Public sentiment regarding the Gaza conflict is highly polarized, with significant admiration for the proactive stances taken by countries like Indonesia and Ireland, while simultaneously expressing frustration at the perceived hypocrisy and inaction of major powers like the U.S. and Mexico. Many commenters call for urgent humanitarian action and accountability from international leaders, reflecting a widespread desire for genuine peace efforts amidst a backdrop of deep historical grievances and skepticism about the prospect of reconciliation with Israel.

Indonesia

United States

Ireland

Mexico

China

Israel

The best thing to do is to ask: “which one?” 

They are likely to respond with a flurry of examples without really diving too deep into any. This is intentional. 

They may also point to the Oslo accord or any agreement prior to 1981. 

All these “peace agreements” however share the same common issues: 

- Israel would own the Palestinian state as a vassal. Give them zero rights and zero privileges commonly associated with sovereignty. This is effectively not different then status quo. 

- Israel would continue to enforce the displacement of Palestinians refugees. So long as the “peace agreement” would continue to make stateless people it’s a non-starter for most Palestinians. 

- continued oppression of Palestinians under guise of security. This reality doesn’t only make Palestinians not willing to accept, but it makes any who do agree with it seem corrupt and complicit. The PA’s approval rating is in the low 30% for this reason. 

- Israel will not agree to any terms that limit its ability to strike its neighbors or control the flow of people to Jerusalem. Israel acts like it wants to be a peaceful country among its neighbors but this is far from the truth. Israel will not accept any agreement that could allow the Muslim population to grow either in Israel or in Palestine. This includes immigration and peaceful ties with its neighbors. (Example: Israel expects Arab countries to allow its citizens to visit, but subjects the citizens of Arab countries to near impossible conditions to entry) 

These are as brief as I could get while staying factual and balanced. 

The arguments that Israel only wants peace and it’s the Arabs who don’t is not only counter factual, it’s also a key aspect of Zionist ideology and history and will be a particularly difficult position to argue without familiarizing yourself with the examples provided and the evidence to back it.

EgyptianNational

I point out that Israel has never accepted Palestinian right of return

PatrickMaloney1

The content of the “peace” proposals was the problem. https://decolonizepalestine.com/myths/

Something_morepoetic

Daniel Levy, an Israeli, former IDF soldier, and peace negotiator for decades, who helped push forward the PLO/Rabin peace deal has repeatedly said that Israel never approached the negotiations with good faith. Always attempting to derail them with horrible demands. He often called them Terms of surrender rather than peave plans.



At one discussion Fatah was willing to concede East Jerusalem for assurances of west bank and statehood. Israel responded by demanding all of Jerusalem and parts of west bank and additional stipulations of surrendering all arms, knowing that Fatah wouldn't accept them. That's just a small example of how Israel negotiates in bad faith. Based on these concessions that the PLO, Fatah, and Hamas have put forward, their peace plans have been refused Israel. But that's not how hasbara will frame it.



Here's one of many articles that Levy has written about the negotiations:



https://yubanet.com/opinions/daniel-levy-dont-call-it-a-peace-plan/

GuerillaRadioLeb

[This website](https://decolonizepalestine.com/myth/palestinians-sabotaged-the-peace-process/) is a good place to start in an easily digested format.

bonecows

Point to the Palestine papers and the willingness of the Palestinian leadership to betray their own peoples wishes by the amount of maximalist concessions they caved under in order to get a semblance of an independent state and yet it lead nowhere.

Or just point them to Gideon levy and Daniel levy who were part of the peace process and show them how they talk about Israel’s bad faith at “negotiating”.

Plenty_Weakness_6348

Oslo is the closest time we came to achieving peace, the PLO and Israel shook hands on an agreement, and then Israeli right wingers were so outraged that they assassinated the prime minister, Yitzak Rabin. Netanyahu replaced him, and there is a recording (unintended) of Netanyahu casually admitting after he was elected that he had no intention of ever agreeing to a peace deal. 

I think everyone knows Camp David was a farce. Israel and the US suggested terms that they knew full well that Arafat (PLO leader at that time) could never accept. The whole thing was basically constructed to make him seem unreasonable. 

Then there’s the whole “we pulled out of Gaza in 2005 and left greenhouses” claim. But the truth is that the IDF deliberately pulled out before the PLO could transition power, as Hamas was gaining power, resulting in a civil war between them that left over 700 Palestinians dead. It wasn’t some peaceful transition of power and fair election, as Israelis seem to believe. And after that, Netanyahu gave Hamas millions in cash, to empower them and continue the “divide and conquer” approach. 

The reality is that Hamas is a right wing fundamentalist group, and so is Likud, and they both fuel each other in order to prevent a peace deal so that they can remain in power instead of the left. You’ll notice whenever the left comes too close to gaining power in Israel before an election, Hamas attacks and motivates Israelis to vote right wing. And when things are advancing too much in the WB, Israel builds a new settlement or settlers attack Al-Aqsa. If the last sentence sounds like a crazy conspiracy, read about the Israeli finance minister who is in charge of overseeing the WB, bezalel smotrich. He has directly said that the purpose of the settlements is to destroy the Palestinian’s hope for ever achieving a unified state! 

I wouldn’t be at all surprised if we find out in 5 years where Hamas was getting all those rockets from, and it’s none other than Netanyahu.

Seltzer-Slut

Ask them to enumerate exactly what the offers consisted of.

[deleted]

Even if this is 100% true (which as other comments show is very debatable) it still wouldn't justify giving up on peace now. Israelis and Palestinians both need peace, and I definitely wouldn't punish an entire population for its leadership's failures.

prettynose

Al Jazeera: [How Israel has repeatedly rejected Hamas truce offers](https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2024/1/22/how-israel-has-repeatedly-rejected-hamas-truce-offers) (Jan, 2024)

The article includes a very long timeline from 1988 (when Hamas was founded) to 2017. Ofc, this doesn't go back to before Hamas was founded, but still relevant.

BalsamicBasil

So the tldr

Peel Plan - a recommendation, not offer; suggested annexing the Arab part of Palestine to Transjordan; required population transfer of a quarter million Arabs for 1000 Jews; included valuable coastal and agricultural land in the Jewish state; and not adopted by the British government.   

Partition Plan - a non-binding resolution; arbitrarily divided the territory to accommodate a minority of the citizens, much of which haven't even lived there for 2 decades; they were only able to arrive because the mandatory power didn't curb immigration despite the wishes of the majority of the indigenous population, which is what they were supposed to do; included much of the region's valuable territory (including most of the coastal plains, citrus groves and cereal producing areas), not just desert since people keep bringing up the Naqab to justify the disproportionately large amount of land recommended for the Jewish side. Regardless it's not only accepted now by any Palestinian who'd accept a 2SS, they even accept the pre-1967 borders which exceeds the plan in Resolution 181. So it's not relevant.   

Camp David - a shit offer. Israel would keep too much of the occupied territory, not enough headway on the refugee issue, and there was no offer of sovereignty on the mount, and other logistics which needed to be ironed out.

Taba - wasn't final status, but the sides got closer. Israel walked away, not the Palestinians. After Sharon became PM, he had zero interest in continuing for a peace agreement even though Arafat said he wanted it.

Olmert offer - made after he announced he wasn't remianing as the head of his party and would resign once they have a new leader; still needed to iron out some details about territory, refugee patriation, whether the Israeli military could enter Palestine whenever it "needed to," which settlements would be kept, among other logistics. 3ish months is too short to iron out such details.

Oh, I just realized I forgot to add the Trump Plan. So, lol - no sea port; no airport except unless Israel agrees to a small one in Gaza after 5 years; no control of borders; Israel keeps the settlements; Palestine has to drop all lawsuits against Israel and the US; Israeli forces can enter Palestine whenever it thinks it needs to; no right of return of refugees to the State of Palestine, it will be up to Israel to have a say on immigration; and other problems. It's like the status quo - better in some ways, but in other ways worse because they can't do anything unilaterally. There's a reason it wasn't taken seriously. The only benefit it had was that it was so laughably bad, people forgot for a little while about how shitty Kushner is in real estate.

Thisisme8719

Oslo would have allowed Israel to keep settlements in the West Bank and have air, water and border control over the demilitarized Palestinian “state”, Israelis refused to negotiate Jerusalem or right of return, and asked that Palestinians forfeit any opportunity to negotiate any better terms in the future. It left some very loose terms around Israel’s security so that Israel can exploit those as needed, which Netanyahu did and bragged about. It amounted to Palestinians agreeing to being permanently under occupation.

brasdontfit1234

It’s Israel that has rejected peace offers. Not Palestinians.

"I bet your brother rejected your offer to share a sandwich when you gave him the crust and kept the rest for yourself"

bananaleaftea

You cannot have peace with a colonial occupier and oppressor. 
They have oppressed and colonized our brethren. A peace treaty without punishment for the crimes will be a gross injustice.

Cogitomedico

I saw a short video on this just now: https://twitter.com/KhalilJeries/status/1787949252481560931

MajorMajorMajor7834

Ask for 1 official policy/peace treaty proposal from Israel that meets this simple criteria:

- Defines clear borders for Palestine

- Gives Palestine an army

- Sovereignty as an independent State

  
No such treaty exists.

They have accepted several peace proposals but asked for a compromise because every proposal they put on the table was completely unfair. When Israel refused to compromise, that’s when you would see a peace proposal crumble. But there have been plenty of times where Israel has not accepted a peace deal or hasn’t Followed through with it. I mean look what they are doing now. They outright say that they refuse any sort of Dale and will continue the destruction of Gaza.

shitpresidente

The colonial approach that the British, UN and Israel have  taken when making "proposals" was always to completely ignore the requirements and opinions of the Palestinians — to the extent that they often did not even consult with them, and then to bring them an "offer" that was invariably and consistently completely biased to the interests of the Zionists and not open to modification, with the Palestinians able to either accept or reject it.

The Zionists, on the other hand, always had multiple opportunities to provide input to the process of preparing any proposal and even to actually write the proposals themselves.

There has never been a process of good-faith negotiation between the imperial powers — Britain and the USA — with Israel and the Palestinians. This resulted in a slew of unacceptable offers that did not consider the Palestinians' rights, requirements and interests and were rightfully rejected.

Progress can only be made if this patronising-colonialist attitude is abandoned.

daudder

Fatah laid down their arms and agreed to recognize Israel in exchange for the possibility, not the promise but the possibility of a Palestinian state.  They were rewarded with a massive expansion of settlements in the West Bank.

Far_Silver

A lot of the answers below that people have given a pretty good ones, but having recently looked this up, I think I might have found one of the best pieces of evidence to prove the argument false.

There was someone on another reddit post who was talking about Palestine voting for Hamas in 2006 and how that alone should prove that Palestinians have rejected peace. Obviously, this is what I grew up hearing, but I was curious, so I looked it up and after finding the results of the post-election survey on Wikipedia, what I found was shocking. So below is the paragraph I wrote in response to that person. I think it's a great jumping off point to open people up to the possibility that reality has been more murky, with shades of grey, than the actual narrative has.

&gt;In the 2006 election, Hamas tried to hide its violent practices to come across as more of a centrist party and told the Palestinians in Gaza that they were only focused on 1) Combatting corruption; 2) Ending security chaos; 3) Solving poverty/unemployment (this list was literally copied from Wikipedia). They convinced people that they were nonviolent centrists, and even ran under a new name, the Change and Reform party. Hamas won the election despite getting less than 50% of the vote. In the survey taken after the election occurred, the 3 biggest wants of the Palestinian people were to see, 1, a unity government between Fatah and Hamas: supported 81%, 2, peace treaties with Israel: supported 79.5%, and 3, reduced Fatah corruption: supported 78.1%. Hamas rejected all of these goals. This means Palestinians actually voted for peace with Israel, but Hamas lied to them, and then elections were suspended. So, Gazans voting in support of malevolent intentions couldn't be further from the truth.

What I didn't add to the paragraph is at least from my understanding, about half of the population in Gaza are too young to have been part of the election, which would essentially mean that even among the people who, while being lied to, did vote for Hamas, they now make up at most, if proportions have stayed consistent, about 25% of the people in the Gaza Strip.

Here's some other suggestions for arguments you could make:

&gt;You can tell whoever you're speaking to that this doesn't dismiss any of the Israelis' fears, but rather recontextualizes them into a system where, instead of a few on both sides acting malevolently, both sides' governments have created a systemwide issue, that only runs due to the fear of the consequences of each other's worst practices and hate, therefore stretching their limits for how extreme each retaliation against the other becomes.

&gt;You could also explain how both sides' most extreme agitators, not just Hamas, are both to blame and yet, only symptoms of the problem, not the cause of it, and how a system that legally ensures the many to thrive, at the expense of the few to suffer, makes fools of everyone, including those at the steering wheel, who were already fools from the beginning.

&gt;Also, you could tell them that due to the fact that it's important to recognize the inhumanity of October 7th and atrocities like it, by definition of recognizing that inhumanity, we can also use that reason to justify us fundamentally disagreeing with the Israeli government and the IDF's choice to follow the hollowed out hateful fable of "an eye for an eye," A phrase dates back to Hammurabi in Mesopotamia, the same location that eventually become the Persian Empire that enslaved Jews for generations, ran by a government that tried to justify their acts using the same principals.

However, no matter what you argue, the most important thing to do, in my opinion, no matter what people say to you in response, is to always try to personalize the situation. It's very easy, especially for someone a little further away from the problem, to develop apathy, and dehumanize who they see as their enemy, no matter the level of validity their fears may hold. If you can, no matter what you say, try to help the person you're speaking with understand how it must feel to be in the position of the victim, without devaluing their fears and concerns in the process, then you may be able to bridge the gap of understanding.

I wish you the absolute best, hope you stay safe out there, and remember to give yourself the same empathy and consideration that you fight to give others.

trueBHR

Easy. Propoaal were made on unreasonble terms.

Otherwise-Fox1994

lucash7

I feel like at this point the way to respond to Zionists is the same as the way to respond to antisemites,  and I don't mean with calm and rational debate.

Drakeytown

President Joseph Aoun said that he wants to engage in a policy of “positive neutrality” with our neighbors. I completely get the argument of not wanting to have a peace/neutrality agreement with the Israelis because of our history. However, I don’t want the next 60 years to look like the last 60 years and we need to stop getting into wars. If outside nations see that we no longer want to engage in wars for once in 50 years, maybe we can actually get real investment and aid to help rebuild the country. Also we have to see with what Trump does since he wants to “spread the Abraham Accords” and “change the Middle East” and other bs like that.

Winter-Painter-5630

Peace is a malleable term. It can simply mean NO WAR or as extreme as UAE level normalization. All Lebanese should be in favor of the bare minimum (peace/no-war). Enough is enough. We don't have to be best-friends, but we cannot fight another war. Israel has clearly established itself as the regional superpower, as an extension of the U.S. and Western powers. The south has been set back 20-30 years by this "intisar."

GustaveLeBron

Jealous-Candidate852

I think once Saudi Arabia inevitably normalizes relations with Israel in the next 4 years of Trump, Lebanon normalizing with Israel won’t seem so crazy.

Glum_Cobbler1359

Look at how many people killed each other during World War II and look at europe now and tell me if peace isn't the right choice.

The French and the Germans hated each other for literally centuries, they lost regions to each other that are still in control of the other.

Things have to change and if it's a bitter pill to swallow, so be it.

photenth

I want Lebanon to live in peace and quiet and have full control and law and order throughout its entire border…

That means internally and externally.

We cant keep living like a 5th world country day in and day out..

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH

Israel isn’t going anywhere and like we’ve seen many times.. they have carte Blanche to do whatever they want every time they want..

Do people want to live like this for the next 100 years again???!

Dhajj

I still think that peace is the only viable option. Peace would basically nullify all the problems that Israel's presence has caused the middle east. I know it is counter intuitive but I think the last war should have made it much clearer

rury_williams

So you want war? :/
Peace or normalization is just absence of war… it’s not alliance or anything like that, it just mean « ok, stop war ».
It doesn’t mean « hey let’s love each other » or even « we’ll never be enemies ».
It actually only means « now, we agree to no longer fight each other ».

So, war made you change your mind to… appreciate war over not war? :(

Otherwise_Candle_834

Leb can't ever be friends eith Israel? Give me a break. Remember certain Hitler and Nazi Germany? 85 million deaths? Millions of people burned alive at concentration camps? Germany leads Europe today and everyone loves and respects their country, their top quality products and is a reliable partner with the whole world. Israel can be too. Deal with the cause for Israeli retaliation rather than play a victim card. Disarm that death cult you got in the South, that's how you make sure this doesn't happen again! 
Lebanese should be so lucky to have a superpower nation as a neighbour. They could help you build top notch infrastructure, so you could have steady power 24/7 instead of the generators you bought on the black market and Internet that's barely any better than dial-up Internet from 1993. They have some of the best doctors, super advanced healthcare, cutting edge science, agriculture, biotech, military (as you already know); be a good neighbour and reap the economic benefits of having such neighbours. Travel there, let them travel into Lebanon. Let them build, develop projects, flourish together instead of rot in the cycle of violence that has paralysed Lebanon since the 70s. Israel has no beef with Lebanese people, never had it. They got beef with the death cult people who came into Leb on and hijacked your country. Kick them out if they can't feel Lebanese. Clean up your corrupt leadership. Clean up your environment. Cut the sectarian crap, it's old and tired. Move the f**k on already.

Figurativespeech

lebanon should follow its interest and not get drag in anyone one conflict or conflict in the areas, it should be neutral to all regional conflict sorta like oman and does its own thing.

should lebanon have peace with israel? u can get some form of agreement but don't think peace is ever truly possible until israel politics change course, u only gonna get some agreement or alliance, i for one not entrusted in allying which such regime nor fighting it, want to be left a alone and live life.

also i think there are more pressing question for lebanon then israel, israel will always be there there are other issue that doesn't have to be there that lebanon can work on and improve in that area, most lebanon issue can be fix without much involvement with the whole israel issue.

Peace. Lebanon has been reduced to rubble enough. We need to rebuild. We need to heal. We need to stop hemorrhaging people emigrating to the West. We have most of our lands; let’s care for them. Let Iran and Israel fight each other or finally make peace without using Lebanese soil for their proxy wars. I am so tired of Iran and Syria (under Assad, who also viewed many Syrians as pawns) viewing Lebanese lives as expendable. I want life for my people, prosperity, and blue skies. 

Let Syria and Lebanon be free from the Iranian regime that looks down on us. There will be peace in the Middle East when cowards have no one left to hide behind. 

Stock_Purple7380

No

I'm fine with returning to something similar to the post 48 status. Honestly I don't want anything to do with them (or Palestine for that matter)

Why have normalization with people who view you as inferior?

TabboulehWorship

I am in so much pain due to this war, as my family lost an unfathomable amount of assets, and I still think we need to normalize with Israel for our kids and future generations.

Don’t get me wrong, I spit on Israel, I hate the flag, I hate their politicians, I hate it with a passion. I don’t hate the people though, unless their political views are extreme &amp; expansionist.

It really breaks my heart, but I’ve come to terms with the fact that I’m defeated: we lost so much, akalna atle for things ma khasna fiyon, and I have to accept normalization bas kermel wlede bukra y3eesho bala 7arb w araf w khara.

Key_Mango8016

Peace with the option to go in and destroy anything they feel suspicious about?  
Like this ceasefire agreement that still had fire since day one?

hishamad

As long as the gtfo of our lands, and we have a strong army that's capable of protecting us in case they want to stab us in the back. Then I'm down

Away-Historian-5377

I’m all for it under the condition they don’t annex Lebanese territory.

Nintendo64Goldeneye

Peace is not possible in the near term.  Best option is to stay neutral and not antagonize israel.  This means putting down the dog called hizballah. 
Instead of just trying to disarm them, Aoun can try to convince them to convert into a "special defense unit" under the command of the LAF. This can be a highly trained commando unit of the Lebanese Army, but non-sectarian. This will allow the fighters who love fighting to continue this life and feel like they are protecting the south.  Fighters can enlist and Hizballah will then convert into purely political party. 

Aoun should sell this offer publicly to hizb fighters and convince them in a patriotic manner.  This puts all eyes on hizb leaders and forces them to comply,  in a patriotic manner. Offer these "elite fighters" a better salary than hizb pays with better benefits.  This might be the best solution to "Peace."

FizDaBoss

When Saudi Arabia and Syria does it. We will be next.

CartographerNo9410

لا حياة و لا أمان في ظل الاحتلال.

pretty_obviousA

With the state of Israel as it is now, no, I do not want to normalize relations. That doesn't mean war, but no deals, no trade, no visas for any of their citizens. 


Ideally, I'd want anything *that crosses the border* to get shot, no discussion needed. I know we don't have the physical means to do that, but one of the conditions for a proper peace would be that Israel refrain from any incursions for at least a few years. Including incursions into the airspace.


And a solution for the Palestinians, both the ones in the lands of Palestine and the ones on Lebanese soil.

Sr4f

The lebanese are being forced into normalization. This is not the sovereignty we want for our country. Lebanon needs to decide whether to normalize or not purely based on what its people want, not due to international meddling and wars. I cannot stand seeing a g3noc1d.al committing person in my own country, pretending that hummus, and falafel are theirs and signing to Fairuz. Such a disgrace. while I understand that we’ve had enough, we still cannot let go this easily on our own sovereignty, it’s a disgrace to us to make peace after everything they’ve done. We all know these ppl do not care about anything but expanding their greater project. We have roughly 400 violations of the ceasefire to date; 
they are not asking for peace when they keep on bombing you, defying your governance, sovereignty, and land/air borders. I admit I may have wondered what would happen  if we do a peace treaty before, but this is an entity that doesn’t want peace for the whole region; peace and expansion dont go hand in hand. And after the horrific massacres they did in both Lebanon and Palestine, I cannot for once trust such a racial, imperialist, and apartheid system.

LifeProblem6818

Peace is not an option from their perspective. It’s only a strategic pause in hostilities.
No Lebanese is safe living next to those nazis. 

They think they have a biblical right to take Lebanon and they’ll do it sooner or later. 
They occupied Lebanon before hezb even existed.

ibuprophete

Here are my thoughts :
It’s not up to us. It’s neither the government nor the people that have any power in opting for war or for peace. At this stage not even ha will be part of that decision. 

So whatever comes next, given that nobody cares if we agree with it or not, it won’t be peace. It could be violent domination or non violent domination, until the day the colony next door is defunded.

zozoped

I haven’t met a single Egyptian or Jordanian that is proud of their current government for normalizing relations with Israel (or proud of their government’s actions period). Not a single one.

RevolutionaryBath815

normalization after they killed our countrymen invaded our soil broke into houses put their ugly ass flag up in our villages and took pics wearing the bras and underwear of lebanese women ? lol w er

LadyaRoze

The New Syrian government wants peace with Israel but guess what, Israel is invading them because they are weak.
Do you think we Lebanese want war, no one wants war, but we prefer not to be slaves to Israel as well.

moustaphaausse

Peace yes, normalization: hell nah. They committed a holocaust in Gaza, not to mention the many civilians murdered in Lebanon.

breakingbonesman

For now, we shouldn't have a full peace deal with Israel, after all they have done. However, enough is enough. We need to stop warring each other because all it does is bring more destruction to Lebanon without actually accomplishing anything. The peace deal should just be a "no war" deal.

JustLeafy2003

only way forward. 100% support it. This does not mean an "alliance" with Israel but it only means stopping wars and actually giving us more freedom to move around. It's time to change things.

Yes, I'm for peace and normalization, but only it it includes a solution to the refugee problem. There must be a Palestinian state and the refugees must return there. 

LebLeb321

If Israel respects Lebanese borders, then it’s possible that Iran is a bigger threat than them.

Israel is up to all sorts of horrible stuff in Gaza and West Bank but Iran is up to horrible stuff right in Lebanon. Ultimately, that’s the biggest priority. It’s a hard pill to swallow but if cooperation prevents Iran’s claws from digging back in it could be worth it.

That said, all of this is contingent on Israel respecting Lebanese sovereignty and borders. Also, no Netanyahu.

SaneForCocoaPuffs

I admit to being biased myself having almost lost my family due to Israel’s belligerency.

Even before the full conflict broke out, I was and still am entirely against normalization with Israel like Jordan and Egypt.

The moment Lebanon recognizes Israel, Israel will be that much closer to its goal of isolating the Palestinians and stealing their land/killing them without any consequences.

Israel literally violated the Geneva Convention with their pager attack (which killed plenty of civilians). They also spray-painted “Death to Shia!” on the Hula Memorial.

Right now our best chance is to strengthen ties with the GCC and Türkiye. No normalization, no trade, no impunity for Israel’s actions.

Edit: I’m Sunni from the Hamra district, but all my Shia and Christian friends agree with me, though I know different people may view it differently.

I believe that they are the enemy with all the things they do / have done but I believe even before the war that we shouldn't be the worst enemy for them so to not pay the price of this, even if it means some under the table understanding with them. However we should not be friends with them we should not be allies with them and we should not tolerate anything that connects us to them.

ZER0_C000L

PinkPeach4ever

i really hope we can reach peace sooner rather than later

phoolip

No one can stand them. As an Egyptian, the only reason we made a deal was to get our land back. An issue Lebanon doesn't really have ignoring the Shebaa farms, so no real reason for you guys to normalize with Israel like the scummy UAE regime.

PharaohhOG

Peace is not possible with Israelis as they deny the existence of Lebanese people

Dreamin-Lebnen833

War is not good. However, when the bordering country is ISRAEL, the statement then becomes extremely yes and no. Israel doesn't want peace anyway. We all saw their reaction to the wars being over. One day, they will return to try and take what's "promised" to them. Either something has to happen to israel or america needs to keep them in their place and impose extremely strict rules, they dont even follow the un.

jy8711

Yes provided they actually move out of Lebanon, Im all for relations with them. They will bring much needed tourism revenue to Lebanon.

Maymott

You know that if you are not at peace you are at war? You can beat around the edges all you want, if you want to be at war go join HA .

Difficult_Spare_3935

Just curious - how could you be in favor or peace but against having peace with Israel?  What is even the argument for refusing to have peaceful coexistence with your neighbor?

You could easily make an argument that Israel is an enemy, but you really only make peace with your enemies.  No one ever pats themselves on the back for making peace with their friends.

Fluffy-Mud1570

They’re coming for your land sooner or later 

TwistedTaint99

Now watch all the ziobots call you a hizbo

Ruski_Kain

I personally prefer a peace deal like the one with Egypt. Sure there's peace but the populations don't really mix and you don't see them roaming the streets of Cairo. So a peace deal but not necessarily normalization of ties.

mazdoc

To the zi0 lurkers here: On behalf of all Lebanese... you know the rest of my sentence, which I won't complete so I don't face another week-long vacation from this app.

SirMosesKaldor

The vast majority of people here learned nothing from the past 100 years.

You can’t hide &amp; you can’t be weak. If not for Hezbollah, Israel would have occupied Lebanon a long time ago. 

Israel is OBSESSED with wars &amp; land theft. They literally steal your gas in the Mediterranean Sea because you are weak. 

You can’t hide. You either fight or they take your land. It’s very simple.

guessophobe

Lebanon would follow right after KSA and Israel achieve normalization with an acceptable Palestinian solution. If ties between KSA and Iran get better, we might get some form of fatwa to convince their sheeple for normalization..

Ok-Performance1617

No peace! However a permanent truce is ok

Far-Patient7552

/u/comeon456 (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.

All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/18xq6x5/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_before_october_7th_if_the/), in /r/DeltaLog.

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

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

DeltaBot

1. What good faith efforts have been put forth by the Israelis for an actual independent Palestinian state? During times when you would expect little violence there is continued settlement activities and a continued blockade. In order for Palestinians to be able to reject Hamas and any other liberation organization there needs to be a realistic path towards a peaceful solution. Something I dont think has been shown by either side. Furthermore the fact that the current leadership saw Hamas as an asset to achieving their ultimate goal of depopulating the strip does not show they are or have been interested in a peaceful 2 state solution. How can you expect Hamas to be weakened when everything Israel is doing strengthens them either directly through cash transfers in suitcases or indirectly through turning a blind eye to settler violence and the continued oppression of the Palestinians?
2. But the Israeli narrative is peace on their terms. Its not simply living peaceably with their neighbors but total sovereign control over all of historic Palestine. They would much rather absorb an Arab minority that they can control rather than giving away the land they have taken through illegal and violent settler action. There are some who want a "greater Israel" even. It is interesting however that you recall Rabin who was assassinated by forces aligned with those currently in power. Ben Gvir famously posed with Rabin's hood ornament stating "We got his car, and we'll get him too." Israel (as it exists currently) does not want peace but subjugation.
3. So you are expecting a group that has been brutalized to wait 3 years with no attacks on the off chance that the government that is oppressing them **might** become less radical?
4. How is this anything but victim blaming? "You know if you would just submit meekly to the boot on your neck **maybe the world will force Israel to stop."** This would be like telling Israel to not respond to Oct 7 and let the international community step in to handle their problems with Hamas. It is irrational and ridiculous to tell someone that they should not defend themselves and wait for the outside chance that the rest of the world will be able to stop the terrorism (be it Hamas shooting up a music festival or Israel killing entire families on the outside chance they'll hit a high value military target).
5. None of this reflects the reality on the ground. Your view assumes a willing partner in peace on the Israeli side which is a fantasy.

appealouterhaven

Okay, explain how the Palestinians are supposed to do that. Just eliminate Hamas and prevent them from doing any attacks ever again - you know, the exact thing that the IDF with all their military might has not yet accomplished? Sure, all the people with no guns should just go ask the people with all the guns to please stop being the government and put themselves in jail. I'm sure that will go well

MercurianAspirations

What's the most interesting to me about people who make these suggestions is everything is being put on only Palestine to "fix" the situation and seems to take the approach that Israel has not done anything wrong.

It relies really heavily on the idea that Israel and the IDF will just do the right thing.

This conflict and their disregard for civilians &amp; hostages, propaganda, etc. has shown that really isn't the case and the current administration/military isn't trustworthy either.

HauntedReader

So the decades of the Israeli government arming settlers to terrorize and murder Palestinians in the West Bank to steal their land to build more illegal settlements would magically stop?

&gt;90% of the WB is in Palestinian control, including land swaps that account for let's say 4% of the area of the WB in locations that are agreed on both sides, the entire Gaza strip, and land that would be used as a transportation route between the WB and Gaza. This would include the dismantling of the vast majority of settlements.

1.How much if any of jerusalem is part of the west bank?

2. Do you consider the Trump plan reasonable?

3. Who is going to keep Israeli settlers in line?

fghhjhffjjhf

Most of the replies here are half hearted regurgitating of Palestinian propaganda.  I will try and change your view as a pro-Israel American.

My main argument is that a period of detente would not change the underlying issues that have stopped a peace deal so far.  There have been periods of peace in the past, but the undercurrent of worrying about future violence is always there.

Beyond that, I think you fail to understand the heart of the Palestinian position.  From Israel’s perspective, it’s easy to say “we just want peace but you keep trying to kill us”.

But from the Palestinians’ perspective, everything traces back to the “nakba” and the formation of Israel as a foundational event for their cause.  That’s why they have turned down seemingly reasonable peace deals in the past.  Peace or no, they will never accept a deal that doesn’t involve a right of return and Muslim control of the holy sites.  Arafat and Abbas have made that position clear, and they are the moderate wing of Palestinian government.

Also I think your 4th bullet is incorrect.  The majority of the world *outside the Middle East* wants the conflict to end.  Nobody in the Middle East wants the conflict to end.  Even if Bibi gets replaced by a more peace-seeking government, the rest of the Middle East sees the Palestinians as  useful pawns in the propaganda war against Israel.  They don’t actually care about them.  And the conflict continuing keeps international pressure on Israel as we are seeing now, which is in the best interest of the Arab world.

FWIW I think some variation of what you proposed was the most likely 2 state outcome, but the 2 state solution was on its last legs before 10/7,
now it is officially dead and buried.  The world has proven that even in the face of unspeakable atrocities, they will not give Israel even an inch of leeway to conduct a defensive campaign in the Palestinian territories.  Israel has no
more incentive to play nice in the sandbox, which means they can be more liberal in pursuing their own agenda.  I wouldn’t be surprised to see West Bank settlement ramp up when this is all over.

NimrookFanClub

There was no peace before October 7th. This narrative that you and your leaders push that "there was peace before 7th October and Palestinians attacked" is completely false and made up and there have been repeated violence from Israel's side in just start of 2023 - August of 2023, 172 Palestinians were killed


Source: https://www.ochaopt.org/poc/8-21-august-2023

TahaMunawar

Palestine was dying by a thousand cuts.

Encroachment of WB settlers, an unfair military tribunal that essentially kidnaps Gazans, choking of resources, etc.

There were no indications that Israel wanted to move towards a peaceful coexistence beforehand.

Plussydestroyer

&gt;it would likely include for at the very least 20 years demilitarization of the Palestinian state.

A state without a military is no state at all, why is this reasonable? What's protecting Palestine from an IDF operation within its borders in your "reasonable two state solution"?

&gt;it would include some symbolic right of return for some tens of thousands of people as well as some monetary compensation.

750,000 people were expelled from Palestine during the Nakba, why only tens of thousands? Shouldn't it be _at least_ 750,000?

&gt;It would include airport and seaport in Gaza, probably after a few years given that the agreement is kept.

This would mean a blockade of Gaza. How can you commit to peace if there is still a blockade?

&gt; most of the world views a reasonable pragmatic solution these days.

This is what US, the West and (maybe) Israel see as reasonable. I don't think MENA would think it's reasonable or pragmatic.

You then went to define what you think committing to peace is from the Palestinian, but what about Israeli? What commitments and assurances will they give to commit to peace?

&gt;Possibly public acknowledgement of Israel *as a Jewish state*. 

An ethnostate is not conducive to peace, why would acknowledging it be committing to peace?

And what led up to Oct 7? People are living in confiscated Palestinian homes. Is that self defense? These circular arguments never end.

No_Scarcity8249

Let’s go through the treaties and treaty attempts one by one then, shall we? UN resolution 242 establishes peace with the caveat that Israel withdraw from occupied territories in the six day war. All parties agreed the only signee that didn’t uphold their end of the deal was Israel. 1978 Camp David accords the Yom Kippur war was an invasion of illegally held territories kept in violation of the previous peace deal. The Palestinians were not invited to these talks as the current “government” was a terrorist organization (which the PLO absolutely was) the signees agreed on full autonomy for the West Bank and Gaza which the Israeli government immediately violated by increasing settlement in those areas and continuing to not allow Palestinians autonomy. Hmm, maybe Israel can’t keep the peace because they’re unapologetic oathbreakers and have a history of violating international law, but we’ve still got another four decades or so to find out! The first Palestinian acknowledgement of a two state system comes in 1988 when the PLO loses some of their stranglehold while some Palestinians call for an end to the violence how affective this was and how widespread is conjecture really. In 1991 we’ve got the Madrid conference,which is the first peace settlement to have any Palestinian representation and it was specifically non PLO delegates which was the government of Palestine at that time. The conference ended inconclusively, no peace settlement was extended. In 1993 the PLO and Israel entered clandestine peace negotiations facilitated by a think tank in Oslo as Israel’s repeated violation of international law was starting to grate. The negations eventually went public creating the Oslo Accords a peace deal the Palestinians accepted but which critically didn’t include a timeline for the promised Israeli withdrawal. In 1995 the signees met again to follow up on the previous accords to further establish the boundaries of a two state system. Extremists on both sides immediately began to initiate violent resistance including the assassination of the Jewish prime minister that signed the peace deal (wow so not radical Israel!) His replacement immediately called the Oslo accords a terrible idea and that he was in full opposition to the peace deal (wow Netenyahu is such a violent Palestinian guy! Oh wait…) Netenyahu failed to formally withdraw from the accords or make progress and was voted out for being a fence sitter. The negotiations in 2000 failed to meet the primary Palestinian parameters from the start which included such radical things as autonomy and the withdrawal of illegal Israeli settlers. A hasty peace deal was made and accepted by both parties on a third attempt which was such an awful peace deal for the Palestinians that Arafat committed virtual political suicide. Repeated Mossad assasination attempts (like shooting down private aircraft) probably didn’t help his stress levels. Assasination attempts officially disavowed in 2001 which is uh, one year after the peace accord was signed so yah WOW. Israel was blowing up buildings and attempting to shoot down planes the guy they were attempting to make peace with was in. Israel at this point is still violating no less then 4 separate peace treaties that it has signed, admittedly it’s violating the same parts of all 4. Including the one it JUST signed! Fun! Two more peace accords were proposed by various international powers that were rejected by…the Israeli prime minister! Wow such Palestinian stubbornness! Arafat considered a radical, agreed to step down from power and allow a more moderate leader to take over in Palestine before Bush would agree to even meet. A meeting where Bush stated “don’t worry Israel you don’t actually have to withdraw from the territories you should have withdrawn from three decades ago and Palestinians can’t return to their homeland! Israel rejected this deal as not stringent enough. In 2005 Israel finally withdrew from Gaza and the West Bank almost four decades overdue but hey! Apparently the Israeli government is just really really slow! Sharon then died of a stroke and a new government took over in Palestine which was..unilaterally declared illegal which sparked a Palestinian civil war. The new Israeli prime minister opened peace talks with Palestine for the first time since 2000 which was extremely vague but included allegedly significant territorial concessions (both leaders have differing accounts) though estimated it’s about 6 percent of Israeli land for a little over 6 percent of Palestinian land however, the major issues of Palestinians ability to return to Gaza etc, free travel, freedom of the Palestinian airspace etc was still firmly denied by Israel ruining peace talks. Firmly entrenched apartheid by Israel and their rapidly expanding and encroaching settlements followed by sporadic conflict by both sides was really not helping. At this point no one agreed to ratify Palestine as a country which is super counter productive to my thinking. Netenyahu was elected again, on the part platform of annexing the Jordan Valley away from Palestine. How peaceful. More illegal land grabbing. Talks break down of course. 2020! Oh BOY! The Trump admin declares illegal Israeli settlements that violate what like 4-6 treaties now are magically probably not illegal (which makes sense coming from a criminal) His golden peace deal was to ratify Israel’s illegal settlements institute an Israeli led martial law of a demilitarized Palestine denying recognition and rights to Palestinians refusing their requests to return home from abroad and instituting a one state with Israel in charge. Gee I wonder why they refused. Now Hamas is vehemently against the peace deals and at this point any peace deals with Israel for the foreseeable future, and here’s where it gets really fun. Netyanhu arranged for funding and negotiated exclusively with Hamas to lower the legitimacy of Abbas’ government, creating a divided Palestine specifically to avoid both a peace deal and the formation of a Palestinian state, and wow did that ever work. Now that same prick is decrying that the Palestinians are oh so treacherous and violent.

Krios1234

This is not a realistic demand to make without getting anything at all for it.

No vast majority. All the settlements must go. A Palestinian state can't exist in this patchwork nature.

Demilitarization is a no go too. People keep saying Israel has a right to defend itself but I don't see the defense in carpet bombing cities. Palestine should at least have a modern air defense system since the terror of Israeli airstrikes is known to every single Palestinian living in the territory today. Israel saying trust us bro, we won't do it anymore is a nonstarter. Do not pretend that Israel has suffered anywhere near as much from this entire conflict as the Palestinian people.

Israeli society is no more peace seeking but you offer them far more grace than you offer Palestinians. You might want to examine why that is. We've all seen the videos of Israelis mocking having electricity and running water. In the past we had Israelis setting up campouts on hillsides near Gaza to watch the airstrikes, like it's a sporting event. Then there are the daily abuse Palestinians on the West Bank endure from both soldiers and settlers. 

Likud has been consistently the most or 2nd most popular party in Israel. And Yesh Atid of the opposition has largely similar support for settlements meaning dismantling settlements isn't going to happen even if Likud loses big. The opposition parties outside of Yesh Atid are small and have very little influence and Yisrael Beiteinu still supports the settlements. This leaves a total of 14 seats in the current Knesset that have a stated intention of dismantling the settlements. This is the United Arab List, Hadash-Ta'al, and Labor. The UAL is a minority party by nature. HT is a leftwing party that would require a miracle to make significant gains. Labor has been ineffective since the early 2000s.

I'm going to plainly state that there is no likely Israeli government that would agree to this. It's a fantasy even if we ignore October 7th.

The March of Return was a drastically more peaceful protest and it was met with live fire killing more than 200 including medics and journalists and wounding thousands more. It had no noticable impact on Israeli policy.

cut_rate_revolution

even when the palestinian state was "offered" by the israelis, it wasn't a real offer.  the offer was for essentially an autonomous region where everything was still monitored and overseen by israel.  israel would never actually accept a genuinely independent palestine, israeli society wouldn't, even before october 7th.  it would be a "security risk", to use their parlance

West bank is now totally occupied by Israel. It is not an independent country it's a joke. 2 state solution does not exist.

I do think you conflate Hamas with Palestinains a lot in your post. Supporting attacks on Isreal is bad, but it's not the same as being the one carrying out the attacks or directly supporting it other than with words.

That aside I would disagree with the presentation that Israel is committed to peace. Sure definitely at various times it has been the case, but one can not make that claim in regards to settlements in West bank or treatment of Palestinians in regards to crime of apartheid. For the record I don't think this substantially impacts Hamas as Hamas would act as such anyway and those that hate Isreal will support Israel downfall largely regardless. I just want to emphasize Israel currently wants to control land not allowed during UN partition and current gov wants a divided Palestine. This was not always the case though.

soldiergeneal

This is delving into 'conspiracy theory', but what if Israel WANTED palestine to attack them, to justify ongoing conflict and merely gave the illusion they were working towards peace and a two-state solution - hence their funding of hamas, and the seemingly unexplainable lapse in foresight from one of the most advanced intelligence agencies in the world.

That way, it would have never have happened, because Israel would have found a way to deliberately and covertly sabotage their own attempts at peace. (And no this isn't some jewish conspiracy theory, rather it's an israeli conspiracy theory - it wouldn't have been the first time a country did this e.g Gulf of Tonkin e.g Operation Northwoods). I am by no means saying this is a certainty. Only that it is a possibility and we'd need evidence in order to make an informed decision on whether this is likely.

ParagoonTheFoon

Let me break down your idea of a “reasonable” two-state solution.

&gt; This would include the dismantling of the vast majority of settlements.

For Netanyahu, this would be excruciatingly difficult, if it did not collapse his governing coalition altogether. What Israeli government is capable of doing this and not imploding?

&gt; it would likely include for at the very least 20 years demilitarization of the Palestinian state.

That isn’t a state. It’s the Palestinian Authority.

&gt; it would include some symbolic right of return for some tens of thousands of people as well as some monetary compensation.

How would that work? We just going to drop them off in their old villages, some of which are now completely different places? That should go swimmingly.

&gt; Some of you may not agree that it's reasonable, but this is how most of the world views a reasonable pragmatic solution these days.

I don’t know who “most of the world” is, because you don’t explain. Who thinks this is reasonable?

&gt; stopping any violent attempts and denouncing them in the few cases whenever they do happen instead of celebrating them on the streets.

You’re betraying a serious deficiency in your understanding of Israeli history here. This was the whole purpose of the PA, which did crack down on terrorism initially.

As for protests, those are mass movements. Is the PA supposed to shoot the protestors? Break them up by force? That should go over really well.

&gt; Possibly removing corrupt holocaust denier Abbas from the PA.

Replacing him with… who? There aren’t many leaders more dovish than Abbas.

I’ll break down the other reasons in a reply to this comment.

byzantiu

If there was any way for a peaceful solution, it would havr happened by now. This has been going on for 75+ years. Peace is impossible when one side has its national identity built on “God gave us this land and whoever thinks differently should be killed”

quefuq

If one side just didn’t fight back against the oppression from the other we’d have peace. Maybe black people should have stayed slaves so we didn’t have a civil war.

Sweet_Speech_9054

I hate that the problem is being passed off on the Palestine. If Israel wants to start fixing things, they need to end their belligerent occupation. They need to release of Palestinian political prisoners; they need to return properties, including cultural property seized by the occupying authorities; they need to dismantlement the unlawful Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem; they need to lift the blockade of the Gaza Strip; dismantle the institutionalized regime of discriminatory apartheid laws, policies and practices; and dismantle the occupying administration.

When they aren’t belligerently occupying Gaza and Gaza has statehood, then we can talk about the conflict as if the parties are on equal grounds.

FerdinandTheGiant

U.S. President Donald Trump announced that a breakthrough in negotiations concerning Gaza is imminent, emphasizing discussions aimed at securing hostages' release and ending the ongoing war.

Gaza Conflict and Peace Negotiations

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want