• Varyk@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    I think of those as very different circumstances.

    Ideally today, netanyahu, the Israeli army, and Hamas agree to a non-aggression pact that enforce an equitable land-share.

    The thing is, none of those parties want a non-aggression pact at all.

    Both of them want to continue bombing the other until the other one gives up(which will not work).

    So ideally, the leaders of both of these countries would have to be fundamentally different people with different goals.

    I guess ideally, peace-forward coalitions sieze power of both countries and agree to a peace treaty.

    Netanyahu is firmly committed to at least a cultural genocide with as many civilian casualties as necessary if not total genocide, and Hamas is firmly committed to reclaiming all of their land that has been stolen over 70 years.

    The Deus ex here is if Bernie Sanders was elected and committed significant resources and time to helping Palestine create a national political infrastructure, which it doesn’t have right now.

    Palestine needs a sponsor like Israel has America or there’s zero equal footing for a two-state solution.

    That might be the ideal solution, that the United States changes its policy of 3/4 of a century and decides to treat Palestine civilly.

    That could conceivably happen if we elected a Sanders or AOC.

    The US probably could force a two-state solution if it really wanted to, which it does not want to because that would compromise its interests in the middle east, which Israel and its military is very happy to be paid to advance.

    • arirr@lemmy.kde.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      A couple points: Hamas doesn’t just want back the land that was stolen during the Nakba. They consider all the land including state land and even privately purchased land by Jews from before the war to be Arab land. They reject wholesale any Jewish self determination in the land as illegitimate. This is why Israel is refusing to sign a deal that leaves them in power, because that just kicks the can down the road for a bit.

      Hamas even put a plan together of what to do if they win and it boiled down to: murdering all the Zionists, enslaving key talent to prevent total economic collapse, and then throw the rest out. Since they are a totalitarian fascist regime, I don’t see how they can ever be negotiated with in good faith. I’m not aware of a single fascist regime that peacefully democratized or even stopped committing violence.

      I don’t agree that Netanyahu is genocidal. His general strategy seems to be crushing opposition through tactical maneuvering both internal and external. I also don’t expect him to be very politically relevant once his fragile coalition falls apart or regularly scheduled elections happen in 2026. According to John Spencer and other urban warfare experts the civilian casualties are impressively low considering the environment and Hamas’s tactics. That’s not to be dismissive as all civilian casualties are tragic and should be avoided as much as possible. Also about 20% of Israeli citizens are Palestinian.

      I would love to see a reasonable 2 state solution that everyone hates, but can live with. I don’t think that this Israeli government coalition would be willing to accept one, but I have pretty good hopes for future ones. My main concern is on the Palestinian side, there doesn’t seem to be anyone that would both be able to afford to make a deal and be able to enforce it. The closest chance there was historically would probably have been the Camp David Summit. Currently Abbas and the PA are seen as too weak and corrupt IMO for the general Palestinian population to support it even if they did accept.

      I don’t see how any US president would be able to unilaterally force a 2 state solution. The US does provide a lot of support, but I don’t see how leveraging that would be enough to override Israeli security concerns. The unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 is what enabled Hamas to take over and declare war on Israel leading eventually to the current situation. Allowing that kind of buildup in the West Bank would be far more dangerous as is is much closer to major population centers and has a much larger boarder. Israel didn’t have major US support until the Yom Kippur war.

      On top of that, there is the whole IRGC issue. They don’t want any solution. They’re happy to arm proxy groups that are willing to support their agenda. That makes any peaceful Palestinian government that’s trying to suppress internal terrorist groups have even more to deal with and it would probably end up in a Syrian or Yemen civil war situation which would be way worse for everyone, especially the Palestinians.

      • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Bear in mind the disclaimer that OP specifically requested an ideal situation in today’s circumstances, not what will work.

        “Hamas doesn’t just want back the land that was stolen during the Nakba”

        Nobody said they did.

        “They consider all the land…”

        Yes, Hamas wants all their land back.

        Written above.

        “I don’t agree that Netanyahu is genocidal.”

        He is committing at least a cultural genocide executing majority civilians; Netanyahu is genocidal.

        “his general strategy seems to be crushing opposition through tactical maneuvering”

        Executing civilians and bombing schools and hospitals is not the subtle tactic you allege.

        “According to John Spencer and other urban warfare experts the civilian casualties are impressively low considering”

        Absurd.

        1. Israel has been executing civilians and bombing civilian structures like schools and hospitals for decades.

        2. There is an estimate of minimum 70% casualties from the current conflict.

        Color me not impressed.

        “I would love to see a reasonable 2 state solution that everyone hates, but can live with”

        OP would not, not the point here.

        Everythting after this is “I don’t see how any US president would be able…”, “I don’t see how leveraging that…”, “They don’t want…”

        Which, yes, and is not an answer to the thread: suggesting an ideal solution, not addressing the specific problems that could go wrong with an unformed practical solution.