Public sentiment on the Israeli-Hamas conflict is deeply polarized and complex. While many commenters express strong pro-Israel sentiments, supporting military actions against Hamas and emphasizing national pride, there is a significant recognition of the humanitarian crisis affecting civilians on both sides. The comments reflect a mixture of support for military action, empathy towards innocent victims, calls for peace and resolution, as well as criticism of the ongoing violence. Overall, the discourse is characterized by heightened emotions, nationalistic fervor, and profound frustration over the lack of progress toward peace.

Israeli Government

Hamas

International Community

The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.

Obviously that means not supporting terrorism or war crimes against civilians. Should the United States stop supplying Israel with military hardware and just tell both sides that they are on their own. Would that just result in Israel going to China/Russia for military hardware and all that happens for the United States is losing influence in the region with no gain. Does the United States threaten economic sanctions unless the Israelis agree to certain conditions like withdrawal of all settlements in the West Bank and that everyone has equal protection under the law so Jewish settlers cannot abuse Palestinians while using the Israeli army to prevent Palestinians from defending themselves? Would it involve the US deploying soldiers in the region as peacekeepers? 

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

AutoModerator

The end state would be: All Israelis move back to Israel's borders as defined by the UN. Palestinians get their own state. Everyone keeps their hands to themselves. 

We could enforce the first condition by cutting off weapons until the West Bank is free of Israel settlers. Or I guess the Israelis could stay there under Palestinian rule. (If I bought a house in Canada, that wouldn't make my backyard American territory. I would be subject to Canadian law.)

The UN could declare Palestine a sovereign nation. That wouldn't make Palestine a functional nation able and willing to control Hamas.

The point of October 7 was to stop other Arab nations from accepting Israel. Hamas wanted to do something so terrible that Israel would try to destroy Hamas, and inflict so much suffering on regular Palestinians that the world would turn against Israel. And it worked. 

What's more, I'm not sure Netanyahu wasn't hoping for something like this to distract from his criminal charges and his attempts to weaken democracy in Israel. He left COMPLETELY UNGUARDED the border with Hamas-controlled territory on one side and helpless Israeli civilians on the other side. 

I think regular Israelis and regular Palestinians just want peace. But just enough people don't want peace to keep there from being peace.

mesarasa

\&gt;Would that just result in Israel going to China/Russia for military hardware 

The fact that most commenters here haven't realize this just shows how disconnected their opinions are from reality.

unbotheredotter

The US should have placed greater pressure on Qatar to expel Hamas's leadership in order to force them to agree to a ceasefire.

Once the rebuilding of Gaza begins without Hamas's involvement, the region will be on a much better path toward a two-state solution.

This was not done because Biden was worried it would hurt his election chances due to its impact on oil prices—which is foolish because he was ignoring so many other more important factors.

3 steps.

1. Puts Hamas and the PNA. They have this far show in the last few decades to only support fighting Israel and not coexisting.

2. Establish a protectorate for the new state to slowly give them independence after supervised governance. Of course do this under multiple flags, but the US needs to be heavily involved.

3. Prevents Iran from funding a new Hamas in any new system.

MiketheTzar

I think the strategy that would have won for Biden and Harris is to say on day 1 “we support Israel’s right to defend itself against terrorism,  but we will not support you in any way in waging war and bombing against civilians and committing sweeping acts of genocide as revenge” and backing that up by ceasing all military aid, ceasing all funding and ceasing all political support until Israel pulled back. Be public, shame them, bully pulpit stuff. Try to negotiate cease fires. After that sanctions, rally the United Nations to intervene and all that. 

We can never solve their problems but we can’t aide ethic cleansing and worse. The blind, unconditional support of Israel or any country for that matter is mistake.

Oceanbreeze871

Stop funding the Israeli military and selling them weapons

Provide diplomats who make it clear that Palestinians have basic human rights

Of course, none of this will be effective as long as both sides hate each other

MpVpRb

The actual end scenario is complicated enough at this point, but the most morally correct thing would be full embargos on Israel until their negotiations are in good faith, since they hold more power in that relationship

Long term? Idk, UN enforced borders that are identical to the original partition plan would be nice. But that would require either boots on the ground from nations including ours, or some kind of defense agreement between Palestine and Israel, etc

elljawa

This is a pretty complex question in a realistic utilitarian framework.  If I interpret this as what could it do absent strong American domestic political pressure (but still factoring geopolitical realities), something like:

* Set clear red lines on Israeli conduct that violates IHL with escalating levels of arms embargoes if they are crossed. (obviously multiple have been crossed)
* Work to offer refuge to Gazans and pressure other countries to do so (+ pressure Egypt and/or Israel to allow them to transit through). In turn, force strong agreements to Israel that it cannot deny right of return (to Gaza) of these refugees.
* Various targeted sanctions on various far-right political leaders that partake in violence against Palestinian civilians.

Beyond that, it's kinda tough. We gave up on the arms embargo on Turkey post Cyprus occupation for geopolitical reasons and I don't think forcing settlement withdraw warrants that on the Israel side either (again considering comparibles).  

I also think it needs a radical change in position on the conflict.  2ss isn't politically viable due to elements that exist in both Israeli and Palestinian society and nor is 1ss.  I tend to think honesty is more morally correct so moving this to a more "managed conflict" vision which works to minimize harm, rather than pretending there is actually a "solution" could broaden thinking to improve lives.

meister2983

The morally correct thing is allow Israel to sort it out. Not our problem. I'm not saying we go complete isolationism but this is Israels war not ours. Why the hell should we care what's going on half way around the world that doesn't directly affect us.

LloydAsher0

Realistically, the only solution that has any chance of bringing long term peace to the region would be a more powerful third party marching in and deposing both the current Israeli government (completely dismantling it and bringing its current leaders to the Hague) and dismantling Hamas before beginning anew in establishing and building two functioning states out of the rubble. This is the kind of nation building that cant be done piecemeal or haphazardly or extremists on either side will just topple it over again and we'll be right back where we are now.

Haltopen

Stop supplying military assistance to Israel. Only give humanitarian aid.

Dr_Scientist_

Barring the invention of a time machine, this is a non-starter question.  The actions we've already taken are going to have unending lasting morally incorrect consequences.  There's no closing the box now.  Putting things back before we stuck our hand in the jar is impossible.  Too many people are dead, and there's way too much bad blood on both sides.

Broflake-Melter

This conflict will never end while the Israelis fear they’re surrounded by enemies just waiting and building up for Israel’s destruction. So let’s work with these countries to legitimize Israel and help them feel safe.

This conflict will also never end while the Palestinians are oppressed and don’t have safety or freedom. They must get full autonomy in the West Bank and Gaza, and full freedom of movement.

So let’s have the US Push hard to get every nation to sign onto the Abraham accords and legitimize the state of Israel. Also, use diplomatic means to isolate Hamas and get them replaced with a less crazy government. Simultaneously, pressure Israel to stop indiscriminately bombing and get rid of settlers in the West Bank.

TheOtherAngle2

Stop blocking un condemnation votes.  Go lockstep with the already-slightly-pro-Israel eu approach.  If Trump leaves, work to a 1-state solution, or if necessary a 2-state with strict actions taken against settlers and penalty of crushing economic penalties if not enforced.  Affirmatively call for Bibi to leave office.

More-read-than-eddit

Embargo on Israel until they leave the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

torytho

Sanction Israel, investigate American officials for which there is probable cause to believe they may be involved in knowingly funding war crimes and ship them off to The Hague if there's sufficient evidence for them to be tried. Send aid to Palestinians and assist in peacekeeping efforts in the region. Make sure neither Israel nor Hamas can mess with the aid. And I mean actual Hamas, not a child commiting the horrible crime of being Arab and/or Muslim within 500 miles of an oil field. Oh, and acknowledge and support Palestinian self-determination and right to return. This does not conflict with Jewish self-determination and anyone who tells you it does is either a liar or a fool. Work towards the ousting of the Israeli and Palestinian (especially Israeli for obvious reasons) far-right and the establishment of one secular, democratic, pluralistic state. The way Palestine is partitioned right now was always going to cause problems. Oh, and host a referendum in Golan Heights for whether the citizenry there would want to rejoin free Syria or remain part of a secular, pluralistic, democratic Israeli and Palestinian state. That's to start, I'm sure there's other stuff.

Edit: Added more suggestions, including about Golan Heights (tl;dr referendum on whether they want to be part of Syria or Israel–Palestine and possibly making it into an automomous region either way)

Edit 2: Oh, and blow up the [Lehi Museum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_Museum).

Edit 3: And while we're at it, sanction Morocco for its continued occupation of Western Sahara and abuses against Sahrawis, as well as the mutual collaboration between Morocco and Israel to maintain their occupations.

Edit 4: Wow, lots of people in this thread acting like if you can't instantly snap your fingers and make everyone and everything better instantly then there's no hope for peace and no one should bother trying. Also acting as if it's impossible for Jews and Palestinians to coexist peacefully is the attitude that's going to keep this conflict going until every Gazan is either forced to flee and suffer the same fate as the Circassians or get blown to bits.

ArcticCircleSystem

303Carpenter

China and Russia would *not* give Israel equal military assistance if the US pulled out, it would be seen as a seizure of a Western-controlled region and invite real conflict with the US anyway. I want to get that out of the way first. 

Here’s the deal - if the US actually means business about cutting aid, Israel will respond to our instructions. That’s our relationship and we used to do this all the time. Total capitulation to the Israeli govt wasn’t the norm until Trump 1.0, frankly Biden got extremely lucky because he got to keep the status quo and implement a radical pro-Israel stance without shifting the approach to the right. Had a theoretical 2017 Dems presidency brought things to that point, most liberals would’ve been rightfully furious. 

Point being - threatening Israel like that wouldn’t be some radical escalation, it would be reverting to a norm embraced by everyone from Reagan to Obama. There needs to be a push and pull, and for the last year and a half it’s been Israel pulling us with no pushback. 

So just say fuck you, take the ceasefire deal currently on the table. That’s step one. 

As for what to do after that - I’m going to be real, I can’t know for sure and neither can anyone on this sub. But the war needs to end, and the conflict is so asymmetrical that Israel pulling out is an effective end to the war. Any attack Hamas could plausibly pull off after a ceasefire is just as possible right now. An attack like Oct 7 literally cannot happen right now because of what Gaza is. The current structure of the region prevents it from happening.

MutinyIPO

stop selling weapons and giving aid to israel and sanction them until they stop their attacks in gaza, let in and provide aid, and stop any building/expanding of settlements on palestinian lands. once israel has done that, remove the sanctions under the condition that israel starts engaging in serious negotiations with palestinians about the future.

if they don't make real progress towards either a one state solution where palestinians have equal rights or a two state solution with a truly free and independant palestine, do sanctions again.

evil_rabbit

Instead of sending a bunch of weapons to Israel, use that money for a Berlin airlift style supplying of Gaza. When Stalin cut off the road and rail to starve Berlin, we didn’t say “Aw shucks I guess we weally can do nuthin’ bout it I guess those people now gonna starve.” Nope, we America fuck-yeahed to making him back down and bought a tremendous amount of soft power good will among Europeans, which was valuable. 

It’s so wild how we have an overwhelming amount of resources to be heroes but we do the opposite.

ConsistentFast

Absolute minimum would to stop supplying arms to Israel. Better would be to economically sanction like South Africa in the 80s and 90s.

FoxyDean1

prolly just annex palestine/isreal tbh, make them full citizens, given them two seperate states, but done under us constitutional rule.

i don't really see any other resolution.

fire_in_the_theater

IMO, completely withdraw all support from Israel until they bring civilian casualties down significantly. Being surrounded by countries that aren't exactly fond of Israel will force Israel to either learn how to defend themselves *by themselves*, or they'll make a genuine effort to avoid civilians while targeting Hamas in order to win back U.S. support. Regardless, the U.S. should absolutely step up humanitarian efforts in Gaza. 

I'm fine supporting Israel (and other countries), as long as those countries are well-meaning.

UnlistedCube

The morally correct thing at a minimum is placing economic sanctions on Israel the way sanctions were placed on Apartheid South Africa. The consensus opinion of human rights experts is that Israel is maintaining a racist system of Apartheid on the Palestinian people and their is a solidifying consensus that Israel is carrying out a campaign of genocide against the Palestinians. They need to be sanctioned for their crimes against humanity. And sanctions do work. When President Eisenhower imposed sanctions on Israel in the 50s over the raids they conducted during the Qibya massacre and threatened to impose U.N sanctions on them during the Suez Canal Crisis of 56. During the campaign against Apartheid in South Africa the American congress forced the Reagan Administration to place sanctions on Apartheid South Africa. Those sanctions involved not just the Apartheid regime itself, but also third party actors supporting it, including Israel. This forced Israel to reassess and ultimately break off their relationship with Apartheid South Africa. 

So sanctions need to be imposed along with a full arms embargo. And the sanctions need to remain not just when the genocide ends, but also when their occupation of the Palestinian territories end. This means whatever negotiations are entered into, they need to be done with sanctions remaining firmly in place to force the arms of the Israelis when it comes to negotiating with the Palestinians. That's what was done after Nelson Mandela was released and he entered in the 4 year negotiating process with FW De Klerk to end Apartheid.

Anglicanpolitics123

They would stop sending weapons and money to Israel. Cut all ties and let them fend for themselves. That’s the only correct course of action. Anything else is a half measure.

Moneyshot06

ThirdHandTyping

Cutting off all weapons to israel and putting max diplomatic pressure through sanction until israel stops blowing gaza to bits.  After that palestinian statehood would be formally recognized

Impossible_Host2420

I present to you this Alternate History post slash fever dream from a year ago.

[https://www.reddit.com/r/AlternateHistory/comments/1crhuij/only\_donald\_trump\_could\_free\_palestine/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AlternateHistory/comments/1crhuij/only_donald_trump_could_free_palestine/)

I am frankly disappointed this hasn't happened yet, but we are seeing this dynamic play out in a headline I never thought I'd see.

[https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2025/05/trump-israel-war/682782/](https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2025/05/trump-israel-war/682782/)

But here we are because this timeline makes no sense no more.

fallbyvirtue

-STOP all aid and weapons to Israel immediately, allow food to be transported back into Gaza plus a permanent ceasefire.

-Force the Devil Netanyahu to stepped down and answers for his crimes with a trial and jail time with no probation or bail.

-I will accept either of these solutions happening:

       A) Establish actual democratic Palestinian Government to take over Israel and rename it Palestine with laws against discrimination of Palestinians as well as Jews. Israelis will live among the mixed population.
    
       B) Establish a more democratic empathic government in place and give Palestine it's sovereignity and establish a permanent two-state solution with laws against discrimination for Palestinians as well as Jews and against attacking again.

-Aid and rebuild the destroyed parts of Palestine. Reparations for Palestinians.

-Dismantle Hamas and the IDF to form one mixed inclusive military.

Honestly, no peace can really come about as long as the current Israeli government (or our current government to be frank) is in place. They don't care about making peace, they only care about eradicating ALL Palestinians from Israel and it's borders.

indigoC99

Oh wow this is going to be unpopular!  

The only moral solution is to do Trump's original plan, plus 100k+ boots on the ground in and around Gaza. Establish an international corridor between West Bank and Gaza. Both become tourist zones after reconstruction. All practitioners of Abrahamic religions are permitted full access to all shrines, with no "Muslim-only" "Christian-only" or "Jewish-only" areas. Gazans are credited for all homes and property destroyed with money from the Arab states, Europe, Russia and China. All Palestinians age 35 and under receive free education and scholarships from global universities. The whole world takes responsibility for this.

Any one sided plans are dead on arrival. Israel has a right to exist, and Palestinians have a right to self determination as long as it doesn't include Hamas. Massive educational programs a la Germany in 1950s to effectively eradicate the Nazi Hamas / Muslim Brotherhood ideology.

Amnesty for Israelis involved in what appears to be a very clear genocidal campaign a la the Confederate States of America following the American Civil War.

This is the only morally correct posture, the only thing that will prevent Israel from deporting all Gazans to Libya. They really will do it, and US/China are too corrupt to stop it. Europe has been incredibly useless. The United States should advocate for this solid plan and take what it can get, not everything is a win. But a permanent end to the killing is undeniably a win

Chemical-Nature4749

It would be as simple as not paying money to Hamas(which had been happening under the previous administration). Also providing moral  support for Israel and possibly selling them weaponry. Otherwise we stay out of it. That’s the moral thing. The Israelis although imperfect as all us humans are, they are not hiding behind women and children. The IDF are doing the inverse standing in front of them to protect them. When Hamas is standing behind their own people as human shields. This is the easiest way to see that if Hamas put down their guns the war would be over. If Israel put down theirs they would not exist. That’s the whole point of the Hamas rhetoric “from the river to the sea”

Remarkable-Clock9066

US should continue to support their ally that shares modern western values versus a terrorist death cult that wants Israel and America dead.  

The settlements are legal, people just wish they weren't.  I don't think the US getting involved with that debacle is wise.

KarateKicks100

1. Immediate cessation of arms support to Israel

2. Massive influx of aid into gaza, defended by UN forces (ideally under leadership of a country with more moral credibility than the US in this conflict)--with force against Israel if need be

3. Diplomatic pressure to get Israel to withdraw settlers, ramping up steadily until this outcome is achieved, with eventual goal of ensuring that the west bank at least can function as a true sovereign state with territorial integrity--IMO, a truly successful (in the eyes of Palestinians) government in the west bank (where resisting settler incursion is a key metric of that success) would do a whole lot to cut Hamas off at the knees.

Helicase21

Reparations and returning of land for those who were stripped of their rights.

Anodized12

I’m not gonna pretend I know what would be practical long-term, but the *immediate* steps the US absolutely needs to take are:

• Halt all arms sales and military aid to Israel and impose sanctions that will only be lifted with the strict conditions that Israel withdraws the IDF from Gaza and the West Bank and stops all illegal settlements in the West Bank
• Encourage our allies to do the same
• Facilitate a massive influx of aid into Gaza (probably through the UN?) and refund and restore partnership with UNRWA

Long-term, idk. I have thoughts about what solutions could look like, but I have mixed feelings about how much involvement the US should actually have in that. I want to lean towards saying that a two-state solution is more realistic, but a big problem is that I don’t see how that could easily accommodate one of Palestinians’ major needs, which is the right of return.

Low_Operation_6446

It would look like no longer bankrolling their atrocities and pulling Security Council diplomatic support: Without the US vetoing every sanctions resolution against Israel its trade would get comprehensively fucked over by UN sanctions.

By shielding Israel from international pressure, Israel is being enabled to pursue a policy of ethnic cleansing, land theft and apartheid. End the diplomatic cover for them and they might be forced to abandon this policy, like apartheid south africa was forced to abandon theirs.

IzAnOrk

Stop sending money to Israel. That's pretty much the whole thing. If they get their shit from Russia or China after that, it sucks, but funding a genocide should be a hard line.

headcodered

The conflict there is the same conflict between Russia and Ukraine.

Our president doesn't work for the USA so they are just giving the appearance of being on the right side while supporting the aggressors and the cause of this doesn't care how many bodies pile up while he robs the country blind.

SnoopyisCute

As someone recovering from liberalism..... since the US has been a liberal democracy.... I'll answer 
(Yes, everyone here who has voted in the US 2 party system for either party, is or has been a liberal and this is an ask a lib reddit) 

The morally correct thing is not complicated:
1. **End all military aid to Israel**($3.8B/year) and enforce Leahy Laws (which prohibit funding units committing human rights violations—like the IDF).  
2. **Sanction Netanyahu’s government** like we did apartheid South Africa:  
   - Ban settlement goods.  
   - Freeze officials’ assets.  
   - Expel Israel from SWIFT banking.  
3. **Recognize Palestine** and back UNRWA (not defund it based on Israeli lies).  

**"But what about Hamas?"**
Resistance factions exist *because* of occupation. No occupation = no need for armed resistance. Pretending Israel (a nuclear state) and Gaza (an open-air prison) are "equal" is absurd.  You don’t get to besiege people for 75 years then cry *"terrorism"* when they fight back.  

**"But China/Russia will step in!"**
Cool, then the U.S. can stop being the world’s arms dealer. Israel’s war crimes shouldn’t get a pass because "influence."

**"What about peacekeepers?"**
The U.S. militarizes everything. Send diplomats, not troops.  

The "end state" requires dismantling apartheid, not just tweaking borders. Free Palestine means *from the river to the sea*—one secular state with equal rights. **The endpoint isn’t "two states" –it’s decolonization.**

NiCocoBby

Resettle the Palestinians in the United States.  The US has enough room.  Sure, some of them are terrorists, just filter those out as best one can.

You asked for the morally correct thing, not the politically feasible one.

Particular_Dot_4041

I don't think there is a morally correct thing any outside actor could do in relation to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Neither side of the conflict at the moment desires an outcome a neutral party would find morally defensible.

Kerplonk

Build a wall anti air on both sides and inform both sides that if they attempt to attack the other, it will be blood. Then bring about interactions with eachother in peaceful ways, slowly but surely letting the two cultures influence eachother until they see they share enough in common that they can recognize themselves in eachother. Then slowly withdraw. This would take decades if not up to a century. But it would break the cycle of violence. Once no one has experienced loss, and have been built to where they have something to lose, then the cycle can be broken.

Raintamp

Complete and total sanction of the State of Israel

KalaiProvenheim

Should the US stop supporting Israel, they have much more incentive to react even more aggressively. They're entirely surrounded by countries that openly want their annihilation and it's very clear that American support of Israel is the only thing stopping them from trying for a 7th time. 

Enough time has passed that many of those ME countries have built up more effective militaries. If Israel sees itself close to getting overwhelmed, nukes will fly in all directions because they have nothing left to lose. People for some reason think that Evangelical dominionism is the reason why we support Israel, but I bet preventing a full blown nuclear war right where our oil comes from is a bigger reason.

Dallascansuckit

[deleted]

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.

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

**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.*

That’s Babylon Bee icon.  I didn’t watch the wideo but isn’t Bee just the Onion with some tiki torches?

inbetween-genders

Inaccurate. Interviewer should have green hair and a pride flag lapel pin

trimtab28

The ongoing conflict has escalated with significant military operations in Gaza leading to civilian casualties and worsening humanitarian conditions.

Israeli-Hamas Conflict

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want