Based on history and looking long term I see three paths out:
1. South Africa / Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) where Palestine and Israel is united leading to an exodus of the former ethno-nationalist "managerial" class.
2. Two-state solution where an acceptance of each other is grown over generations.
3. Continuation of the current genocide of the Palestinian people until they are exterminated from their land. Leading to the isolation of Israel.
For Israel and the Israeli people the only palatable option should be 2, but they seem hellbent on 3 as per how Israeli people post here on HN and the actions of their democratically elected government.
If you had said in 1988 that The Troubles in Northern Ireland would have a peace accord ten years later no one would have believed you. Everything seemed at a complete stalemate, and there is a history going back hundreds of years. Yet in 1998 the Good Friday accords were signed. And now, almost 30 years later, I think we can safely say it's been a huge success.
There are a few things that made this possible. One important factor is the change of prime minister. Whereas Thatcher saw things only in terms of terrorists who need to be fought, John Major had more holistic view and recognised that in spite of the terrorism, there were some real structural problems that needed addressing. Even Ian Paisley admitted as much later in life, which would be roughly equivalent to Ben-Gvir admitting there is something to the Palestinian complaints.
I guess my point is there can be happy endings to these types of conflicts. No one wins with the current situation, certainly not Israel. Punching everyone around you in the face as a defensive strategy works fantastically well right up until the point you take a nap, at which point everyone will stomp on your head like it's a right watermelon.
I don't know that you can describe northern island as being a happy success story. The most you can say is it's stable which is a success in its own right.
You're right in drawing parallels between the two. But the ira seem to be far more pragmatic then the palestinians and for all their sins they never deliberately targeted women and children in the way organised palestinian terror does.
No because the IRA generally called in warnings. In both the 90s Manchester bombings there, people had 75-90 minutes to evacuate, they moved ~80,000 people each time and saw no fatalities. The warning for Warrington wasn't as effective.
Northern Ireland is absolutely a success. Having family that are from there it's utterly unrecognisable to what existed in the 70s and 80s. It's far from perfect but the difference to those on both sides who live there is vast.
Paramilitaries on both sides carried out many actions that killed women and children.
Nowhere near the scale of Hamas, and certainly nothing close to the magnitude of the IDF.
How did that Jewishness result? It didn't materialize out of thin air, but as a result of the Jews expelling the Arabs from their homes at gunpoint, bulldozing their homes, and then building over the rubble. That has been the bone of contention for 70 years now.
Most of the terrorist threat in the West is a result of Israel's meddling in the region and the atrocities that have to be committed to protect them. OBL said as much in his Letter to America.
The concentration of Jews was a direct result of a different process of concentrating Jews, specifically in camps.
And the expulsion and persecution of Jews from Arab countries and Iran.
Regardless of what timescale you use, the presence of Jews in the region predates both other main Abrahamic religions by necessity, as Jesus was himself a Jew.
We can complain about how badly Britain and other colonial powers carved up failing empires til the cows come home. India, Pakistan and Bangladesh certainly can have an opinion on the British Empire. And great swathes of Africa can point in any direction and be pointing at someone who screwed them over.
At some point, we have to deal with how the world is now. History is important to learn from, agreed, but unless it's a really think history textbook it's not saving you from a terrorist putting a 7.62mm-based hole in you, or feeding you pressure-cooked ball bearings.
Most of the terrorist threat to the West is from Islamic extremists, foreign (inc imported) and domestic, and to a lesser extent the opposite end of the horseshoe it emboldens. To blame Israel for global or even regional Islamic extremism is both ironic and myopic. It's also academic. No change Israel could make is going to stop the Muslim majority countries wanting Israel wiped out.
> Didnt the jewish concenteation result from decades of "soft" power that evicted palestinian civilians as outcasts? (And in return festered terrorism.)
To which you basically replied:
> But look how bad all the others are and terrorism is almost all islamic.
This ignorance dehumanises and keeps the violence going.
Israel cannot make confessions in a peace effort without acknowledging its decades of palestinian desintegration and apparently, the same is true for you.
You broke the site guidelines badly here. Please make your substantive points without personal attack in the future, no matter how wrong someone is or you feel they are.
Also, separately from the above, it looks like your account has been using HN primarily for political and nationalistic battle. That's not allowed here, and we ban accounts that do it, so please don't do this. Past explanations on this point: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme....
> A former Israeli army commander, Herzi Halevi, has confirmed that more than 200,000 Palestinians have been killed or injured in the war in Gaza, and that “not once” in the course of the conflict were military operations inhibited by legal advice.
> Halevi stepped down as chief of staff in March after leading the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) for the first 17 months of the war, which is now approaching its second anniversary.
> The retired general told a community meeting in southern Israel earlier this week that more than 10% of Gaza’s 2.2 million population had been killed or injured – “more than 200,000 people”. That estimate is notable as it is close to the current figures provided by Gaza’s health ministry, which Israeli officials have frequently dismissed as Hamas propaganda, though the ministry figures have been deemed reliable by international humanitarian agencies.
> Figures from a classified Israeli military intelligence database indicate five out of six Palestinians killed by Israeli forces in Gaza have been civilians, an extreme rate of slaughter rarely matched in recent decades of warfare.
Coupled with the fact that half of Gaza is under 18, there's really only one rational conclusion here... and it's one the IDF largely doesn't dispute any more.
What reputable contradictory estimate would you like to highlight?
Sorry, but moderators of this forum threaten to ban me if I keep commenting on political topics. So I can't respond to your comment where you provide "non hamas sources".
The obvious conclusion is that the IDF/Israel (nor independent analyses; https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-02009-8) doesn't meaningfully disagree with Hamas's numbers, and that makes it difficult for you to cite a conflicting much lower claim from them.
The longer you engage in "politics" commenting while citing "mods said no politics" as a reason you can't cite any sources, the clearer this conclusion becomes.
To be maximally fair to their argument, I think it is good to point out (not that it's the point that was made but that it's a good point to make) that 9,100 is a distinct departure from 0 when there are other numbers in the tens and hundreds. It's worth questioning the disparity and whether it's indicative of incorrect or misinterpreted data.
Not sure why I decided to comment specifically on what you posted given the fact that there are various levels of misinformation going on in this thread, but I guess yours is the most blunt.
Anyway read the article you linked to again, you completely misread it.
It's clearly documented that Mossad committed terror attacks against Jews across the Middle East to terrorize them into fleeing. Iraq, Egypt, etc. Zionist authorities had to bribe, maneuver and scheme to get many of these communities to make the journey. Not a conspiracy - you have actual Jews like Naeim Giladi who wrote, 'Ben-Gurion's Scandals: How the Haganah and the Mossad Eliminated Jews,' documenting these efforts.
For instance, Moroccan Sultan Mohammed V protected his country's Jewish population of over 250k instead of straight up handing them over the Nazi-aligned Vichy regime.
Throughout all these countries, the Arabs & other non-Jews had a tight grip on state power and could have exterminated the Jews anytime they wanted. So, why didn't they? Why did the population of Jews in those countries grow for centuries? Isn't that the argument online Zionists use to defend their genocide in Palestine?
Western normies always lick up the 'they expelled us, so we had to expel the Palestinians,' but, please, don't do it here. It's wrong at best, and outright immoral at worst.
I'm always fascinated by the framing of Zionists which your comment aligns well.
Palestine, or what remains of it Gaza and the West bank. Simply are resisting an foreign occupation/invasion. Modern Israel was created through the Balfour declaration.
To fight an invading force that is killing your people is very honourable, as old as tale.
It is recognised as an occupation by all British governments in the last two decades, recognised as genocide by Jewish scholars, ICC/ICJ. The only people that think otherwise is Israel and it's followers.
Further, there is no Hamas in the west bank yet we see gruesome killings of children there too.
Attempting to hide behind anti-Semitism no longer works.
Lastly, Israel has lost a new generation of young, infact it has educated them and their parents. Memories of Israel's horrible crimes will live on, and rightly the existence of Israel inside of Palestine will always be controversial.
> recognized as genocide by Jewish scholars, ICC/ICJ.
Neither the ICJ nor the ICC (not even the ICC prosecutor) has made any determination of genocide. The ICC prosecutor sought warrants on (and the ICC itself issued warrants on some and rejected other) various offenses that are typically means of genocide, but not on genocide itself, while the ICJ has allowed to a case to proceed charging genocide, but has made no determination that that took place.
There are other international institutions which have determined that genocide is occurring, but the ICC and ICJ are not among them.
That’s not to say that Israel isn’t committing genocide (it plainly is), but it doesn’t help to misrepresent where determinations about that have been made.
> Modern Israel was created through the Balfour declaration.
False. Israel was established on its own by winning its war for independence and you are part of the remnants that still have a problem with that.
I don't know if that is to your own detriment, in most case it is just the usual inferiority complex towards Jews, which basically forms the foundation of the phenomenon of antisemitism. But it certainly is to the detriment of Palestinians.
Disingenuous Zionist rabble. Read up on some other less-biased historical sources (even wikipedia would help here), and please refrain from espousing misinformation to support genocidal states. Israel has never fought or won their independence by themselves, they've had Western imperial support at virtually every step of their journey.
> Israel is a primarily Jewish country surrounded by neighbours who won't stop kicking each other regardless, and to whom Israel is a common enemy due to religion. Your analogy ignores the neighbours being racist sociopaths that will punch Israel at any opportunity and have done so historically repeatedly.
You make a good argument why a European people should not have established a country there. Doubly so considering it was already populated.
First, 60-70% of Israeli Jews are of Arabic descent, not European.
Second, while it's possible to complain about the circumstances of the creation of Israel, I'm not sure that doing so now, in context, offers anything constructive. It seems that by most reasonable definitions, Israel is a country, if a small one. Do you suggest that Israel be eradicated? If so, what happens to all the Israelis, who likely wouldn't be welcome in the area after the country's destruction? Is it any more justifiable to ethnically cleanse one group from the area than another?
I don't have an answer to this conflict, but it isn't clear to me that suggesting "this country shouldn't have existed at all" is an answer either.
And the endless recriminations continue. I can point out that Gaza was engineered to fail, and that every movement towards peace that Hamas has made since 2005 has been ignored, and things like that. But I'm fairly sure that would fall on deaf ears because those arguments have been made a million times by now, so I'll save both of us some time.
Both Palestinians and Israeli Jews have a long list of legitimate grievances, no doubt. The insistence that no, we are the ONLY ones with legitimate grievances is a major roadblock towards coming together. The refusal to recognise these grievances amounts to a refusal to recognise basic humanity and dignity of people, and is a catastrophic failure of empathy.
And yes, there are people on the Palestinian side who do this also, but they did not respond to my comment and you did.
> every movement towards peace that Hamas has made since 2005 has been ignored
What movement towards peace?
June 10, 2003 — Hamas co-founder Abdel Aziz al-Rantisi says in an interview with al-Jazeera: “By God, we will not leave one Jew in Palestine. We will fight them with all the strength we have. This is our land, not the Jews’.”
June 25, 2006 — Hamas militants enter Israel via a tunnel, disable a patrolling Israeli tank, kill two of its four-man crew, seize another crew member, Gilad Shalit, and drag him back to Gaza.
June 7, 2007 — Hamas wins a brief but bloody civil war against Palestinian Authority rule in the Gaza Strip and ousts all Fatah officials.
January 4, 2010 — For Hamas, power is more important than leadership, according to al–Ahram: “Here, we have to direct the following question to Hamas and its leaders: Is power more important to you than the suffering of the Palestinians which you claim to be concerned about? If the Palestinian people are suffering terribly, then relinquishing power, in fact merely returning the PA to the [Gaza] crossing points, is a small price to pay. If not, then this means that the [Hamas 2007] coup and capturing power is more important to you than that suffering.”
April 8, 2011 — “The Jews are the most despicable and contemptible nation to crawl upon the face of the Earth because they have displayed hostility to Allah,” former Hamas Culture Minister Atallah Abu Al-Subh says on Al-Aqsa Television.
December 8, 2012 — Less than three weeks after Pillar of Defense, the head of Hamas, Khaled Mashaal, marks the anniversary of Hamas’ founding by reiterating that the organization will never accept Israel and by calling for its elimination. Israel’s demise remains a core element of Hamas ideology and fervor.
May 5, 2014 — Mousa Abu Marzouk, the deputy chairman of Hamas’ politburo, says in Al-Monitor: “Hamas will never recognize Israel. This is a red line that cannot be crossed. We would have spared ourselves seven years of misery under the siege and two wars in 2008 and 2012 had we wanted to recognize Israel. … The al-Qassam Brigades’ weaponry is of national importance to confront the occupation. Hamas’ position in this regard is clear, and it will not allow any tampering with the brigades’ armament, under any circumstances, because it is a strategic asset for all Palestinians.
July 25, 2014 — Former head of Saudi intelligence Turki al-Faisal holds Hamas responsible for the bloodshed in the Gaza Strip because of its arrogance. He writes in the Saudi daily Asharq al-Awsat: “The knowledge that the people of Gaza would be subjected to a savage bloodshed and suffering should have put limits to Hamas’ arrogance, but it did not. Moreover, Hamas’ readiness to cause a huge amount of suffering before the inevitable return to a truce or a cease-fire clearly exposes the abyss of unconcern into which it has fallen.”
July 14, 2019 — “There are Jews everywhere. We must attack every Jew on planet Earth! We must slaughter and kill them, with Allah’s help,” Hamas politburo member Fathi Hammad says at a rally on the Israel-Gaza border, as quoted by the Gatestone Institute.
May 26, 2021 — “I’d like to use this opportunity to warn the Zionist occupation and its leaders. We support the eradication of Israel through armed jihad and struggle,” Yahya Sinwar says
It truly baffles me how you think it's a good idea to post a long one-sided list of grievances in response to a "there are legitimate grievances on all sides, but we must move past it" type post. Do you really think I will do anything other than laugh at the absurdity and ridiculous of such an action? You have wasted your time.
Please make your substantive points without personal attack and aggression. You've been doing this repeatedly lately, and it's not ok, regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are.
Do you think a Gish Gallop of tons of quotes is a good way of engaging? Their follow-up post is fine so no hard feelings. But critiquing someone dragging down the quality of the conversation after an attempt to raise the level is not a personal attack.
My post was not in response to "there are legitimate grievances on all sides," which I agree with.
But I cannot accept an off-hand suggestion that Hamas is in any way inclined towards peace with Israel. That is completely untrue, and I consider it dangerous to let that pass unanswered.
Falsely thinking that Hamas does want peace is an attitude that will not lead to peace, it will lead to more wars in the years to come.
That's something that the UK, Canada, and France all recognize, by the way. None of them want to see any role for Hamas in the future either.
You are, perhaps, not alone in thinking that Hamas has or has EVER had "peaceful" intentions, so I felt it called for a detailed justification why that was an incorrect position.
What's laughable, is to complain about "one-sided list of grievances" in a post on this issue. Have you seen any of the discussions on HN on this topic in the past two years?
Whether you believe them is another issue of course. But you need to at least try and no one ever did. After many years of refusing to talk to the IRA in the end the British government did, and that was key to the lasting peace. This was hugely controversial at the time and Major government lead talks in secret which were leaked. Lots of drama. But in the end it worked. In 1988 people could have said about the IRA what you're saying about Hamas (and they did). The Good Friday accord didn't even demand immediate disarmament by the way, but rather over time. There were plenty of violent hick-ups too (e.g. Real IRA).
And sure, long-term there is no future for Hamas – certainly not the paramilitary wing – just as there wasn't for the IRA. But Sinn Féin (IRA's political wing) still exists and that's okay. It's impossible to exclude Hamas from any and all negotiations in the short term because they're doing the fighting.
A pure military solution will never be the answer (well, except via genocide, which is hardly an "answer"). Even if one could kill every single Hamas member, you will just end up with a new Hamas-ng and we're back where we started. This is why you need to address some of the underlying injustices, which is that the British government did.
And that was my entire point. Everything may seem impossible and hopeless today. But so did things in 1988 NI. There are real challenges for sure, but the outlines of a solution are actually not all that complicated.
>> but they seem hellbent on 3 as per how Israeli people post here on HN and the actions of their democratically elected government.
Considering how many times Arabs started and lost wars against Israel, how many atrocities they did to Israel people it's not a surprise your #2 is not a popular option there.
Need to mention nothing can justify current levels of destruction in Gaza.
> In the context of war, what Israel is doing is not outside the norm.
"More children have died in three weeks in Gaza than in the entire sum of conflicts around the world in the past four years."
— Save the Children, October 2023
10,000 children were kidnapped from Ukraine and the Palestinians supporters here said they don't care/it's not worth caring about. This is political/theological, not a pure morality issue.
> As feared and as warned, the situation in Sudan has become fatal for a frighteningly large number of children. In reports UNICEF has received that cover the period from the start of the fighting until 25 April 2023, 190 children have been killed.
> The violations verified in the greatest numbers were the killing (4,676) and
maiming (7,291) of 11,967 children, the denial of humanitarian access (7,906
incidents), the recruitment and use of children (7,402) and the abduction of children
(4,573). The number of children detained for actual or alleged association with armed
groups including those which are currently under sanctions enacted by the Security
Council, or for national security reasons, surged to 3,018, further depriving children
of their rights. The highest numbers of grave violations were verified in Israel and the
Occupied Palestinian Territory (8,554), the Democratic Republic of the Congo
(4,043), Somalia (2,568), Nigeria (2,436) and Haiti (2,269). The sharpest percentage
increases in the number of violations were verified in Lebanon (545%), Mozambique
(525%), Haiti (490%), Ethiopia (235%) and Ukraine (105%).
(A preemptive note: These are verified cases; so the real numbers will be higher. In both conflicts, verifying every or even most cases is… tough.)
> At least 2,406 children have been killed or injured since the escalation of the war in Ukraine nearly 1,000 days ago, according to the latest available verified reports.
High-end estimate for Gaza (provided by hamas, a well known terrorist group): 64 000.
High-end for Mariupol (provided by Uppsala Conflict Data Program): 88 000.
When comparing numbers one should also compare high-end estimates vs. high-end estimates and conservative numbers vs. conservative numbers.
Having some difficulty establishing food infrastructure after WW2, in a situation where the whole continent is ravaged, is totally different from deliberately destroying an existing and working aid system.
The US didn't ALLOW aid in for starving children until mid 1946.
The US ORDERED extra food be destroyed.
The US intentionally used food rations as a political tool to shape/punish/reward/control the occupied population.
That isn't having difficulty getting food in due to conflict.
A working pre-war aid system is going to be different during an ACTIVE war that the aided peoples initiated, especially when the aid came via the people that they started the war with. In addition resources have been forced to be diverted by the war that Gaza's government started as that was takes up a lot of resources/funds that were previously available for other things during the prior peacetime.
Normally a government plans for food supply issues prior to starting a war with their neighbors. Especially when all food comes through said neighbor.
From your wiki link, the US Army forbade sharing rations and this led to incidents like destroying 20 lbs of cocoa at a time. By early 1946 foreign aid organizations were let in.
They weren't bulldozing entire cities a year after the Nazi government collapsed. It's totally incomparable to the hate and viciousness we see from the Israelis.
hamas still alive, shooting rockets at Israel and it's leadership is secure in the qatar/turkey. unlike nazi government that surrendered. this is after 80% of berlin was destroyed and hitler committed suicide
There were dead-ender Nazi partisans in Germany, too. The USA actually occupied/governed in good faith instead of just slaughtering civilians randomly.
What's the plan here? Kill 10% and the rest will start liking Israel?
What government? Do they collect taxes and run any government services? Is there a single standing government building?
Look, eventually the dust will settle on this and it will be clear how many people Israel killed and what little it accomplished. All the current rhetorical points are going to look extremely silly if not evil.
by that definition whatever uk, canada and australia recognized is not government either.
i am pretty sure that at end of 1944 you would have demanded allies to stop fighting and leave germany, because germany is pretty much finished, and whatever they are doing is extremely silly of not evil. battle of berlin was totally pointless, it only demolished 80% of city, killed 125k people in a couple of weeks and accomplished absolutely nothing. right ?
I think it's been pretty obvious for decades already that something like solution 3 is what will eventually happen. First two solutions would require compromise and sanity from both sides, which they are clearly not capable of. If roles were reversed, Palestinians would treat Israelis just as bad as Israelis are treating them now.
It's a sad conflict that can't be solved without some kind of superior external force, that would use extreme economic and military measures to make two sides tolerate each other. America is closest to that force, and they've chosen their side. Best Palestinians can hope for is a peaceful relocation somewhere else I'm afraid.
What happened in Rhodesia was very different from the situation in South Africa. Whites are still very influential (especially economically) in SA. Rhodesia -> Zimbabwe is maybe closer to French Algiers.
I have no skin in the game, but I will do that for you, if you bring back the children from the death. Can you do that? Let's start from the Nakba. Maybe even from last year.
No one is asking people to go back to Europe. All you have to do is Stop the Genocide, Repair. Reconcile. And stop the apartheid. But you know what, you have decided that Israel is untenable without war. Israel is of no use to the neo Imperialists, unless it keeps the region unstable.
Well majority of the white population in South Africa don’t have a home country to return to either. Afrikaans people moving to Australia, Britain or the US is not much different than forcing the Jewish people in Israel to go to those countries.
Besides that Apartheid South Africa is remarkably similar to Israel (of course the race part is entirely replaced by religion/culture making assimilation into the Israeli society actually somewhat feasible).
There is now even less hope for Palestine to ever become a country. These states try to keep this hope alive, despite it looking like it could justify terrorism like others see it.
A genocide doesn't happen. While we see a lot of death in wars and any death it too much, it isn't relevant in the grand scheme of things regarding population numbers.
Number 1 will never happen, it would end in a real genocide that does fit the term. Number 2 has become less likely and was rejected thoroughly in the past by Palestinians. Number 3 is actually Israel occupying Gaza for a long time and it will probably prompt a repeated aggression in the future. This is the most likely option for now.
Perhaps with Hamas ousted and the realization how much suffering their aggression did inflict, there can be peace in the future, that results in something like number 2.
2 million starved, 200,000 murdered or maimed, countless tortured, kidnapped, raped, districts and now cities raised. Never mind the decades of apartheid and similar acts of slaughter. Freedoms removed, and propoganda on a global scale.
There is no excuse for what Israel and the US have done. Not that there weren't wrongs by Hamas but there is no comparison at this point. It's repugnant that that argument is made and it's not something that will ever be forgotten.
> From POV of Israelies they gave Palestinians (2) and got a genocide in returns.
The one Israeli prime minister who was about to give the Palestinians (2) was killed by an Israeli
> Looking at Palestinians behavior they only want (1) that it's basically genocide for all Jewish Israelies. I guess it more complicated than you think
Wanting their land back does not imply wanting to exterminate its present occupants.
Quoting the one Israeli prime minister who was killed: "Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin used the phrase "less than a state" to describe his vision for a Palestinian entity during negotiations.
After Rabin was killed, there were offers that palestinians refused
actually, hamas took over gaza because of USA. Netanyahu had nothing to do with it. Small refresher on palestinian politics:
- 2006 Elections were general elections in Palestinian Autonomy
- Both Israel and PA were against elections because they were afraid that Hamas will win but USA forced it because "democracy shall prevail and will resolve everything"
- Hamas won general elections in Palestinian Autonomy in 2006 and assembled government chaired by ismail haniyeh as prime minister
- USA is shocked as "nobody saw it coming"
- USA trained Fatah to coup against legitimate Palestinian government
- Coup succeeded in west bank and failed in gaza in 2007
- During coup, Hamas killed, dragged behind bikes or threw from rooftops those that opposed it
- After coup, Hamas tortured into obedience or killed all remaining opposition
> - USA trained Fatah to coup against legitimate Palestinian government
>
> - Coup succeeded in west bank and failed in gaza in 2007
Adding more context here:
- The training was also provided by Egypt, and Israel
Now, let's go back a few years and tackle what happened before all that. Hamas did not recognize Israel under the Oslo accords, effectively saying if they were in power, the work done towards the accords would be in vain.
What was the accord about?
- "The internationally drafted road map calls for an end to Israeli-Palestinian violence, a freeze in Israeli settlement activity, and the creation of a Palestinian state."
israel allowed training. israel didn't train presidential guard. it would have been major scandal in Israel if something like this happened. quoting wiki
. At that point, the U.S. began to provide training in urban anti-terrorist techniques to members of the Presidential Guard, with the goal of strengthening Abbas's security forces. Egypt, Jordan, and Turkey also began to provide similar training for the Fatah forces, and Britain, Spain, and the European Union began to provide communications equipment, vehicles, and logistical support.
i am not even sure what exactly your second part of message meaning. unlike what OP said netanyahu wasn't PM at this timeframe. Ehud Olmert was, and he engaged in negotiations through his term till he resigned in 2008
The second part highlights the fear around Hamas winning the election. Having done so, the success of the accord was no longer in the hands of both Palestine and Israel. The accord would fail, given Hamas would be in power and showed no interest in following it and violence would prevail.
Apologies for being unclear in the first part, not the intention. Just wanted to point out Egypt was also involved, not just the US. The addition of Israel was for what you said, and there to try and be as neutral as possible (albeit I should have chosen my language better).
(as somebody who actually lived in Israel during that timeframe)
- PA/PLO didn't want hamas to win elections because they didn't want to loose power and money. It extremely corrupt and hamas victory was partly predicated on this
- Israel didn't want hamas to win elections because it didn't want terrorist organization running state.
When hamas did win, negotiations still continued up till the moment that Obama got elected and killed them [0]. When Ismail Haniye got nominated and voted in as PM there was long discussion in Israel that maybe from position of the power hamas will feel responsibility and will became more political and moderate. I remember countless discussions on tv how moderate Haniye is and if he will embrace oslo accords, recognize Israel, etc.
and if we are talking about oslo accords, there were badly wounded [1] by palestinian side by that time (think also second intifada) and everybody just wanted to get to finish line
Yep. To put it simply - just because Jewish people were driven out of their land in the past doesn’t mean it isn’t their land still. They’re the indigenous people of the entire region, to the extent one survives (Canaanites > Israelites > Jews). And it’s obvious - there are so many old Jewish ruins (like the temple the Al Aqsa mosque is literally built on) that are at least a thousand years older than when Islam was even invented (very recently - 7th century).
Why are all of Israel's prime ministers either first or second generation immigrants of European persuasion? If so much of the population is either local to Palestine or at least the Middle East in general, shouldn't that be reflected in the highest echelons of power?
Yair Lapid might be considered third generation as both him and his mother were born in Tel Aviv, while his father is Yugoslavian.
> Why are all of Israel's prime ministers either first or second generation immigrants of European persuasion? If so much of the population is either local to Palestine or at least the Middle East in general, shouldn't that be reflected in the highest echelons of power?
Are you seriously trying to imply that there's some conspiracy trying to lie about Israeli demographics? That's absurd. I'll assume you're not.
Anyone who goes to Israel can see the ratios pretty readily. Many Israelis are fairly "brown" and clearly of Middle Eastern descent. There's also about 2% of the population in Israel who are black Ethiopian Jews. No serious academics contest the numbers of Sephardic / Mizrahim expelled from Arab Muslim nations after 1948 either that I've read.
The Likud, the current ruling party in Israel, has strong Sephardic / Mizrahi base [1]. Yes, there is bias and discrimination in Israeli society. Israelis debate about these things all the time, including Arab Israelis.
Some commentators believe the Mizrahim vote more far right and tend to be pro the Gaza war because of the ethnic cleansing that their parents and grandparents endured from the Muslim states.
The Seohardic Jews and Mizrahim lived in largely Muslim countries for centuries after Islamic empires conquered most of the middle east starting with the Rashidun Caliphate. They and other non-Muslims were treated as second class citizens and forced to pay jizyah tax every year. It's arguable that the Mizrahim were economically and educationally more suppressed than their European cousins, well at least until WWII.
1. South Africa / Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) where Palestine and Israel is united leading to an exodus of the former ethno-nationalist "managerial" class.
2. Two-state solution where an acceptance of each other is grown over generations.
3. Continuation of the current genocide of the Palestinian people until they are exterminated from their land. Leading to the isolation of Israel.
For Israel and the Israeli people the only palatable option should be 2, but they seem hellbent on 3 as per how Israeli people post here on HN and the actions of their democratically elected government.