How viable is an independent state in the separated plots of land that basically the PA has? — ssu

You are saying all this on your own assumption of ethnic separation as the basis for peace. If this was in your own country would you want that for yourself? For a more distanced analogy how does this work in the US or Canada with indigenous peoples who were granted lands forever, do they want separation (Some in fact do, and claim 'historical' rights.)?

We are governed by toddlers. — Tzeentch

Hamas just recently killed some toddlers:

It's the brief time to go to Israel and show the support.

It's more awkward when the land operation begins and the Palestinians really start dying and then be there telling how you support Israel. After all, all those reservists need some refresher training before they can operate as a team in urban combat. — ssu

War is hell. Dresden, Berlin, etc. Were bombed pretty damn heavily:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Berlin_in_World_War_II#:~:text=The%20death%20toll%20amounted%20to,left%20homeless%20or%20%22dehoused%22.

x

I mean, again, we can probably start talking culture here, but doesn't that support Israel's wariness of hostile neighbors? Why can't Lebanon moderate either? A bloody civil war is unwanted, but perhaps there is more tacit support than would be willing for that to happen in Lebanon. I don't know the full situation there other than Hezbollah has a large percentage of their "parliament". — schopenhauer1

Well, I'm not sure do they have an working government. Lebanon is nearly a failed state. Hezbollah, which does have seats in the Lebanese Parliament, is basically in charge of Southern Lebanon. Hence the Lebanese Army doesn't enjoy monopoly in the country. And what was the Lebanese government left to do when Israel had it's war with Lebanon? Then prime minister Siniora made a declaration after the the casualties Lebanon suffered that Lebanon would be "the last Arab country to make peace with Israel".

But perhaps they ought to be more moderate, after being bombed and all that.

Of course, in order to do that, it needed to go back to the usual authoritarianism. — schopenhauer1

Yes, because the Egyptian voters voted "wrongly" and voted the Muslim Brotherhood to power, who weren't at all so eager to continue the warm relations with Egypt.

It seems that compromise, and moderation are not going to work when you have religious para-military style governments running a country like Lebanon. — schopenhauer1

Does this look like para-military style government? I think it looks like there's no government, no President. The last government is only acting as a caretaker government because the Lebanese have been incapable of forming an government. Hezbollah isn't the state of Lebanon, remember!

You are saying all this on your own assumption of ethnic separation as the basis for peace. — magritte

Well, in general nation states tend to be divided by ethnic lines.

My country could have an ethnic division between the Finnish speaking majority and the Swedish speaking minority. Yet the fortunate thing is that the Swedish speaking think of themselves as Finns also and not Swedes. The Finnish majority hasn't ever considered them as foreigners, not at least since the Early Middle Ages. And after WW2 language hasn't been any kind of problem for the new independent Finland.

For a more distanced analogy how does this work in the US or Canada with indigenous peoples who were granted lands forever, do they want separation (Some in fact do, and claim 'historical' rights.)? — magritte

There's five million Native Americans in the US, which is 1,5% of the population or with mixed heritage about nearly 3%. There's even far more Asian Americans in the US. Perhaps when there's 1,5% Palestinians left (now every fifth in Isreal is an Arab) of the Israeli population, they can be granted similar reservations with similar gambling rights? (Oh darn! I think Islam forbids gambling.)

Man, you might be the most schizophrenic poster on this topic on here.

Well, I'm not sure do they have an working government. Lebanon is nearly a failed state. Hezbollah, which does have seats in the Lebanese Parliament, is basically in charge of Southern Lebanon. Hence the Lebanese Army doesn't enjoy monopoly in the country. And what was the Lebanese government left to do when Israel had it's war with Lebanon? Then prime minister Siniora made a declaration after the the casualties Lebanon suffered that Lebanon would be "the last Arab country to make peace with Israel". — ssu

1) As to Lebanon, sounds about right in terms of the government, except then you go on to blame Israel, the knee jerk reaction. As if there is a group that doesn't want to see Israel destroyed in there...

Yes, because the Egyptian voters voted "wrongly" and voted the Muslim Brotherhood to power, who weren't at all so eager to continue the warm relations with Egypt. — ssu

2) Yeah, I wonder why Israel wouldn't want to see the group that was the progenitor for Hamas, a group that would like nothing better than to wipe Israel off the face of the map, retain power..

Also, if an enemy combatant came into your country, killed your civilians in brutal ways, and then took 200 hostages, no one is going to question if the government should try to root out the perpetrators if they had the means to do so, unless you are SSU, Benkei et al from philosophy forum, seated high in their academic bubble. Next you'll quote Mao and Lenin, and colonization and all the rest without nuance either. It's all part of a same package of an ideology gone off the rails. The "West" (post-WW2 reality) is "bad", and any group that is generally aligned against it, is good. What bullshit.

This just shows an odd "glitch" in this (your) thinking where it is recognized that various actors, countries and groups missed opportunities (the Arab countries with the Three No's when peace was offered for return of captured lands in 67, the second attempt to destroy Israel in 1973, the missed opportunity to take a deal in the Camp David Accords, etc.), but then goes back to the skipped record, and still redirects attention always to the bias against Israel.

The end? Hamas for revenge in Gaza and the West Bank, Israel for revenge and to make up for the fact they did not prevent the attacks. — Manuel

Yes, what is annoying is that neither side wants to state that they are doing this for revenge. Public Relations, you know. We have a 'prison break' on one hand and 'Israel attempting to defend' on the other hand. Pretty harmless.

My impression is that, when people are cool and level headed, they get along perfectly fine. It's when the state gets involved in matters, removed from direct control by the people, that these problems tend to arise of get magnified. — Manuel

Well then the state must be having different goals from that of the people, what could these be? Dare I suggest they are self-serving?

Psychology is not the place to look, as any psychological survey of terrorists will show random behavioral traits. The answer lies in sociology and in social psychology, in our gut irrational responses on a group, social, and tribal level. — magritte

Many a terrorist was once an ordinary human being. Unless you assume terrorists are born, then you have to assume that terrorists are created by the social environment, given that some of the population will have a tendency to accept violence as a means of solving their problems. It happens all over the world.

Israels' response is predictable, and not irrational as such, given that rationality has to be judged on the basis of what the actions aim to achieve.

The problem is that governments and groups, knowing that they are lighting a powder keg with a short fuse, then proceed to deliberately proceed, or deliberately risk letting it happen. These are intentions that are pretty clear. Some groups on each side want a solution based on their terms, and when these groups are in power, like Hamas, then you can expect them to push for it.

Well then the state must be having different goals from that of the people, what could these be? Dare I suggest they are self-serving? — FreeEmotion

Unless states are democratic, meaning, directly responsible to the voters, instead of concentrated interests of power, they will do whatever power asks.

Now, you'd need to establish a system in which citizens tell prime ministers or presidents what they demand, not politicians telling voter what they (the politicians think that the people) want to hear.

@Hanover
Have you morphed into a Democrat? Just curious.

A series of missed opportunities and stubbornness. Pride can become an ethical problem. A series of missteps towards the beginning that moved each side to the right. — schopenhauer1

Thank you for the history.

The question that needs to be asked is: are the Israeli governments and the Palestinian governments acting in the best interests of its people, long term? These are in terms of social and political interests?

If the goal of Israel is to annex and control the Palestinian areas, and the goal of Hamas is to take control somehow over the entire land of Israel, sort of a Palestinian Nettanhayu -type far right government, then supporting one over the other is a matter of deciding whose cause is right. Human rights abuses abound, to be sure.

What we learn from history is the suppression of groups of people, if it succeeds, will lead to a lasting peace. Human rights? The entire history of the world can be described as a litany of human rights abuses, from one era to another. This is how history is made.

Have you morphed into a Democrat? Just curious. — frank

I don't think so, but If Bush, Kasich, Christie, Pence, and Trump are all Republicans, I'm not sure what it means to be a Republican.

What we learn from history is the suppression of groups of people, if it succeeds, will lead to a lasting peace. Human rights? The entire history of the world can be described as a litany of human rights abuses, from one era to another. This is how history is made. — FreeEmotion

I mean, this "it is what it is" seems like political nihilism writ large. Granted, the stories of country formations are almost all replete with bloodshed, my point with that quote that you referenced was that in this conflict, there were many missed opportunities by the Palestinian moderates to get almost all of what they wanted. I see on this forum that people DO recognize this, but IMMEDIATELY pivot to blaming Israel for these failures.

Hamas just recently killed some toddlers: — frank

And so did Israel. Your point being?

:up:

1) As to Lebanon, sounds about right in terms of the government, except then you go on to blame Israel, the knee jerk reaction. As if there is a group that doesn't want to see Israel destroyed in there... — schopenhauer1

Strawman as I've said again and again about Hezbollah, which isn't the Lebanese government. Your the one asking why "Lebanon cannot moderate". Well, that "Lebanon" is nearing to be a failed state if it isn't and doesn't have the ability to control it's territories. Yet for you it seems "Hezbollah = whole Lebanon". I don't think especially the Maronite Christians in Lebanon are actively engaged in the war in Israel.

2) Yeah, I wonder why Israel wouldn't want to see the group that was the progenitor for Hamas, a group that would like nothing better than to wipe Israel off the face of the map, retain power.. — schopenhauer1

Well, that's basically one of the reasons the military took over the country. So bitch about them being not democratic. Democracy isn't this miracle drug that makes people change their thoughts.

Also, if an enemy combatant came into your country, killed your civilians in brutal ways, and then took 200 hostages, no one is going to question if the government should try to root out the perpetrators if they had the means to do so, unless you are SSU — schopenhauer1

Quite a strawman there again. What I have said that Hamas and Likud embrace each other. Netanyahu wants to annex Judea and Samaria (West Bank) and Hamas just works for him giving him the evil city with the human animals. There's no other way for Israel than to go into Gaza, really, not even if the opposition would be in power. That's the natural response when you have an army like IDF. If a country would be weak and couldn't do anything about the terrorists strikes, then there wouldn't be anything else than plea help. But Israel has a strong military which can go into Gaza. And Hamas basically wants that. Those religious zealots think there's the next generations growing, so it's not so bad for them if they take a hit now. The following battles will just deepen the hatred for the Jewish State, which is their purpose. And for Likud it's the perfect event that just show how it's impossible to do any peace agreement, that any compromise with the Palestinians backfires. Everybody that has tried that has been wrong, because just look at what happened.

And that's it. I don't believe that there's going to be a peace process or peace. People should be truly war weary to find a two state solution, and that not yet.

But Israel has a strong military which can go into Gaza. And Hamas basically wants that. Those religious zealots think there's the next generations growing, so it's not so bad for them if they take a hit now. The following battles will just deepen the hatred for the Jewish State, which is their purpose. And for Likud it's the perfect event that just show how it's impossible to do any peace agreement, that any compromise with the Palestinians backfires. — ssu

Sad, but apparently true.

Strawman as I've said again and again about Hezbollah, which isn't the Lebanese government. Your the one asking why "Lebanon cannot moderate". Well, that "Lebanon" is nearing to be a failed state if it isn't and doesn't have the ability to control it's territories. Yet for you it seems "Hezbollah = whole Lebanon". I don't think especially the Maronite Christians in Lebanon are actively engaged in the war in Israel. — ssu

My point was that it would require a civil war to gain control back from rogue actor Hezbollah de facto doing whatever it wants. They don't want that, as they've already seen a bunch of conflict and don't have the stomach for it again. Either way, this causes major instability and allows Iran to bolster these para-military, extra-governmental actors, who can act with impunity within Lebanese borders.

Well, that's basically one of the reasons the military took over the country. So bitch about them being not democratic. — ssu

Oh you can have an illiberal democracy, where a majority of people vote in people who take away others' rights, and want to see a theocratic-oriented state, etc. But generally when we use the term "democratic" we mean a state that recognizes rights and have free and fair elections, allow freedom of speech, press, ideas, etc. But add to that an illiberal democracy that calls for perpetual war and aides terrorist operations, then yeah, I'm glad the authoritarian forces put a lid on that. Would I rather them form a liberal democracy? Of course. But that doesn't seem the sentiment there.

If people vote in Nazis into power somewhere, I don't support it just because a majority voted them in. That represents not only an illiberal democracy, but an illiberal democracy that is voting out democratic principles.

Quite a strawman there again. What I have said that Hamas and Likud embrace each other. Netanyahu wants to annex Judea and Samaria (West Bank) and Hamas just works for him giving him the evil city with the human animals. There's no other way for Israel than to go into Gaza, really, not even if the opposition would be in power. That's the natural response when you have an army like IDF. If a country would be weak and couldn't do anything about the terrorists strikes, then there wouldn't be anything else than plea help. But Israel has a strong military which can go into Gaza. And Hamas basically wants that. Those religious zealots think there's the next generations growing, so it's not so bad for them if they take a hit now. And for Likud it's the perfect events that just show how it's impossible to do any peace agreement, any compromise with the Palestinians. Everybody that has tried that has been wrong, because just look at what happened. — ssu

@Baden

So again, I provide you all my previous posts where I present the fact that Arab nations/Palestinians had the ability to take a deal but rejected it. Do you ever put any onus on the Palestinians, or is it always going to be Israel's fault no matter what? And I think you have shown the (broken record) answer to this. It is just a knee-jerk response for a contingent of people. I'm going to dub this the "underdog fallacy", not all groups that have less military power are in the right. Hamas represents a barbaric group that has shown in its suicide bombings and then these kind of barbaric attacks where they parade dead bodies, kill babies brutally, etc. are not people to negotiate with. And I present you exactly what I said in the last post:

Also, if an enemy combatant came into your country, killed your civilians in brutal ways, and then took 200 hostages, no one is going to question if the government should try to root out the perpetrators if they had the means to do so, unless you are SSU, Benkei et al from philosophy forum, seated high in their academic bubble. Next you'll quote Mao and Lenin, and colonization and all the rest without nuance either. It's all part of a same package of an ideology gone off the rails. The "West" (post-WW2 reality) is "bad", and any group that is generally aligned against it, is good. What bullshit.

This just shows an odd "glitch" in this (your) thinking where it is recognized that various actors, countries and groups missed opportunities (the Arab countries with the Three No's when peace was offered for return of captured lands in 67, the second attempt to destroy Israel in 1973, the missed opportunity to take a deal in the Camp David Accords, etc.), but then goes back to the skipped record, and still redirects attention always to the bias against Israel. — schopenhauer1

Apparently there's only 4 functioning hospitals in Gaza. Damn, what horror.

And so did Israel. Your point being? — Tzeentch

Who would you prefer babysit your toddler? Israel or Hamas? More to the point, who would you trust as a nuclear power, Israel or Iran?

Who would you prefer babysit your toddler? Israel or Hamas? More to the point, who would you trust as a nuclear power, Israel or Iran? — RogueAI

You're on the verge of sounding racist, dude. I'm sure that's not what you intended.

I don't think so, but If Bush, Kasich, Christie, Pence, and Trump are all Republicans, I'm not sure what it means to be a Republican. — Hanover

:up:

Given the today's circumstances and those of decades past, I think it's no longer reasonable to expect solutions coming from either side. Both sides are traumatized by decades of brutal conflict - 'mentally ill' is the metaphor I would use.

The international community should have stepped in.

Attaining hegemony in 1991, the United States had every opportunity, but by and large neglected to do so for reasons of domestic policy, many of which relating to the Israel lobby.

As the United States attained hegemony, Israel felt that with its big brother at the wheel, it no longer had to look for a modus vivendi but could press home the advantage.

If I had to point at one party in particular to be responsible - as in, having reasonably the power to make a change for the better - it might have to be the United States. It used its near-total power to impose circumstances on nations far and wide, but somehow never in the regions that truly required an imposed solution.

Given the today's circumstances and those of decades past, I think it's no longer reasonable to expect solutions coming from either side. Both sides are traumatized by decades of brutal conflict - 'mentally ill' is the metaphor I would use. — Tzeentch

There can be extremists on either side, but this doesn't discount the lack of moderate Palestinians to take a deal and start moving on living their lives, trading with Israel economically, and trying to make a prosperous country for themselves and their children rather than no compromising on what really matters, and creating a prosperous situation for themselves. I absolutely will not concede on this point because in this forum at least, that is where I see people's blindspot because it doesn't confirm their biases and narratives apparently.

The international community should have stepped in. — Tzeentch

They did. It was called the Oslo Accords. Arafat could have taken a deal and that last deal could have made him ironically from "fighter" to "founder".. But I doubt he ever really wanted more than the former image. We might have had 25 years of prosperity between two co-existing nations. But it wasn't. And all I can see is a lack of moderation from the majority on the Pals side- the ability to make compromise and give up all or nothing mentality.

As the United States attained hegemony, Israel felt that with its big brother at the wheel, it no longer had to look for a modus vivendi but could press home the advantage.

If I had to point at one party in particular to be responsible - as in, having reasonably the power to make a change for the better - it might have to be the United States. It used its near-total power to impose circumstances on nations far and wide, but somehow never in the regions that truly required an imposed solution. — Tzeentch

Yeah I think they should continually always want the moderates to go for peace talks, but find the Palestinian moderates. I will gladly recount the history one more time about why Israel shifted to the right in the 2000s.

There can be extremists on either side, but this doesn't discount the lack of moderate Palestinians to take a deal and start moving on living their lives, trading with Israel economically, and trying to make a prosperous country for themselves and their children rather than no compromising on what really matters, and creating a prosperous situation for themselves. — schopenhauer1

With all due respect, Israel has been doing everything it can to make life impossible for Palestinians.

Gaza we needn't even mention, but the situation in the West Bank is barely any better. It's a police state, where Palestinians are policed by the Israeli army and the Israelis are policed by the Israeli police (who are nowhere to be found).

Palestinians cannot freely traverse Israeli-controlled areas of the West Bank, and if you look at this map of the West Bank, you will see how entire communities are cut off.

The mechanism is simple: Israeli settlers illegally settle somewhere in the West Bank, whereupon the Israeli army is forced to protect them and create an area of Israeli control, thus making life impossible for Palestinians living in the immediate vicinity and slowly driving them out.

When people talk about Israel ethnically cleansing the Palestinian territories, this is what they're talking about.

I try to stay impartial and maintain some understanding for the Israeli position, but at the same time we cannot pretend this isn't happening. There is no semblance of an equal playing field. Every day of "peace" means more Palestinians are driven from their homes. This settlement policy is essentially a slow annexation and ethnic cleansing of the West Bank. How are Palestinians supposed to build up a prosperous existence amidst all of this?

They did. It was called the Oslo Accords. Arafat could have taken a deal and that last deal could have made him ironically from "fighter" to "founder". — schopenhauer1

Arafat could have accepted a deal on the Israeli's terms. Would that have been better than no deal at all? I think nowadays many would say yes. But it's not reasonable to shove all blame into Arafat's shoes.

There's a lot to be said about the Oslo Accords, and you know full well that it wasn't as simple as what you're sketching here.

At the same time, I will agree with you that leadership on both sides failed. And it failed for reasons which were understandable. This conflict is far too severe to expect either side to act within the bounds of reason and indeed they are chronically incapable of it.

Yeah I think they should continually always want the moderates to go for peace talks, but find the Palestinian moderates — schopenhauer1

Considering the circumstances many Palestinians find themselves in, it's an miracle moderate Palestinians still exist.

Regardless, the US had a lot of power, which it wielded with little restraint. Did it have the power to pressure either or both sides of the Israel-Palestine conflict to an agreement? I think it did. I think for domestic reasons, it didn't.

Gaza we needn't even mention, but the situation in the West Bank is barely any better. It's a police state, where Palestinians are policed by the Israeli army and the Israelis are policed by the Israeli police (who are nowhere to be found). — Tzeentch

In as far as Israel should relinquish control to PA, sure. But PA will have to step into role of constant mediator for their own extremists. Do they have the will to do this? So how should Israel proceed. What happens many times is, Israel relinquishes control, then the extremists do some attack, and then Israel takes control again because it says that the PA can't do a good job containing their own extremists. I am not sure the answer to this. Israel is going to act out of security when this happens, but I guess some sort of commission should be had whereby the PA sees what failed and what can be given to them to improve their ability to police their territory?

Palestinians cannot freely traverse Israeli-controlled areas of the West Bank, and if you look at this map of the West Bank, you will see how entire communities are cut off. — Tzeentch

Yep, I certainly support ousting Israel's right-wing and Netanyahu. This idea that peace is only had through dissolution is ruinous as I've stated earlier. You see, I am not for Likud/right-wing aims/conduct but the reason I don't emphasize that is because most people on this forum already agree with that, and if I mention it, that just gives excuses not to look at the disastrous policies that the Palestinians have followed for the last 35+ years or so. I am rooting out the clear bias. If it was the otherside where I would bring up Netanyahu not living up to Israel's own principles, thus negating it's moral authority. But see, then that will be seen (falsely) as the notion that it's okay that Palestinians have not been able to create a majority of democratically-minded compromisers who are willing to quash their own radicals.

I try to stay impartial and maintain some understanding for the Israeli position, but at the same time we cannot pretend this isn't happening. There is no semblance of an equal playing field. Every day of "peace" means more Palestinians are driven from their homes. This settlement policy is essentially a slow annexation and ethnic cleansing of the West Bank. How are Palestinians supposed to build up a prosperous existence amidst all of this? — Tzeentch

It's a matter of if the moderates are willing to clamp down on the radicals and ARE there enough moderates to do so? If so, then Israel should do all it's power to embolden the moderate Palestinian forces. The move should be away from tactical and onto strategic.

Arafat could have accepted a deal on the Israeli's terms. Would that have been better than no deal at all? I think nowadays many would say yes. But it's not reasonable to shove all blame into Arafat's shoes.

There's a lot to be said about the Oslo Accords, and you know full well that it wasn't as simple as what you're sketching here.

At the same time, I will agree with you that leadership on both sides failed. And it failed for reasons which were understandable. This conflict is far too severe to expect either side to act within the bounds of reason and indeed they are chronically incapable of it. — Tzeentch

I'd disagree here. Pride killed that deal for Arafat. But you do admit that it would have been better had he taken the deal at least in hindsight. Good leaders consider the long term, not their own popularity at the moment, granting that you still need practical wheeling-and-dealing to get the vision accomplished.

Considering the circumstances many Palestinians find themselves in, it's an miracle moderate Palestinians still exist. — Tzeentch

Should I recount the history again? This didn't happen in a vacuum. The underdog fallacy is that the underdog is always right because they have less military power. If you look at the actual history leading up to the 2000s, Israel was willing to take whatever deal was given them when they were the "underdog". The Arab nations/Palestinians refused every time. Then when Israel was concerned about security (remember all the suicide bombing of the 90s?), somehow its security concerns when negotiating doesn't matter. It's always them in the wrong. I don't think you see the bias there.

In as far as Israel should relinquish control to PA, sure. But PA will have to step into role of constant mediator for their own extremists. Do they have the will to do this? So how should Israel proceed. What happens many times is, Israel relinquishes control, then the extremists do some attack, and then Israel takes control again because it says that the PA can't do a good job containing their own extremists. I am not sure the answer to this. Israel is going to act out of security when this happens, but I guess some sort of commission should be had whereby the PA sees what failed and what can be given to them to improve their ability to police their territory? — schopenhauer1

Getting rid of the Israeli settlements, thus giving the PA complete control over the West Bank, is sadly not going to happen. There are too many Israeli settlements. Those settlers are essentially the Israeli equivalent of extremists. Removing Israeli settlers as has happened in the Sinai and Gaza is extremely difficult for the Israeli government, and they can't do it on the scale that would be required here.

The situation is fucked, and dare I say it is fucked on purpose.

But see, then that falsely give up the notion that Palestinians have not been able to create a majority of democratically-minded compromisers who are willing to quash their own radicals. — schopenhauer1

In line with what I stated earlier, under the conditions of the Israel-Palestine conflict, it's no surprise radicals spring up, and extremism is hard to combat. How do you tell a person that lost their child, whether they be Israeli or Palestinian, to ever bury that hatchet?

My sense is both Israel and Palestine struggle with the issue, and it's one of the reasons why it's not realistic to expect them to simply get together and solve things.

It's a matter of if the moderates are willing to clamp down on the radicals and ARE there enough moderates to do so? If so, then Israel should do all it's power to embolden the moderate Palestinian forces. The move should be away from tactical and onto strategic. — schopenhauer1

Personally, I don't believe the current Israeli establishment is interested in a two-state solution, and they haven't been since at least 1995.

Maybe the new generation of Israelis will push for policies more geared towards reconcilation, which I believe is the only real long-term solution. There is some indication that this might happen and young Israelis are generally a lot more critical of their government.

I do believe Netanyahu is a symptom of the US unipolar moment, and that moment has now all but ended. But current events have me fearing Netanyahu won't quietly fade away but go out with a bang.

Moderates in Palestine? Yes, I believe there are many. Most people are interested in living a peaceful existence. I visited the West Bank in 2019, and that at least was my impression.

Good leaders consider the long term, not their own popularity at the moment, granting that you still need practical wheeling-and-dealing to get the vision accomplished. — schopenhauer1

Agreed, but the same could be said for Israeli leaders.

My personal opinion is that a two-state solution was never all that feasible, for a variety of reasons.

Israel was willing to take whatever deal was given them when they were the "underdog". — schopenhauer1

I don't think that's true. In the 2000's Israel was far from the underdog. In the '60s, '70s, yes, a case could be made for Israel being the underdog. In 2000, with Uncle Sam at the wheel? I don't think so.

Suicide bombings are an act of desperation. Yes, Israel's security concerns should be, and should have been taken seriously.

Getting rid of the Israeli settlements, thus giving the PA complete control over the West Bank, is sadly not going to happen. There are too many Israeli settlements. — Tzeentch

It's very difficult, but not impossible. I don't see why it cannot happen in principle.

A one state solution as of now, that would be much more difficult than removing the settlements, so far as I can see.

Moderates in Palestine? Yes, I believe there are many. Most people are interested in living a peaceful existence. I visited the West Bank in 2019, and that at least was my impression. — Tzeentch

This would be the ONLY hope. And the willingness to clamp down on radicals.

Suicide bombings are an act of desperation. — Tzeentch

I think that is a fallacy of necessity argument. No, suicide bombings and barbaric attacks (like Hamas just did) is not at all a necessary action. This brings up a larger argument, but I think it is cultural and contingent, and not a determined part of human or political behavior/action.

And thus my point here was:

I don't think that's true. In the 2000's Israel was far from the underdog. In the '60s, '70s, yes, a case could be made for Israel being the underdog. In 2000, with Uncle Sam at the wheel? I don't think so. — Tzeentch

Yes, so in those scenarios where Israel was the underdog, they acted in a way to get peace, not the opposite. Actually let's go further back even. Israel was willing to take these deals, all of which were denied by the Arabs (and Palestinians):

Peel Commission 1937 (Israel/Jews were underdogs but accepted this):


1947 UN Partition (Israel/Jews were underdogs but accepted this):

Yes, Israel's security concerns should be, and should have been taken seriously. — Tzeentch

Which is why strict 1967 borders have been seen as a concern (beyond just the settlement issue).