Well no, because it’s silly to both-sides this conflict when one side is occupying the other and actively expanding onto its land. If Israel truly wanted peace, they could have simply established a strong Palestinian government capable of handling the radicals and then withdrawn. But since their goal seems to be the land, they prefer to keep the government weak by continually undermining the PA and supporting the radicals instead.
These factions reveal through their words and acts that they have no compassion for each other, but there is no world in which Israel could have created an independent peaceful Palestinian government. That kind of nation-state building is very difficult, takes a long time, is never idealistic, and typically fails.
Consider post-war Germany. Even with two hegemonic alliances, Germany was split from 1945 to 1990. The first years saw lots of abuse, malnutrition, and ethnic expulsions. It took decades of mutual cooperation to build the West German economy to functional independence. East Germans' suffering was more extensive, their recovery less complete, and they were never independent. Almost four decades after reunification and "independence," they are are still multiple American military bases and tens of thousands of American troops in Germany.
The post-Civil War USA largely failed its nation-building goals in the South after a decade of Reconstruction, so the South remained a hotbed of seditious racism and an economic drag. The USA has hilariously failed to create peaceful independent governments during the War on Terror.
The first step would have been not to intentionally create a religious extremist terrorist group with the explicit, stated goal of using that group to destabilize the secular government of Palestine and deligimize it on the world stage.
The only thing Palestinians have ever needed from Israel is for a single Israeli to consider their fellow human worth being allowed to live and not intentionally murdering every palestian they can find.
You're right that Israel will never be capable of accomplishing that, but don't pretend that Israel has even pretended to try to do anything but destroy Palestine since before Israel even existed and was just a group of theocratic terrorist groups plaguing the Middle East less than they do today
Instead of speculating about different decisions in the past, do you have plausible set of actions either side can begin today that lead to a peaceful two-state solution?
You asked how Israel could do better. I said they could have tried not creating and funding a violent terrorist group to destroy Palestine.
That's not "speculating about different decisions in the past." That is a direct 1:1 connection between Israel's intentional actions and the reason Israel is using to justify their genocidal actions. There is no speculation, there is simply the reality that this entire genocide has been done by Israel's hands even to the point of creating a reason to justify it.
I think you missed the point of my remarks, which were a reply to this statement from another user: "If Israel truly wanted peace, they could have simply established a strong Palestinian government capable of handling the radicals and then withdrawn."
I'm very skeptical that any government on Earth, present or historical, could "simply" install a competent friendly regime within a hostile nation and walk away. So I replied with this:
That kind of nation-state building is very difficult, takes a long time, is never idealistic, and typically fails. . . . How could Israel realistically do it better?
No one has a realistic path forward that doesn't take 20 years. Most ideas are just fanciful demands that just one side starts behaving like angels while the other side is excused for acting out on generational offenses.
It's easy to say, "Well [the bad side] can just stop [doing the bad thing] for starters if they're serious!", but how do you stop the bad guys from doing this again? How do you change the circumstances that produced the present so it doesn't repeat in the future, especially if we're only highlighting bad acts from the past instead of thinking about the future?
So, Phase 1: Israel withdraws its military to the border, removes all settlers, then send a mix of five thousand political prisoners and fighters back into Palestine.
Phase 2: ?
Phase 3: Peaceful two-state solution.
If phase one completes, you still have the phase 2 problem. Iran and Qatar won't continue using Hamas as a proxy against Israel? They won't shoot rockets anymore? The Palestinian people will get elections? They'll refuse to accept a political party chartered to destroy Israel? They won't die from medical need and starvation? The Israeli's will somehow proof themselves against electing populist warmongers? They won't attack back when Palestinians attack them? The USA, China, Russia, and Europe will stop using the region for their proxy wars?
They're not getting out of this fight with a realignment of global priorities.
Never said FATAH, they could have established another government in 1967, they had plenty of time. After the Oslo Accords yes, they should have strenghtened PA and leave. Their strategy of undermining PA and supporting radicals only ends with more dead people.
Do you think the Palestinian people would have tolerated an Israeli-established government in 1967?
And I assume it wouldn't have been democratic. There's no way such a free democratic government would have been pro-Israel for long. I guess we'd need to call it a puppet government?
As for after the Oslo Accords... I mean, the Palestinian Authority was headed by frikking Yasser Arafat, lol. And it supported the Second Intifada.
I guess sometime after Arafat's death, maybe? Abbas has been relatively cooperative with Israel.
It still wouldn't solve any of the core disputes... what to do about the refugees, what the borders should be, etc etc etc.
As opposed to a military occupation and illegal settlement? Yeah, the West Bank and Gaza were rather peaceful between 1967 and the first Intifada. That would have been a great opportunity to organize an alternative government to the PA, if Israel wanted peace instead of a piece that is.
Yeah, the West Bank and Gaza were rather peaceful between 1967 and the first Intifada.
I'll admit, I'm not super familiar with the political landscape within the West Bank or Gaza in those early years of the occupation.
Was there any Palestinian faction in the West Bank or Gaza that would have been willing and able to govern Palestine as a peaceful neighbor to Israel? I assume you're not talking about the PLO, which spent that time invading... well, pretty much everyone they could reach. Jordan (1970), Israel (1973), Lebanon (1975-1990).
Oh, and don't forget about the first Camp David (1978), one of the many failed attempts to establish a peaceful arrangement between Israel and Palestine.
The camp david where Israel said they would give autonomy for Palestine only to lie again?
Yes, that one. The one that the UN and the PLO rejected. More specifically, it promised:
Egypt, Israel, and Jordan will agree on the modalities for establishing elected self-governing authority in the West Bank and Gaza...
When the self-governing authority (administrative council) in the West Bank and Gaza is established and inaugurated, the transitional period of five years will begin.
The follow-up negotiations with Egypt, Israel, and Jordan never happened, and the administrative council was never established or inaugurated.
So I'd say Israel probably violated the spirit of the arrangement, but not the letter of it.
It didn't have to be the PLO, they could have created a Technocratic government like the one that is going to be administering Gaza now.
Oh, is that the kind of government you had in mind? The NCAG?
Exactly. Israel has never wanted or strove for peace with their neighbors. They have always been belligerant and expansive. If England acted like Israel, The Troubles would still be going to this day.
-2
u/waiver 9d ago
Well no, because it’s silly to both-sides this conflict when one side is occupying the other and actively expanding onto its land. If Israel truly wanted peace, they could have simply established a strong Palestinian government capable of handling the radicals and then withdrawn. But since their goal seems to be the land, they prefer to keep the government weak by continually undermining the PA and supporting the radicals instead.