Public sentiment is overwhelmingly negative and skeptical regarding Trump's Middle East peace proposal. Many commenters express frustration with the perceived inadequacy of the plan, highlighting the importance of addressing Palestinian rights and the historical injustices faced by their people. Trust towards Trump's intentions and those of the involved parties is notably low, with fears that the proposal does not offer a genuine path to peace and may simply perpetuate existing tensions.

Donald Trump

Israel

Palestinian Authority

Tony Blair

You didn't have to include a whole essay OP

(Not like I read it anyways)

Local-Answer-1681

bloodrider1914

Is he governing north cypress and cypress as a single country? That's brave.

saintRobster

[deleted]

I vote to give your friend's chill dad Iran, too. Just please ask him to rename it Persia, because it just sounds much cooler.

CharlieBarley25

At least could've given the Golden Heights back to Syria

koreangorani

barking420

Is your Jordanian friend's dad the King of Jordan? Because he's a cool guy

stag1013

AdForsaken5532

idk... maybe throw in the rest of the Levant just to be safe. Matter of fact, throw in every country to east from Iran to Nepal. The Great Dadiphate of SouthWest Asia.

DependentPhotograph2

Sd5aj

seemly dog wine toy screw cable aware amusing history fanatical

 *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev/home)*

Sending the Palestinians to Jordan makes the most actual sense. They are mostly Jordanian anyway. Oh wait, actually that was tried and the PLO did their own Oct. 7th and tried to overthrow the King. I guess when you attack the Arab states when they try to help you, the Arab states won't help you anymore. Funny that.

AkivaMerkava

OverallCrow1605

Cold_Information_936

Ohio was promised to Isreal 500 billion years ago

LeFedoraKing69

Prestigious-Motor334

Salty_QC

Syrians and Egyptians on behalf of my state I’m sorry for the issues that are about to seep out into your country

First there will be all out chaos, then peace

Aggressive_Fan_449

All that effort and East Palestine, Ohio is STILL west of Palestine. For true peace, we must swap Ohio and Jordan.

briggsm48

DO NOT GIVE FLORIDA OIL MONEY, THEY WILL HAVE TOO MUCH POWER

A lot of pontoon boats in the Persian gulf

LteCam

Kuwait will have a much harder time shipping their oil out

PlatformStatus8749

scufflegrit_art

Familiar-Complex-697

i just know there's a white power militia in ohio that'll take care of hamas, fatah, mossad, and hezbollah within a few weeks

with the caveat that the next intifada will result in joint israeli/turkish occupation of cedar point

the oman countryside becomes a world class destination due to its desirable location in the uae/miami corridor. meanwhile, muscat becomes a drug-and-crime-ridden shithole

another-damn-acct

Do we still own OH and FL or are they like their own things now?

arcticsummertime

I think we should put israel palestine in the middle of sudan so sudan can finally unite

boiiiii12

I don't see how drawing Ohio and Florida on a map of the Middle East is a "plan." Can you elaborate? 🤔

knowledgebass

The body of water west of Florida will be the American Sea

69FourTwentySix6Six

Seeing this I can confirm how ignorant people are!!!

Keep Ohio in the states, throw them Texas.

Florida, please park somewhere else! You are blocking the Strait of Hormuz &amp; the Gulf of Oman. It will hinder my Amazon package arrival. Same goes to Ohio as it is dangerously close to the Suez Canal.

TheFriendlyCashewNut

I don't think this world is ready to unleash Florida on the Middle East.

IBloodstormI

Peace? This will make the Horus Heresy look like a tea party

hozerbozd

Ohio supplies Gazans with Skyline. Gazans say no thanks.

MartinTheMorjin

ALPROF96

HauntingBalance567

Timely-Play844

Sorry but I'd never inflict Ohio on anybody else. We keep that shit contained for a reason.

GargantuanCake

NotmeYet11

AttentionLimp194

/u/Here4Pornnnnn (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.

All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1lda15f/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_the_middle_east_will_never/), 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

This argument is basically “the final state is all that matters”.   The problem with the argument is that when human lives are in that intermediate state, it loses all humanity.

Kind of like the statement  “Africans who were brought to the Americas as slaves got lucky” because the current end-state of African Americans currently is ‘better’ than many current Africans, or so goes the argument.

The problem is that this ignores the majority of Africans who died before getting on ships, died on ships, died at markets, died on plantations, died as wretched sharecroppers. 

So only the survivors are counted and the much, much larger majority through history who lived lives-in-hell are conveniently ignored. 

This immensely devalues individual human lives.

BabyDog88336

Lebanese-American here. I’m Christian but not very religious, since it might matter to some people in this context. I was born during the Lebanese civil war in the 80’s and have seen just how bad the hate and the wars in the region can get. You can read up on that war if you like (and probably should, since it’s related to recent events), but it’s Lebanon _post_ war that I think you will find interesting.

(This post is long but I will try to make it worth it)

Since the Taif agreement that ended the war in 1989, Lebanese people across _all_ religions and sects (Hizbollah aside, who need a whole story of their own) have not wanted another war and have actively been trying to avoid it. Not with Israel, not with each other, and not with anyone else. Not to say that it's some sort of utopia, but by and large the Lebanese people do mix and intermigle on a daily basis, both in our professional and personal lives, including having inter-faith marriages. Yet up until this most recent government, the leaders of Lebanon were using religion as a way to divide the people. Leaders would spread propaganda about the other sects and manipulate their followers - most of whom were also financially dependent on them - into enforcing the sort of favoritism they needed in order to keep justifying their corruption.

But the people knew this all along and nobody wanted it. This is why, in 2019, virtually _all_ of the lebanese protested the government with a common goal - to remove the entire sitting government and start with fresh, non-corrupt representation. One of the phrases they chanted was “killon ya3ni killon” which roughly means “When we say all of them we mean *all* of them”. During these protests you saw all religions and all sects protesting together, and the religious leaders (priests, sheikhs, etc) were marching hand-in-hand.

The protests were peaceful, yet many parties didn't want them to seem that way. CNN, for example, took a photo of a burning tire and put out an aritcle that made it sound like the protesters were some sort of threatening uprising, trying to throw the country into chaos. You won't find that article online anymore because the Lebanese in New York and New Jersey went and protested outside their headquarters and got them to take it down, angry at the misrepresentation.

If you ask nearly any Lebanese person they'll tell you the same thing, which is that the leaders all over the Middle East (and even the US to an extent) have been benefitting from keeping Lebanon divided against the wishes of the people. They know that if the world perceives the Lebanese people as united (all 19 religions/sects), they wouldn't be able to claim to their own people that a war against a different religion/group was necessary anymore.

So far it seems like the new government in Lebanon has been making major strides in restoring people's confidence and has been working for the common good of the people. It's too early to say for sure if Lebanon hit its goal, and Hizbollah is still a thorn in everyone's side, but that goal is closer than ever.

**TL;DR:** The peace we have inside Lebanon is not because one group dominated the other. That was tried over and over throughout history and never led anywhere. We have peace because we *want* it badly enough to work for it, and because we have been actively fighting those in power who work against it.

_-Kr4t0s-_

'One side'? 'This war'? What are you talking about? The middle east's instability is more than just a single war with two sides.

Hellioning

I'm assuming that, given recent events, by "one side" you mean either Iranians or Israelis, or perhaps Muslims and Jews? Both of those delineations ignore the fact that there have been plenty of conflicts in the Middle East prior to and since the formation of Israel that have had nothing to do with Israel.

Furthermore, there's no meaningful definition of "total victory" that results in the kind of peace you're imagining either. There is simply no way to conquer and hold that amount of territory without facing massive resistance from multiple local populations. That includes genocide: there are half a billion people living in the middle east. In his wildest dreams Hitler did not think he could cleanse that many people, and for every one you kill, dozens will be exponentially more likely to rise up against you. That goes for both Iran and Israel. Neither is equipped to control Iraq (see the Gulf War), let alone Iraq and Syria and Palestine and wherever else, but Iran faces even greater issues when they get to the other side in trying to take over Israel. There are 10 million Israelis that will fight to the death, up to and including nuclear retaliation, and suffice it to say that the United States and NATO are not going to allow that to happen.

So, in light of the fact that there is no such total victory, bidding for peace through conventional means is the best we're ever going to get.

Fuu-nyon

This is either a very naive approach or a tautology.

Yes, there will never be peace in that region until it's ruled by one group if you give a long enough time scale. Wars happen on occasion and it's somewhat less likely to happen if there's no other country in the region to declare war against.

But these conflicts are not just a bunch of countries fighting because of old blood feuds or something. They're about land and resources. Israel wants Gaza for themselves so they can build a big new city on top of it. There are diplomatic solutions to these issues, but they're drastically complicated by the involvement of major world powers.

It would not be better if one group won. It would be better if we were able to have a diplomatic resolution and removed US involvement from the region. That won't happen, but it's probably more likely than one country taking over the rest of the middle east.

ilovemyadultcousin

There are many countries ready to normalise relations with Israel - it's one of the theories of the timing of the Hamas attacks, that it was to stop Saudi Arabia in particular normalising relations. 

It will be entirely possible that this will happen at some stage in the near future (5-10 years) and if that is the case, it also speeds the possible resolution of the Israel Palestine conflict. 

Not necessarily in a good or fair way for the Palestinians, but it could tamp down the prospects of armed conflict, especially as Iran appears to be heavily neutered.

NJH_in_LDN

There will never be peace in the middle east until Israel is treated like any other country and punished for violating international laws. It's already an illegal apartheid state, the blank check for Israel to do whatever they want while trampling down on the local population is what causes most of the problems.   
  
The Zionist project is the root cause, but that's too uncomfortable for people to acknowledge so they try and desperately blame other things like religion, culture, bla bla. How many governments have been overthrown by western intervention in the ME, yet the chaos remains ? It's because Israel exists in the state that it exists.

There will always be tensions b/w different countries. There are tensions b/w US and Canada, US and Mexico, US and China. Tensions don't mean chaos. Stop intervening, stop treating Israel like a favorite child and let the ME solve it's own problems. The region would eventually stabilize.

Us24man

1. Is it possible that, even after a "total victory", another war could break out? My answer is yes: the allied powers won WWI, but that didn't stop WWII from breaking out shortly thereafter.
2. It could be that, in decades or centuries or millennia from now, these entire populations will gradually move away from religious fanaticism and toward secularism/humanism. "Nonreligious" is the fastest-growing religious identity, so this possible future is only reliant on the continuation of current trends.

PimplupXD

This was the predominant theory for centuries of conflict in Europe, with the idea being that a single, dominant dynasty could bring the continent to lasting stability. What happened wasn’t that there was a total military victory—the First and Second World Wars didn’t result in a single dominant nation state the way nationalist projects envisioned—what happened instead was that over the first half of the century Europe violently broke away from the last of its feudal vestiges that required the ruling elite in different countries to compete within and for competing national interests that had prerogatives which contradicted those of a unified, European capitalism. 

You could never have something like the EU prior to 1945, because the whole premise of the EU, facilitating the flow of capital and goods between countries, ran contrary to the interests of many of those in charge and those on the ground. If you were Germany it would have been amenable, because you had the capacity to manufacture durable, high-tech goods, like cars and aircraft, for the rest of the continent. If you were England, you had colonies and your own high-tech manufacturing economy, and you didn’t have much of an incentive to export to/import from Europe instead of your own colonies, where you could benefit from essentially vertical integration. Competing with Germany directly would be undercutting your monopoly. Meanwhile, someplace like Spain didn’t want to capitalize to this extent because foreign investment and development would undermine the power of the landowning class by creating more industrialist elites with different priorities and by creating wage growth that would require the braceros who worked the land to be better compensated. In all these countries, working class movements and nationalist movements alike resisted this kind of globalist capitalism because they understood that it was empowering the capitalist class and taking away autonomy and identity in a rapidly encroaching modern age.

The first and second wars see the existing system implode, and when the dust settled global capitalism was victorious—except in Russia, which had been so undeveloped its capitalist class couldn’t resist the popular pressure of communism, but they were too behind to ever really compete and so resigned to isolate themselves until the Soviet system eventually collapsed. This new hegemony of capitalism meant that capital could flow, the elites at the top could profit, and a stalemate between labor and capitalists could be maintained with enough surplus pulled from the second and third world.

That second and third world is where the Middle East resides. Because capitalism became a globalized system before they developed, they were never in the position to have the sort of sweeping reorientation of their economies and politics because someone else was already meddling in their affairs for an external interest. What I’m getting at here is that there already has been a total victory in the Middle East, it’s just that to keep the resources flowing out and high tech imports flowing in, that victory has ensured the region cannot be allowed to have a cohesive interest on its own. Look at what became of pan Arabism and who was invested in what outcomes: there can’t be a middle eastern euro zone, because it would require protectionism that would cut into the bottom line, somewhere. It’s why Qatar is putting money in American real estate and not using it to get rid of slave labor. Doing that would be obstructing the flow of capital, money for oil in one direction, then money for inflated property values going the other way. If you want peace in the Middle East, you either need to keep the oil/dollars flowing and depopulate it to create and sustain these Qatari/Israeli herenvolk democracies where a small citizen group enjoys luxury goods and political enfranchisement and the dirty work is done by totally disenfranchised labor and, where possible, robots, *or* the global system has to breakdown to where these countries can have diverse elite interests that can move towards things like having an actual democracy.

Malcolm_P90X

There is no “side” it’s just Western imperialism going against the free will of a particular people. Always meddling, arming and funding factions to cause instability. Killing leaders and installing puppet figureheads.  Doing so while maintaining far superior weapons, tech and full control of the global narrative knowing that the majority will never investigate the situation further to learn what they’ve actually been doing. 
So no real sides… just one SIDE and it’s against everyone and everything in that region except for its resources.

Grievion

I agree with the title, but not with the reason.


Israel is already so far ahead in superiority that there's no chance Iran or their militias can hope to match.


This war would end as soon as all of them stop thinking they can destroy Israel. They're still holding hope that they will defeat Israel within a certain timeframe.


For example Egypt and Jordan is trying to normalise relations with Israel, and they are doing far better than any of Israel's enemies. It's still early days but their trajectories look much better than Iran or Gaza.

Visible-Swim6616

how many total victories have been achieved *ever* in wars *anywhere*?

jaavuori24

A clear winner will still have to deal with years, decades of festering resistance and revanchism. If the Arab states conquer Israel, they'll soon be at each other's throats over something else, like old irredentist claims. If Israel *somehow* establishes dominion over the Arab states, well, you don't have to think very hard to imagine what that'd look like.

Supremacy or outright conquest will only make things monumentally worse.

Eurymedion

Even then I don't think there will be peace. 

Largely I think this revolves around religion, and the fact that the religions that exist in the middle east absolutely hate each other (Jews, Sunni Muslims, Shia Muslims, Alawite Muslims, etc). When one religious leader takes power, the others start to form insurgencies to try and rebel. Unless different factions decided to forgive and forget and work through their differences, there will always be religious tension, which usually ends in some sort of war.

GentAdventurerUK

I think the one way out is….

Iran people rise up and slowly become more moderate.
Kurds are given their own country and democratic elections.
Israel becomes more moderate with fewer enemies and more balance in the Middle East.

In 1949, you would have believed it impossible that Israel and Egypt could ever be at lasting peace with each other, but it happened and while relations between them might be cold, there is no one who seriously believes that war between them is inevitable or even likely. And all of that wasn't achieved by a total Israeli victory but after the stalemate in the Yom-Kippur-War and negotiations. 

I would perhaps even go a little bit farther to say that most "total victories" are only temporary and that a humiliating defeat only causes resentment and further hostilities in the future, unless the total victory ends with one group genociding the other. The Franco-German enmity wasn't turned into the Franco-German friendship because one side won a total victory, it ended because both sides got to the table and decided to leave their past behind. If you had asked the average Frenchman in 1919, they would have told you that Germany would be an enemy of France forever, yet 50 years later the two countries were some of the closest allies and founding members of what would later become the European Union.

The current situation might look dire, but you never know what the future brings, and it can change much faster than you think, and in ways you'll never predict.

ISzox

I think one of the big issues right now is that multiple sides think that, and then justify their opponents in doing so. "If we don't completely destroy them, they will completely destroy us, so we have to fight to the death"

I don't think total victory is a more realistic outcome either, the only total victory is when you've killed everyone who's angry about you killing so many people, when does it end? Does the west agree to eliminate all Arabs to protect Israel? Would all Arab nations then defensively start killing all white people? Once a side wins, what about their allies? It's an 'easy' answer in that you don't have to think much, but I think it would create problems much faster than it solves them.

Diplomacy is difficult and complicated. TBH, I don't see things resolving with trump in power, because there's no responsible leader with enough power to control the situation. For me, the best path looks like leadership change in most of the involved countries, with a shared dedication to establishing peace. How that would happen if a harder question.

The Good Friday agreement in Northern Ireland is probably a good template to look at, I'm not an expert, but that's where I'd start looking if someone asked me to fix the Middle East.

TheArgumentPolice

The Pharaohs ruled over much of current day Libya to just about Palestine and Lebanon. There were periods where the majority of the Middle East was ruled over by vast Persian and Roman empires. The Muslim expansion achieved said total hegemony at some point. The Ottomans after that. In the end we all still ended up here. What is happening in the middle east is not a unique occurrence and it is not anymore solvable than it otherwise wouldve been if it had been any other place or any other culture or any other people. 

Its the same old story: Resource rich regions with deep rooted cultural tribalism warring with each other and conspiring and being conspired against by regional and international players vying for dominance and loot. Even so-called peaceful Europe is about to implode again thanks to Russia.

No, the true solution is education and social reform. Otherwise old hatreds will always resurface again and again. That's the hallmark of any peoples that want to become truly peaceful.

ahtemsah

Clovervixen

Much of the "interest" in the region is due to a precious resource, oil, so when the resource is fully extracted (or the world transitions to green energy) then interest will evaporate. With the interest gone much of the motivation to fight each other or have foreign powers meddling will also go.

There is also a slow, long term trend, of religion eroding (it is very slow though, over hundreds of years) which will eventually cause religion to evaporate as a catalyst of war.

None of the "combatants" in the middle east will successfully destroy each other as the "death rate" is just way too slow. So even over a long time we can be assured all countries involved will remain on the scene. 

War has a tendency to fizzle out on its own. And while this may be longer than your lifetime (or my lifetime), war will still come to an end eventually.

whisperwalk

Israel has a strong economy, has been largely stable for decades and chooses (by virtue of being so powerful in the region) exactly how deeply to get involved in whatever wars are going on. Peace in the region could be very quickly achieved with a mon-expansionary government in control of Israel

Your alternative, where Israel "wins" by obliterating Palestine (and let's not pretend the end state you describe would be anything other than this, in all likelihood) would lead to refugees fleeing even further across the region. Groups of these refugees would then essentially be living in poverty in foreign lands, talking incessantly about their homeland that was stolen from them. Many would agree with their remonstrations that they were treated harshly. Many would also look at the states that supported the victors, and continue to trade with them. Now you have a significant chunk of the world agitating for asymmetrical warfare against Israel and the west - many more times so than currently, and with objectively more powerful arguments. Where does Israel "total victory" next? Iran? Syria? Iraq? How many countries must fall before peace comes?

What your "total victory" would bring is yet more blood feud, more death, more violence. For many more generations. 

The only way out of the cycle of bloodshed is peace through negotiation. A two state settlement that acknowledges wrongdoing on both sides, and commits people to peace and understanding. Even that will be incredibly difficult to do; adding in a layer of genocide or ethnic cleansing will not make it easier.

mrbezlington

It's not clear from your question which conflict you are even referring to but none of the major conflicts in the middle east today would be possible to solve solely by one side attaining a military 'victory'.


For instance in the israeli-arab conflict the israelis won the military side of that conflict pretty decisively in 1973 and every subsequent engagement has only reaffirmed that military supremacy, and yet the conflict goes on because there is no political solution to the underlying conflict. Likewise the United States crushed the iraqi regime and the taliban regime in afghanistan decisively but this led, if anything, to more conflict than before.


War is politics by other means, a military victory can only lead to peace if it is used to build a stable political settlement.

jackbethimble

That posits that it's simply one side against the other. You have Israel and the majority of Arab/ Muslim states. But you also have Sunmi versus Shia, which anyone who has  actually studied the Middle East knows, has killed so many people that the amount of people killed in fighting with Israel is simply a rounding error. Iran happens to be the primary sponsor and perpetrator  of Shia violence,  so if that regime fails, at least will help a little bit with the shia Sunmi problem. However, even inside these countries you have competing tribes and factions which continue to battle for power. So when you say you wish one side wins already, you're neglecting the fact that there's probably about four or five "sides"

Rough_Butterfly2932

I don't think that's true. I think the ME gets far worse in the next twenty years. Population growth in the region is significant and heavily dependent on welfare programs and state spending. That state spending largely comes from oil/gas revenues.

The fundamental problem is that oil/gas demand is stagnant at best, meaning revenue growth just isn't there let alone for population growth. Once the West/China don't need the oil exports from the region you will see all the foreign military stabilizing forces start to disappear and it will go hog wild with destabilization as budgets run dry. They will kill each other in a Mexican standoff/suicide pact and no one who speak English will give a shit.

Just look at the US. We are slowly, but clearly withdrawing from ME bases. We need to GTFO out of the mid-east and Africa in particular. If they want to slaughter each other, enjoy. Not my monkey, not my circus.

Sea-Storm375

The USA and other world powers have purposefully destabilized the region for control of oil and as a way to distribute tax dollars into the hands of the rich at the expense of Arab lives. It’s a horror show and until we have a population smart enough to see through the fog and leaders who will choose life over greed, the show will go on.

CutWilling9287

WELL SAID, HOWEVER I BELIEVE THERE IS TRULY A LIVING GOD WHOS WAS RECOGNIZED BY THE ISARALITES, AND GOD HAS MADE COVENETS WITH ISREAL.

I REALLY BELIEVE THAT ALTHOUGH GOD IS NOT PLEASE WITH HIS CHOSEN PEOPLE HE WILL NOT ABANDEN THEM AS IT IS WRITTEN, SO IT WILL BE DONE. MY PERSONAL VIEW, AND OPINION.

TAKKE CARE, AND PRAY TO GOD THE FATHER TO HAVE MERCY ON UA ALL.

GOOD NIGHT.

RequirementDeep6123

If one country were to take over the entire Middle East, it would probably have expansionist aspirations into the rest of the world.
Resulting in what is decidedly not peace.


Also, just because you may have peace - doesn't mean the people who live in your country are safe or free. See Qatar and its use of forced labor or Pakistan and women's rights.

Evening-Skirt731

Until religion is fully excised from the region, there will be war. Millions of people in the region believe there is divine justification to kill people from the other groups. That has been true for thousands of years.

A total victory might lessen conflict for a short time, but it will never be permanent. Insurgencies will continue to crop up.

EmergencyTaco

starting a social movement for peace by the end of the year, gonna grow it exponentially,  i'm from israel and i've been guided for this in the past few years of my spiritual awakening - just published this video about it, hope it will go quickly so we can save innocent lives  [https://youtu.be/xU4vdLtdSIc](https://youtu.be/xU4vdLtdSIc)

Lopsided-Scarcity-36

The Middle East has never really had any total victories.

The most peaceful moments in the Middle East both in recent years and in the distant past, were achieved by deciding to get countries in the Middle East to leave each other alone instead of fighting for extra land, which is what is responsible for conflict and massacres.

GarageIndependent114

Iran has been creating these wars since 1979.  They fund Hamas, the Houthis, Hezbollah, and more.  They probably funded ISIS as well.   If the Iranian regime fell the region would see far more peace

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran\_and\_state-sponsored\_terrorism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terrorism)

OddCook4909

Total Victory is a lie unless it involves removing everyone. 

The closest thing to total victory in the history of the US is the revolutionary war. No other war could even come close to those terms, and that is Largely because of the distance between the UK and the US. Even the civil war wasn't a total victory, we still have people who want the south to rise again.

As you point out, the cold war didn't even really end, just some name changes from a us perspective, except for all its faults they view putin as better cause at least he isn't an ideological enemy. 

Any side, anyone left is going to continue to raise hell. The only pathway to peace requires all involved to come to an agreement, and considering israel's decades of 'preemptive attacks', they are the ones who need to be willing to budge. Bibi has been saying Iran is a couple years to a couple days from a nuke for over 30 years. It isn't 1980 anymore, if they Wanted One, they could have one inside of the summer. They've complied with inspections and tracking from any country who signs onto the NPT (Which Israel refuses too, won't even admit they have nukes when it has been an open secret for decades that they do).

you've mentioned elsewhere to be specifically mentioning israel/Gaza/Palestine/Iran. israel has been geocoding the people of Palestine, occupation and military rule for 75 years. Iran did what America does, what Russia does, what every country does when they don't want to get into it themselves yet, they fund people who want to. Iran-Contra scandal, the so so many right wing coups in africa and central/south america, in southeast asia. Pretending this is a Middle East unique issue in this respect is nonsense. Israel is an attack dog in the region with the full funding and support of the west, and the rest of the middle east knows it. israel's threat to its neighbors isn't israel, its that America is standing there, holding the leash, with a few thousand-thousand bombs ready to fly once they let it go. America will let israel become glass if it means it can control the middle east. And again, the current one was started by israel. Both in terms of occupying Palestine for decades, and firing first at Iran. 

You're right, unless Israel is willing to budge, to meet in the middle, to allow a 2 state solution in this day and age (Palestinians have gone through several leaders, pretending everyone believes the same thing they did 30 years ago when most who said it then have been dead for 20 is bs), its going to be a non-starter. 

People talk about them being at war forever, as if the only reason Europe isn't still at war was WW2. Until then they didn't exactly go long stretches without wars. They had an entire century for a single war. And now, instead of fighting their wars on their homeland, they fight wars in the middle east for oil. Especially post ww2. 

But its whatever. Another generation of people destroyed by war and bombs, another generation of americans are gonna go die and suffer ptsd for israel's right to kill whoever it wants with no repercussions, and itll still be the fault of the people cursed to be born in a place israel and america think it deserves to rule. 



Want a real solution? Give every country a handful of nukes, and make everyone agree whoever fires first, everyone else fires at next. Or finally get every country to agree to eliminate them, but they won't. Would you trust \[Insert whatever country you dislike\] to be honest about it? Anything less, and MAD is just a way to hold off each other and give themselves free reign everywhere else. Its the mob families agreeing on streets are boarders, and promising not to encroach (directly).

Least_Key1594

Israel has no path to total victory. Their only option would be nukes, and irradiating the territory you live in is a dumbass strategy. They've pumped their society with so much anti-Arab racism, they're not likely to make peace with Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq. A lot of Israelis covet that territory, and they have power. Even their relationships with Jordan and Egypt are likely to deteriorate, thanks to the genocide and the never ending ethnic cleansing. 

Iran isn't powerful enough to overrun Israel, despite their massive population. If they came close, the US would, likely, be stupid enough to get involved, speeding up the US's already rapid decline, as trillions more are added to the national debt. There is no total victory for any one of this trio of dunces.

The best option is a hard, global, Cuban style embargo of Israel, until they comply with all international laws, and a similar one of Iran, if they show any signs of expansionism, during Israel's correction period.

alohazendo

Which is a literal impossibility. There will always be someone else to hate and murder on either side. The sides just change and new people grow up and learn to hate and destroy. It’s the only true legacy of humanity. Hate, death, destruction, repeat. Sides don’t matter.

AccomplishedSuccess0

"Islam" is peace by total victory, by either conquering or converting all your enemies. It never worked, not for Muslims, not for anybody else. It will never work.

Peace requires reconciliation. It's the only way that works. Anything else will not be real or lasting peace.

bayesian_horse

You could have said the same for Western Europe and you would have been right untill for a long time. But the two longedt periods of peace (1815-1914, despite a few short wars and 1945-Today) have been achieved through cooperation and common interests

APC2_19

&gt;I feel like this would be more merciful if one country would just win

“Winning” would likely involved genocide, subjugation and extermination of vast numbers of the other states in play. I don’t know if “merciful” is the word I’d use.

concerned-koala

100% true, and I'm rooting for team blue/white aka the guys who don't want to blow me up for not believing in Allah. I'm not religious, I don't believe in God, but if there is one, please guide those Israeli weapons to swift victory.

Total victory is unlikely but even if it was accomplished then people would move on to the next war to hyper fixate on. 

That being said, total victory isn’t necessary, just have to make costly enough.

Appropriate_Fly_6711

I don’t think Israel has been the instigator in any of their wars except arguably 1967 when they still had casus belli… so in theory, their opponents should be able to trust peace with them…

TheBouwerie

I am not sure if anyone will win in that region that part of the word is barely liveable right now it shouldn’t be liveable at all 200 years. The winner would be Mother Earth.

DeathofDivinity

&gt;The Middle East will never know peace until someone has a total victory.

The Middle East will never know peace until western powers leave them alone.

Kaizokuno_

Imagine saying this about Europe? Could come out of a Nazi generals mouth "there will be no peace in Europe until a total victory" psychotic

manfredmahon

PsychologicalWay7108

You could have said the same about Europe before the 20th century.

It took two world wars yet here we are (at least mostly)

TheRealTahulrik

They'll always find an enemy, there will be no total victory, the only way to have peace there is everybody gets wiped out

Any-Gift9657

Isn't that like saying the human race will never know peace unless we nuje the world with no humans left to conduct war.

rlyjustanyname

Middle East will know peace one day, because one day middle east will cease to exist just like the rest of the Earth.

Beautiful_Chest7043

The Middle East will never know peace until the West exhausts all of its resources and no longer has a use for them.

shitcum2077

Ah yes just like the US had total Victory over Afghanistan...
How long did that peace last? 


About 2 weeks. 

ExpensiveLawyer1526

Palestinians not trusting Israel to adhere to a ceasefire has a lot more to do with Israel repeatedly and purposefully breaking ceasefires and essentially all agreements to stop some aspect of violence.

Think-Lavishness-686

After a total victory the united islam kingdom will challenge its neighbors thus still no peace.

Patrick_Atsushi

US President Donald Trump has hinted at a significant breakthrough in the Middle East, proposing a 21-point plan aimed at ending the ongoing Gaza conflict.

Middle East Peace Plan

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want