back to any emirate they want.  Hebron obviously wants this solution and has already agreed terms with the Settlers.

Option C: UAE or Jordan.  Takes ownership (again in the case of Jordan).

Option D: (My favourite) Palestinians actually become some form of Democratic.  To be clear, this is NOT "hold Elections", this is partly/fully free on the Democracy index.  No 2 democracies have ever gone to war with each other.  What's crazy is that the more Democratic Palestine becomes, the stronger they will become AND the more likely Israel will be to take risks and give up more at the negotiation table.    

Will these resolve all issues?  No.  Will Israel be left alone, likely yes.  Will Arabs still want to kill Js.  Probably.  But we are talking about moving things from where they are now to Greece/Turkey, which suffered an infinitely more bloody painful seperation/transfer 20 years before Is/Pale.

DefiantDistance5844

The wishy-washy way the world has approached the situation, attempting to implement the two state solution despite it obviously not working, trying to negotiate with terrorists like they are a real government, etc. Has made this problem so much worse. 

Instead of trying to turn Palestine into a real country that geographically is split into two unconnected bits, Palestine needs to just be absorbed into Israel. Give Palestinians equal rights and citizenship, focus on redeveloping the land and making the quality of living better, and continue to stamp out terrorists with overwhelming military force. 

And the Muslim community needs to get on board instead of trying to destroy such a militarily superior force. I'm sorry but they are not helping their people by perpetuating war against an opponent they can never beat. Sometimes you need to suck it up and surrender.

wholesaleweird

You may be right- it’s one of the more complicated ethno-religious conflicts in the world and various parties have attempted to solve it to no avail for decades.  However, I think the the biggest obstacle to even attempting to seeing what a peaceful co-existence or peace process would look like is the influence of Western powers (namely, the United States) and to a lesser extent other regional actors like Iran.  The powers that be need to take an interest in resolving and moderating the conflict, and that is not the case when one side has no incentive for peace or co-existence because they have the full backing of the most powerful country in the world.  Israel has nukes, and the iron dome.  Other than massive and awful security breaches like Oct 7, the truth is Israelis live in relative peace and security and there is just no real incentive for Israel to resolve this conflict diplomatically.  It is a complicated issue and it needs to be treated like it, not this completely one-sided support where violence of one side is terrorism and (much greater) violence from the other side is security.  I really do think if the United States (and others) exerted more pressure on Israel to actually come to a better solution we could at least try to see what works and how progress can made.  Tbh, we got pretty damn close with Bill Clinton.  But idk with the current influence of AIPAC in American politics and the Trump administration I do share some of your cynicism

sluttynoamchomsky

If the Arab and Muslim world accepts Israel, provides a living space for the Palestinians, and stops attempting to exterminate Jews, this conflict will end.

arrogant_ambassador

That's a very shallow view. It can absolutely be stopped. There's just no political will to do so. USA and western governments need Israel to destabilize the region. Maybe they feel the genocide is excessive. But maybe not. Either way they're invested. A strong middle east would be bad for their hegemony. Same reason they destabilize Latin America and Africa. Israel is just in the news more right now than those other places

mightymite88

Various middle eastern countries oscillate all the time between different levels of liberalism, "socialism", religious fundamentalism, non-religious authoritarian regimes. And all the time, you have various religious fights between christians, sunnis vs shiites, berbers, etc, as well as regions where all the religions get relatively along.



I wouldnt know why some fundamental shift like e.g secular iran couldnt happen in palestinia?



I agree that all those proposed policies that people are so gung-ho about are going nowhere, or currently just wont be accepted by people.



It would have to be some real social movement, propably spanning both palestine and israel. Perhaps some charismatic leader or grassroots movement or both, that is able to appeal to both sides, a sense of unity and peace on a non-religious basis. Something like that. It would be propably surprising to anybody in the current discourse.



So yes, i would agree that those activists that think they can just badger the us into the "correct" wonky policy and that will solve it are ignorant.


But i would try and change your view in the sense that this would mean its just doomed forever. Positive things could absolutely happen, why couldnt they?

SenatorCoffee

Israelis and Palestinians do co-exist peacefully within the borders of Israel. There's virtually no terrorism or violent extremism amongst the Palestinian citizens of Israel, who come from the same culture as those in the West Bank and Gaza.

If Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank had the same economic and political opportunities as their brethren within Israel the violent extremism would fade.

wefarrell

External influence on power distribution in Gaza is working. USA/Israeli effort for Aid Distribution is working mostly. Hamas recently reported that they feel the lose of power over Gaza. More and more palastinians realize that they cannot continue fighting israel. But even if they announce defeat there will be enough radical hamas that will continue the fight. There will be some terrorist cells that remain and they will strike from time to time. Israel has made many offers for a 2 state solution and they will do it again once there will be a political uprising in gaza which will not have the goal to annihilate the jews or their state and is rather open to coexist with its economical powerforce. Israel will help the new government to eradicate the remaining terrorist to their best ability.

It will be a hard path for the region but peace with israel is historically the better decision. Arabs tried hard to defeat them and although most ME countries wanted to erase israel at any point in its history, israel still wanted peace with them and got to peace with them, so they will do it for the rest of the region aswell.

Gathered22

At least news reports I see from Israeli sources suggest a majority of the Israeli public want the war to be over and elections are next year.  Netanyahu is running out of time and is already facing an uncertain political future.  This feels like a last attempt to end the war on his terms before the elections.  Honestly, he's probably toast anyway, but he'd like to go into the elections with "We took care of Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas."

FosterFl1910

The announcement seems to be [extremely divisive within Israel itself](https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-chief-says-dissent-vital-ahead-of-fateful-meeting-on-gaza-occupation-plan/).

&gt; Einav Zangauker, whose son Matan is being held hostage in Gaza, called on Israelis to protest outside the cabinet meeting Thursday night, saying Israel is reaching “the point of no return” for a hostage release deal.

&gt; The captive’s mother, one of the most prominent figures in the protests calling for a deal, wrote on X that Netanyahu promised her he would pursue a deal to free the hostages, “but took advantage of my pain, of the families, of the whole hurt nation [and] killed the deal.”

Even the military has warned against a full Gaza takeover:

&gt; Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir, who reportedly said Netanyahu’s plan would ‘drag Israel into a black hole,’ set to warn security cabinet, as hostage families sound alarm on risk to captives.

&gt; According to Hebrew media reports, he warned that “occupying the Strip would drag Israel into a black hole — taking responsibility for two million Palestinians, requiring a yearslong clearing operation, exposing soldiers to guerrilla warfare and, most dangerously, jeopardizing the hostages.”

The IDF's top general warning against this decision does not bode well for Gazans, the hostages, or Israel.

Exzelzior

I'm honestly not sure what alternative exists that would be acceptable to Israel. October 7 happened because Israel left Gaza in 2005. Instead of building a functional society, Palestinians tore down the greenhouses Israel built and used them for rocket parts - and then elected Hamas.

Most Israelis supported a two-state solution pre 10/7. That dream is now gone - and it's hard to blame Israelis for questioning it. 

The best hope is some sort of multinational coalition of Gulf states administering Gaza - because the Palestinians have demonstrated again and again that they are incapable of governing themselves - or putting their children's future ahead of Jew hatred and maximalist goals.

All Hamas has to do is release the hostages and the pressure on Israel (even from the US) would be overwhelming to pull back. The Islamists can't even do that. Israeli agrees to ceasefire after ceasefire, compromise after compromise - but the Palestinians are their own worst enemy. 

They never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity

MetricSuperiorityGuy

"Give us the Hostages back and disarm"
"No"
*War Continues*
"Why would Israel do this?"

raouldukehst

How is this different from what has already been happening? I thought that the Tzahal already had boots on the ground in Gaza. Or is it now permanent posts as opposed to separate incursions?

OorvanVanGogh

At this point? It is what it is and this was a foreseeable outcome. Israel is a sovereign nation with significant military capabilities and few real reasons to limit their war aims at this point (they've been punished for doing that in the past) and they're going to sort it out and no amount of tantrum throwing from coddled 20 year old netizens in the  United States is going to change that. Hamas had multiple pathways to an outcome that wasn't this but they didn't want to take those so here we are. They could have also just not done October 7 in the first place. Oh well.

realistic__raccoon

This is likely the only way to some degree of peace in Gaza.  The sooner Hamas is no longer in anyway a governing force anywhere in Gaza the better.

The status quo isn’t going to work.  Withdrawal creates a power vacuum for the next wave of terrorists to fill the void.  This was the path this conflict was on since it started and now with Hezzbolah and Iran out of the way, it’s the most likely outcome.

For governance “none of the above” was the choice of Gazans earlier during the war - https://scholarworks.umb.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1915&amp;context=nejpp

This is the path to new governance in Gaza, not sure how else you can get there at this point.

siberianmi

For the ones that oppose this and think Israel is committing genocide via starvation, what would you have them do? If Israel takes over Gaza, they become directly responsible for ensuring access to food and healthcare to the citizens there. 

It seems like the correct approach at this point is IDF takes over the entirety of Gaza and is able to work to stand up a civilian government that eventually takes over while they also are able to pursue Hamas and other terrorists in the area.

WorksInIT

I feel like taking over a city is more the natural process of a war. The headline suggests an escalation but this feels like the wanted outcome all along.

iamnotsimon

Israel controlled Gaza in the past. I was under the belief it was dangerous, costly,  and not worth the effort to continue to occupy it. Is it different now because of wiping out Hamas (who came into power after Israel left) and a plan to move more Jewish settlements in?

jason_sation

I think it's pretty clear that Israel feels it's nearing the fulfillment of the real war aims many people have said it has had since the beginning of this conflict: not a return of the hostages (many of whose family members are sailing towards the enclave in protest *right now*), not a settlement that would allow Israelis and Palestinians to coexist peacefully, but the annexation of settlement of Gaza. Netanyahu will of course insist that they have no intention of seeking some kind of final solution in the death or displacement of the entire population, but who would believe him at this point?

mojitz

The big “what’s different” is the shift from raids to **holding** territory and the bill that comes with it. Even optimistic estimates put a full Gaza City occupation at **₪60 billion ($15 billion) in the first year**, with ongoing control costs in the billions after that. That’s before reconstruction. You can win blocks and still **lose big money**, which is why so many analysts say this isn’t fiscally sustainable unless someone else underwrites it. Breakdown here: [https://www.thepricer.org/how-much-does-it-cost-israel-to-take-over-gaza-city/](https://www.thepricer.org/how-much-does-it-cost-israel-to-take-over-gaza-city/)

alecpows

IntegrateIt

I really don’t get why it’s so hard for people to just look at the Israel Palestine situation and recognize both sides are in the wrong and are doing terrible things to each other and it’s a terrible situation for and because of everyone involved.

Like, most people I see speak on this situation try to take the position that one side or the other is in the right and has done nothing wrong and the other side is pure evil. As a result they just end up sounding like a complete idiot at best, and more often straight up try to defend and/or deny genocide and mass rapes.

Like all those famous streamers that tried to say hamas had committed no rapes in the conflict, like ignored all of the testimonies and proof that it was happening en masse and straight up claim that hamas/palestine is the first army/militia to ever commit large scale attacks with NO sexual misconduct whatsoever.

Apart_Ad1537

I don’t understand how anyone is calling this a war at this point. 

People are getting shot waiting for aid… that’s not a battle that’s just one side shooting starving civilians.

DopeShitBlaster

Oh look, all those protesters were right all along

Overton_Glazier

It's not a war, it's shitting fish in a barrel.  Those children aren't fighting back, they're waiting for food aid. 

ColoRadBro69

Somehow I get the feeling that was always the plan.

DazzlingAd7021

I wish the USA were who they are in the movies and go in there and just mess up Israel

Jesusdionysus-

Nothing good about this. There's no real plan, no compassion, nothing. Israel needs to plan for the future, and it's not even engaging on it. Of course they can do whatever they want militarily, but it's not a solution.

Dark1000

If we had Kamala or Hillary in charge, this wouldn't have happened.

It didn't happen under Biden or Obama.

But the anti-zionists voted for trump (yes in several citites) or against the female candidates.

And look what's happening

CapAccomplished8072

Hamas fucked around and is finding out. I legitimately don’t care if they lose Gaza forever.

ALSO, as long as Israel is killing civilians faster than Hamas terrorists ever did, they should get the exact same assistance that Palestine did. Basic food and medical stuff, and NOTHING else. No weapons, no tech, no trade allowed until they start acting like a civilized nation again.

DeltaV-Mzero

Terrible, misleading headline.

Here's what they actually said

Netanyahu: Israel to take military control of all of Gaza, but 'we don't want to keep it' | The Times of Israel https://share.google/XsNXj2PovWZkNMHP1

7thpostman

**Note from the mods**: During this time, many posts and comments are held for review before appearing on the site. This is intentional. Please allow your human mods some time to review before messaging us about your posts/comments not showing up.


*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Israel) if you have any questions or concerns.*

AutoModerator

I stopped reading after the following sentence.  
"Why did Israel frequently turn away chances for de-escalation, instead expanding its military ambitions to [Lebanon](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/24/world/middleeast/israel-lebanon-strikes-deaths.html), to [Syria](https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/03/world/middleeast/israel-syria-airstrikes-ground-operation.html) and now to [Iran](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/06/12/world/middleeast/iran-israel-maps.html)?"

It is hard to fathom a more historically ignorant and morally bankrupt statement. Indeed, why didn't Israel de-escalate with a state that has a physical count-down timer ticking down towards the destruction of Israel in its central square?

Say whatever you want about Netanyahu, but there has not been a single viable opportunity to remove Hamas from power and rescue the hostages in the past two years. Barriers to this are (1) first and foremost Hamas and the enthusiastic support it enjoys in Gaza (2) international support via the U.N, student protests, leftist governments which bolster the Islamist moral as they drag this out towards a ceasefire with the hope of rebuilding power. 

In summary, this is fairly standard armchair historian NYT nonsense.

CaptainPterodactyl

Amazing how no one accuses Hamas of wanting to stay in power. As soon as they surrender, it’s over.

IllButterscotch3802

This article, but more so the reaction to it, is a great example of how the decisions of Israel’s leaders are treated as conscious choices, but the decisions of Palestine’s leaders are treated as immutable facts of nature.

Why is Netanyahu, rather than Hamas (i.e. the government and political leadership of Gaza), being framed as the party prolonging the war here? Both parties reject the other’s conditions for a ceasefire. If nothing is more important than stopping the carnage, why is Hamas not equally the blameworthy party for not acceding to any and all Israeli conditions for ending the war? Especially if, as we are told by Israel’s critics, Hamas has zero military capabilities and has no chance of achieving its stated aims. In that case, what do they or Gaza have to lose from unconditional surrender?

Clearly, the only way this line of reasoning can be justified is to legitimate Hamas’ desire to remain in control of Gaza over Israel’s desire to destroy Hamas. But this is wrong on the merits. Israel is wholly justified in demanding Hamas’ complete surrender and extirpation from Gaza. Hamas (which, again, is the government of Gaza), in both its original and revised charters, calls for the destruction of Israel and completely rejects the prospect of normalized diplomatic relations. This is the extreme legal theory under which it violated a ceasefire and invaded Israel on 10/7, an invasion which might, without hyperbole, be described as a war of extermination. 

Asking Israel to leave Hamas in control of Gaza would be like asking NYC to leave Al-Qaeda in control of New Jersey after 9/11. Or asking the Allies to leave the Axis governments in power in 1945. (“Germany started it, but far more Germans have died than Britons at this point! This is totally one-sided, Germany is out of tanks, airplanes, and fuel! You’re literally blocking all food from entering Germany, and civilians are starving! FDR and Churchill are just prolonging the war to stay in power! We need an immediate ceasefire that leaves the aggressors in power so they can rebuild and start another war in 10 years!”)

AugustusPertinax

This reads like they let a redditor write a nyt article

themightycatp00

I love how they ignore that letting in food, water, electricity and fuel also prolongs a war.


Or how attempting to evacaute a civilian population takes time, or how every few houses there is a tunnel shaft, and on and on.


All these "partial deals" are meant to save as many hostages as possible while still allowing to fight Hamas.

Ok-Commercial-9408

The idea that the war could have been ended is absurd. As long as the demons of Hamas remain in power in Gaza and all hostages haven't been returned, there can be no real peace, just a temporary ceasefire while the demons of Hamas go back to the drawing board and plot another attempt to slaughter more Innocents

Okbuddyliberals

I’m not saying this applies here because I didn’t read the article and don’t care to. 

But media now days is so frustrating, you see something like this then the very next day you’ll see an article saying “if Netanyahu signs a cease fire he should be considered a terrorist” (exaggeration) the media will write anything if they can just barley draw a line from what happened to what they want to say. 

Medias job isn’t to inform these days it’s to inflame it seems like

vicblck24

Wegovyttt

Kinda ironic they blame Netanyahu for seeking personal gain or pursuing political interests when in fact their whole article is exactly that - weaving words and sentences to deceive for no possible gain other than their own notoriety. 

The most obvious "lapse of memory" on their part is pretending that there are *any* decisions made, during war or not, that do not have some political element to them. Even decision taken by husband and wife have political element in the sense that each must compromise their own interest sometimes, for the sake of longer-term goals. Young people might believe otherwise, but not seasoned journalists, they know it but pretend not to. 

The second hidden lie is that a cease-fire in April 2024 was *necessarily* and *a-priory* a good option - with what's happened in Iran since then it's hard to see how this can be argued.

The third hidden and implicit lie is that if the Israeli government falls during war, it is of no consequence. But no matter how liked or disliked a government may be internally, during war time a government falling is almost synonymous with Hamas having won. The outcomes of such eventuality would not be better, under any foreseeable circumstances, than keeping whatever non-ideal government in power and ensuring stability in time of war. It's not possible to win without stability of government, if it's possible to win at all. That's why pretending coalition consideration are not valid consideration that need to be balanced during war, along with any others - is a lie.

And it's also remarkable that they kind of admit themselves that Netanyahu is actually doing a decent job and pursuing the national interests of Israel:

&gt; It is of course impossible to say that Netanyahu made key wartime decisions entirely in the service of his own political survival. His personal quest for power is often inextricably enmeshed with genuine patriotism and the belief, which infuses his public pronouncements, that he alone knows how best to defend Israel. Beyond his own motives, war is a complex, chaotic process with many daily variables that take a course of their own. Like all Israeli prime ministers, Netanyahu lacks full executive control over a sprawling administration full of competing factions and interests. His enemies in Lebanon and Iran posed genuine threats to Israel, and their defeat has strengthened Israeli security. And his adversary in Gaza, Hamas, has blocked or slow-walked cease-fire negotiations during key stretches of the war, including at a point early last summer when Netanyahu appeared more willing to reach a truce.

tl;dr

another sad example of people, including Israelis, trying to profit personally by telling people what they want to hear.

rnev64

The article is SOOOO strange. It presents Bibi as an evil dictator for - *check notes * - being constrained by other elected representatives with other views. How exactly is that a bad thing?!??!? Bibi is not the sole decision maker for ending the war. That is a GOOD thing!!!

OMG Bibi didn’t accept a one sided terrible ceasefire agreement because other elected representatives disagreed and also have power. It seems like the author of the article is upset that Bibi is _not_ a dictator but at other points in the article says that Bibi has complete authority. Bibi made a coalition with other parties for is own political gain - yeah moron that is how parliamentary government works. 

There are a few legitimate criticisms of Bibi sprinkled in. But the vast majority of the article seems to just be completely ignorant of how the Israeli government works.

bb5e8307

The article not being able to understand why Lebanon, Syria, and Iran happened is bullshit. 

Lebanon happened, because Hezbollah was sitting right on the border, had amassed well over 100,000 missiles, all pointed at Israel, and Israel saw the opportunity to rid itself of an extreme security threat that wanted to wipe it off the map. Hezbollah was bombing Israel, so it responded. 

Syria happened, because the Assad regime fell, and now you had a brand new group coming to power, who could NOT be relied upon to not use weapons belonging to the former regime. So, Israel got rid of them. That's it. Israel had no agreement and no knowledge how that'd play out. 

Iran happened, because it's trying to acquire nukes and had built up all of these other groups to wipe out Israel. That was prevented. 

Ignorant AF article.

akivayis95

My god this Hamas IRGC Russian Kaplan bot narrative

kulamsharloot

Not a legal expert, but just out of curiosity, is there any way that litigation can be brought up against some of the people / organizations defaming Israel lately? Some that come to mind are NYT, and Tucker Carlson. More egregious, IMO, is Tucker though, as he is stating anti-Israel / anti-semetic things about Epstein / Israel without proof, and stating them as if they are fact. From my understanding, I don't believe an actual "country" can sue an individual, but I am still wondering if there is anything that could be done, as it is very dangerous for someone to just declare damaging things to be true without any proof.

ComprehensiveKiwi489

Would I be shocked if he did? Not at all. And I don't  like him nor support him. 
Still I wouldn't accuse him just based on my dislike. 
Is there enough strong evidence that he did?  
If yes; then I'd be ok with throwing  him in prison asap as guilty of treason and endangering the Israeli republic. 
But if not, then let's keep the punches above the belt and not throw  verbal low blows under the belt.

Analog_AI

As someone who doesn’t pretend to be an expert, I’m hoping people can comment on the following paragraph from the article, especially the part about generals telling Bibi that there was no further value in continuing the war:  

Under political pressure from those coalition allies, Netanyahu slowed down cease-fire negotiations at crucial moments, missing windows in which Hamas was less opposed to a deal. He avoided planning for a postwar power transition, making it harder to direct the war toward an endgame. He pressed ahead with the war in April and July 2024, even as top generals told him that there was no further military advantage to continuing. When momentum toward a cease-fire seemed to grow, Netanyahu ascribed sudden significance to military objectives that he previously seemed less interested in pursuing, such as the capture of the southern city Rafah and later the occupation of the Gaza-Egypt border. And when an extended cease-fire was finally forged in January, he broke the truce in March in part to keep his coalition intact.

InterestingYak7300

They can go again to interview Russian war criminals

aghaueueueuwu

like duh

it's BB

eveything he does alwyas relate to his politcal gain. the only limit he has if that cheating on Sarah will help him.

Tomas-T

מצחיק אותי שאנחנו משחקים אותה כאילו כל כך מפריע לנו לצאת פראיירים ובינתיים ביבי מסובב אותנו על האצבע הקטנה שלו. יש יותר פראייר מלשלוח את הילדים שלך למות במלחמה שלא משיגה שום תכלית? ביבי יורק לנו בפרצוף וכל מה שהוא צריך לעשות זה להגיד ״אל תדאגו עוד שבועיים ככה וננצח״ ואנשים יכבו לגמרי את המוח שלהם וילכו אחריו כמו ילדים

JebBD

perfectly aligns with my opinion of the man. 

He just announced today that a deal will take 20 days.

in 20 days the parliament go on vacation, and can't topple his government.

vishnoo

Anyone paying attention already knew this 

Israel and the US seem to be discussing the future of the middle east, and might have formulated some general guidelines for one big deal which would seemingly include:

1. Gaza hostilities will conclude within two weeks, ending conditions will encompass four Arab nations (including Egypt and the United Arab Emirates) to administer the Gaza Strip, replacing the murderous Hamas terrorist organization. The remaining Hamas leadership will face exile to other countries, while the hostages gain freedom.
1. Multiple nations globally will accept numerous Gaza inhabitants seeking emigration.

1. Abraham Accords expansion will bring Syria, Saudi Arabia, and additional Arab and Muslim countries to recognize Israel and establish official relationships.

1. Israel will declare its willingness for future Palestinian conflict resolution under the "two states" concept, contingent upon the Palestinian Authority reforms.

1. The United States will acknowledge limited Israeli sovereignty implementation in Judea and Samaria.

Some of my thoughts:

I personally think such a deal, if it will actually happen of course, will be a major win for Israel and middle eastern countries interested in a good future. While becoming a huge blow to Iran and extremist Palestinian factions like Hamas (Who probably started this whole war in part due to the threat of Israel normalizing relations with more Arab nations).

I also believe that if Syria will be willing to normalize (Big question mark for me because that would require giving up on the Golan Heights), Lebanon will also be just a matter of time. And probably others from northern Africa at least will be joining as well.

An Arab coalition in Gaza, will make it extremely hard for Hamas to continue hostilities. And is something Israel tried making happen since the start of the war. And a vague commitment to a Palestinian state, based on conditions which Israel sets and decides if they were met or not, is a position Israel as a nation held already for long decades anyway, and might force the Palestinian Authority to finally give up on it's terrorist ways such as the indoctrination of the population, pay per slay policies, holocaust denial and more.

Would love to hear others thoughts about what such an agreement would mean to the region. And if such a thing is even realistic, in whole or in parts.

NotSoSaneExile

I hope this is real and it brings the hostages home!

but also, if this does come to pass, the wails and tears that will come from the surrounding subreddits will deafen and drown us!

jay_in_the_pnw

LOL is all I can say. There is never a dull moment with Trump. Does Egypt, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates and whoever else know yet that they will be administering Gaza and hosting Hamas and Gazan emigrés as part of the peace deal, or will they find out when Trump announces that they've agreed to it on Twitter? 🤣 I imagine that is also how Hamas will discover that they've agreed to disband?

Who knows anymore? Maybe Trump is just so crazy that he could achieve peace. Maybe only somebody as crazy as Trump could achieve peace in the Middle East. 🤣

mikiencolor

If this is legit and comes to fruition, it sure as hell would explain what happened over the last 2 weeks and make it make more sense I guess in the broader sense. Here's to hoping for a peaceful ME.

BananaValuable1000

Israel's military has intensified its operations in Gaza, warning of potential destruction if Hamas does not comply with disarmament demands, raising concerns over a humanitarian crisis.

Israel-Gaza Conflict Escalation

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want