[amritananda]

>Israel doesn't want to control Gaza. Israel want to coexist peacefully with it and has been willing to go very far and take risks to achieve that.

I think it's good to apply Mearsheimer's realist thinking here, and the intention is obviously clear that Israel does not want peace with Gaza as that would require recognition of a Palestinian state as the PLO had wanted since the 70s, which is a non-starter. Instead, as Israel has recognized, it is in its best interest to ethnically cleanse Gaza, either through outright murder of tens of thousands of civilians or rendering the strip uninhabitable to force the Gazans out. Many Gazans live in tents since their homes were destroyed by the Israeli military, and I doubt Israel will allow for any meaningful reconstruction once the war on Gaza is over, and will probably welcome the remaining Gazans fleeing the inhospitable conditions.

This will probably also open up space for new settlements in Gaza that many politicians have already started proposing.

You have to realize that most Israelis (~75%, and this figure includes Arabs) are in favour of the war, and IIRC half are in favour of expelling the Arabs altogether. I don't think we'd see much objection to this course of events within Israel itself.

>The fact that Jordan and Egypt has not seen a single attack after they stopped attacking Israel is well known.

It is interesting you mention this, because during the Israeli occupation of the Sinai penninsula in 1967, Egypt attempted to resolve the issue diplomatically, mediated by Gunnar Jarring. Their request was simply the Sinai in return for recognition of Israel and cessation of hostilities. Israel refused these conditions. Egypt eventually attacked in October 1973 and (much to Israel's surprise) was able to retake enough of the Sinai to call Israel's military domination into question. I think Rabin said that Egypt was enough of a threat that it needed to be neutralized, which is what the Camp David Accords did. It was literally through attacking Israel that Egypt was able to achieve the diplomatic solution it wanted from the start.

>Israel wanted Gaza to succeed and forcefully removed their own people

The Palestinians materially gained nothing from disengagement (in fact, they were blockaded and bombed during Cast Lead and Pillar of Defense despite the "disengagement"), but the Israelis were able to alleviate enough American pressure for a peace process that could potentially result in Palestinian statehood. Not to mention a costly military occupation could be stopped and Jewish settlements in one of the most densely populated regions of the world (i.e. a disaster waiting to happen) could be dismantled.

I don't think benevolence towards Gazans had any role in the decision for disengagement, considering the overall Israeli indifference towards the suffering of the Gazans.

[eitland]

> I think it's good to apply Mearsheimer's realist thinking here, and the intention is obviously clear that Israel does not want peace with Gaza

From what I see from my perspective:

Last time it was on the table the deal was so good PLO realized it could be forced into a real two state solution with peace and permanent borders.

At that time the PLO, not Israel, left the negotiating table without even a counteroffer.

For me, from all I see from the rhetoric, Arab organizations want all:

- right of return for them

- no compensation or right of return for Jews forced into Israel from surrounding areas

- no permanent borders and peace, they see it only as a first step

> as that would require recognition of a Palestinian state as the PLO had wanted since the 70s

Let's also for completeness include that PLO want to eradicate Israel, and are brazen enough to have it in their official charter.

[amritananda]

>Last time it was on the table the deal was so good PLO realized it could be forced into a real two state solution with peace and permanent borders.

This is not true. I am not interested in whatever labels the Israeli or Palestinians might ascribe to their agreements. There has never been an instance where the PLO was offered something that resembles a modern, economically and politically independent nation-state. The closest was in 2001 under Bill Clinton, but Israel refused the conditions set by Clinton while the PLO accepted them.

>Let's also for completeness include that PLO want to eradicate Israel, and are brazen enough to have it in their official charter.

Again, much like the Likud party's own charter, from a realist perspective this is irrelevant. What's relevant is what both parties are realistically capable of doing, and the balance of power clearly favours Israel.

[fvvybfbfbyg]

> ed, it is in its best interest to ethnically cleanse Gaza,

That was not Israel’s policy back in 2006. Hamas had zero interest in coexistence or the wellbeing (or lives) of the people living in Gaza. The current situation is a direct outcome of that.

I mean.. yes, if the only choice is between removing the entire population of Gaza and giving it back to Hamas it’s not that surprising that most Israeli’s are picking the first option.

[amritananda]

>Hamas had zero interest in coexistence

I don't think the evidence favors this conclusion. Their actions immediately following 2006 suggests they definitely had quite a bit of interest - they enforced a ceasefire after 2006 (also punishing other groups that attempted to break it), and according to former President Carter were willing to accept a 2-state solution if the Palestinians democratically approved it. This was all put on hold after Cast Lead, which aligns with the Israeli policy of denying a two-state solution.

The only piece of evidence I can think of that counters this is Hamas' charter, which IIRC calls for the creation of a Palestinian state in all of former Mandatory Palestine which would imply the destruction of Israel. But even then, based on the pragmatism demonstrated above (and the openness to a two-state solution), the Hamas leadership were rational enough to realize this goal could not be achieved.