[jrochkind1]

I think there are few if any post-WWII wars that works like your idealized model of war. Most of them have been very assymetric from the start, such that one state's population hardly has it's 'conditions' touched at all while another's way of life is completely destroyed -- but that doesn't mean the more powerful actor always 'wins'.

For instance, did the US 'lose' the Vietnam war, because the Vietnamese somehow made conditions in the U.S so horrible that the U.S. had to "agree to terms they would deem unfavorable before the war"? It just doesn't make sense to even try to frame it that way.

How about the U.S. in Iraq or Afghanistan, did one side 'win' because they made life so miserable for the other side that they were willing to accept conditions they would have seen as 'unfavorable' at the beginning? The question doesn't even make sense, it's got nothing to do with what happened. And indeed, it could be argued that the worse U.S. forces made the lives of Iraqis, the more resistance to U.S. forces there was, it got the U.S. no closer to 'victory' to immiserate Iraqis.

Let alone wars against 'internal enemies', which if you insist on framing the Israeli/Palestinian conflict as a war, it clearly is. Did hostilities between the UK government and the IRA cease because one side made the other so miserable they had to agree to terms they would have considered 'unfavorable' before? Again, it doesn't even make sense to frame it that way. If anything, the reverse, the Irish were no longer nearly as discriminated against or as subject to military occupation as they had been earlier in the conflict, and this in fact was pertinent in cessation of hostilities.

[omonra]

The war I am referring to is Israel's War of Independence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War - which the arabs lost.

Subsequent conflicts are simply an extension of the same one - one side's unwillingness to accept Israel's existence.

The territories in question are occupied because they were lost in the war of 1967. Had there not been that war (effectively started by the arab states), Israel would not have taken over the Egyptian / Jordanian lands (which never had a Palestinian state there).

[jrochkind1]

And meanwhile, what is it you actually want the actual people living in the occupied territories, 2, 3, 4 generations on, to actually DO? They should acquiesce to living without civil or human rights indefinitely, because some nation-states of the purported same ethnicity as them (which have never treated the Palestinians well either) lost a war 50 years ago? (it's debatable who 'started' that war, but it doesn't really matter)

People living under that kind of repression have always resisted, throughout history. Always will. You probably would too.

Anyway, this has nothing to do with the OP really, or HN.

[omonra]

Ok - that's a fair point.

Given that palestinians don't really have a functioning democracy, it's hard to say what the actual people 'can do'.

However - we can look at opinion polls for ideas. Right now majority of palestinians support waging a war with Israel:

"“A majority of 74 percent favors Hamas way of resisting occupation. … Furthermore, 56 percent favor the transfer of Hamas’ armed approach to the West Bank and 40 percent oppose that,” the center noted."

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/03/25/new-poll-shows-wh...

As long as that is the case, Israel will respond in kind. Look at what happened after Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza.

So when we talk about 'living under opression' we have to be mindful of the alternative which they continue to refuse.

For example here are details of the latest offer that was refused: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.645676

I fully accept that it's not an ideal solution for majority of Palestinians who would prefer Israel to disappear altogether.

PS I agree that this has nothing to do with OP or HN - but any discussion of Jews (or Holocaust) turns to 'but what about the Palestinians'. C'est la vie.

[jrochkind1]

> However, the Prime Minister's Office said the document was a U.S. proposal that Israel had never accepted. "At no point did Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu agree to withdraw to 1967 lines, divide Jerusalem or recognize the Palestinian right of return. That was and remains his position," Netanyahu's office told Yedioth Ahronoth. read more: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.645676

[omonra]

We're getting into the nitty-gritty of he said-she said, leaks, etc. Maybe after a secret proposal is rejected, Israelis can not admit having proposed those things (since in the next round of negotiations, that will be the starting position that must be improved on).

The point is that there are proposals put on the table regularly. They probably do not include all things Palestinians want (Jerusalem, right of return) - but they never will. So all they have is sitting with nothing in relative squalor while waiting for a city upon a hill.

Parent comment asked me what I would do in their shoes - I'd say 'Ok, fuck this, I'll take what I can and build a life out of it - because otherwise my grandchildren will live in the same conditions'.