[brentm]

The problem here though is what will ever give Israel confidence that Oct 7 will never happen again? We know that going after terrorists for years and killing them just creates more terrorists (Iraq, Afghanistan). The young children who do not end up dying of starvation will be men in 20 years, still in Gaza with no options to leave and resent Israel who they will consider to be effectively their jailer. The situation is just untenable. I don't like to think that the result of Oct 7 is a more open Gaza but I don't really know what other options Israel has.

Hamas obviously started this but Israel won the war a long time ago. The world deserves an end. The longer it goes on the more Hamas will actually have achieved some kind of lasting positive image of Gaza which is rooted in their actions on Oct 7th and that would be an incredibly bad outcome for all.

[prepend]

> what will ever give Israel confidence that Oct 7 will never happen again?

No Hamas in power? Seems like that would give pretty good confidence.

This reminds me of alternate history stories where Japan refused to surrender. The US demanded unconditional surrender in WW2. What would have happened if the axis refused. What would have made the allies confident that the war was over without German and Japanese unconditional surrender.

It seems like Hamas is not surrendering and Israel is demanding that. If Hamas surrendered and left power, would that appease Israel?

[cultofmetatron]

Hamas isn' in control of the west bank. That hasn't gone so well for the Palestinians either.

Google "Great March of Return" if you want to learn about what happenned when palestinians tried to protest peacefully.

[tguvot]

if you will read wikipage of great march of return, it will tell you that from first day it wasn't peaceful

[cultofmetatron]

well.. straight from the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018%E2%80%932019_Gaza_border_...

```

At least 189 Palestinians were killed between 30 March and 31 December 2018.[28]: 6 [29][30] An independent United Nations commission said that at least 29 out of the 189 killed were militants.[5] Israeli soldiers fired tear gas and live ammunition.[31] According to Robert Mardini, head of Middle East for the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), more than 13,000 Palestinians were wounded as of 19 June 2018. The majority were wounded severely, with some 1,400 struck by three to five bullets.[32] No Israelis were physically harmed from 30 March to 12 May, until one Israeli soldier was reported as slightly wounded on 14 May,[9] the day the protests peaked. The same day, 59 or 60 Palestinians were shot dead at twelve clash points along the border fence.[33]

```

yea, seems like it was the israelis who weren't peaceful. sorry if we're all starting to see a pattern.

edit: yes, 29 militants out of 189 killed and 130000 wounded. even at the most sympathetic take, Israelis come out looking like a bunch of sociopaths.

[tguvot]

29 killed militants in peaceful march of return ? you seems to be contradicting yourself.

you also seems to skipped the beginning of article. for example, day 1 of peaceful march of return:

Hundreds of young Palestinians, however, ignored warnings by the organizers and the Israeli military to avoid the border zone.[74] Some began throwing stones and Molotov cocktails, to which Israel responded by declaring the Gaza border zone a closed military zone and opening fire at them.[55] The events of the day were some of the most violent in recent years.[75] In one incident, two Palestinian gunmen approached the fence, armed with AK-47 assault rifles and hand grenades, and exchanged fire with IDF soldiers. They were killed and their bodies were recovered by the IDF.

[tguvot]

you need to improve your vibe quoting. article talks about 13,000 wounded, not 130,000. iirc, been impacted by tear gas is also "wounded".

but back to the point.

- do you still claim that it was "peaceful march of return" ?

- where do you think the "return" part of the march were leading and what would have happened there ? (just in case, in UN report on Oct 7 documented that in most of places civilians followed armed members of hamas/pij/pflp/etc and engaged in looting, killing (famously thai workers that their heads were chopped off by unarmed civilians with help of hoe) and kidnapping (later sold to hamas/etc)

[cess11]

Afterwards IDF soldiers bragged in the media about deliberately mutilating peaceful protestors.

Here's a clarifying table: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018%E2%80%932019_Gaza_border_...

As you can see it does not include "impacted by tear gas", but a thousand palestinians were harmed by having tear gas canisters shot at them. More than six thousand were maimed by gun fire, and as the numbers show, it was deliberate policy to harm rather than kill.

In comparison, as a measure of the supposed militancy from the palestinians, five israelis were injured and none were killed.

Palestinian refugees have a right to return to their land and homes. That's what the march was about.

[gmueckl]

I don't see why the result of a Hamas surrender wouldn't be a new organization with the same goals and methods. A surrender by itself is just a formality. But what is the real plan here? What would realistically come after that and how scary/brutal would it be?

[dlubarov]

Realistically, I think the plan is just reoccupation of Gaza. The military presence would make it harder for Hamas-like organizations to organize and assemble rockets etc. It might be something like pre-2005 Gaza.

[xg15]

And you think the children who's entire families were obliterated will simply forget that, only because Hamas was defeated?

[crote]

So who will be in power? You've got to remember that Hamas was democratically elected back in 2006, and its main rival Fatah isn't exactly pro-Israel either. Given the circumstances, I don't think there could possibly be a democratically elected government in Gaza which is pro-Israel or even neutral-Israel. Your only option is a puppet dictatorship government installed by Israel - but that's not really going to improve the situation, is it?

Besides, you've got to remember that a country is more than its government. What's going to stop its citizens from independently creating their own underground Hamas 2.0 terror group? What's going to stop the kids currently growing up and seeing their parents die due to Israeli actions from wanting revenge?

The situation is too far gone. Either Israel is going to learn how to live with the possibility of an attack (which is going to decrease over time as generations grow up who don't inherently hate Israel with every bone in their body for what it has done to them), or Israel is going to have to kill every single person in Gaza to make sure there's nobody left who could hate them. They should probably continue with Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt - because they all could attack Israel, after all...

France still has to live with the risk of Germany invading. It's fairly unlikely by now, but that risk exists. Germany has invaded multiple times in the not-too-distant past and done some pretty atrocious things while there. Germany still has a pretty large military, and I would be quite surprised if they didn't have some kind of invasion plan lying around in a drawer somewhere. Yet somehow, I don't think the average French citizen in 2025 loses any sleep over it. If they can live with the risk, why does Israel require absolutes?

[BrandoElFollito]

> , I don't think the average French citizen in 2025 loses any sleep over it. If they can live with the risk, why does Israel require absolutes?

No, we do not lose sleep about that. We have also been at war with England, Italy and Spain a lot. Especially England. We keep a close eye on them still that the Hastings battle is not forgotten.

But on the serious side, these concerns are so remote compared with the situation in Israel and Palestine. We do not have any territory claims with Germany. They have their land, we have ours. If you ask a random person in France about territoires we should get back, they would be really confused. The ones historically inclined would consider the 7th and 8th century and Charlemagne's lands.

I guess that this topic in the mind of Israelis and Palestinians is much, much more prevalent.

[bawolff]

In fairness here, germany and france have been at peace for something like 80 years, most of that a fairly friendly peace. The people who remember a time when Germany was the enemy are basically dead by now. 80 years buys a lot of by-gones

Hell, maybe Germany and Israel make a good comparison here. The jews who lived in mandatory palestine during WW2 were certainly afraid of Germany (and rightfully so), but i don't think Israel loses much sleep over the modern state of Germany.

[BrandoElFollito]

Yes, I totally agree. I wanted to make it clear that the analogy for France-Germany simply does not fly.

Our countries have been at war for two millennia (whatever "country" meant across the ages), like the rest of Europe. Then, after WWII, a tremendous effort was made to mend the relationship, and the really good idea was to involve the youth.

When I was a teenager in the 80s, those who had German as a foreign language (sometimes as the first foreign language, before English) had exchanges with peers in Germany (they were coming to us and living with us for a week, and then we were going to them). It was great.

30 years later, my son had the same exchange and I could look at the kids' behaviour more closely. They (the French and the Germans kids) decided to have a football match. I was sure that it would be a Germany vs France one. Not at all: they mixed up, with teams composed of pairs (local and foreign). It was a-ma-zing.

[nradov]

France no longer has to live with the risk of of a conventional invasion by Germany because France has nuclear weapons now and Germany does not. If a terrorist group was using German territory as a base to launch attacks against France and the German government refused to stop them then I'm pretty sure that France would retaliate kinetically, even if that meant some collateral damage. The USA did this in 2001 when Al Qaeda used Afghanistan as a base; France even assisted with that war.

Geography also matters. Israel is tiny compared to France. Israel has zero strategic depth and population centers could be overrun in a matter of hours if defenses failed. This tends to push their strategic planning towards absolutism. And to be clear I'm not trying to justify Israeli actions, just pointing out the strategic calculus at work and the difficulty of negotiating an agreement acceptable to both sides.

[xg15]

Israel also has nuclear weapons...

[nradov]

Yes, but those nuclear weapons are only a deterrent against other nation states. They aren't effective against Palestinian terrorist organizations, so they don't factor into the question of whether Israel should be willing to accept some significant ongoing risk of terrorist attacks.

[tptacek]

Hamas and Fatah are not comparable in their militancy (or, for that matter, their democratic legitimacy; that a plurality of Gazans are not old enough ever to have voted is not an accident on Hamas' part).

[DrNosferatu]

France no longer has to live with the risk of an invasion by Germany *because* the Allies stopped the cycle of violence by deciding to reconstruct Germany rather than erase her off the map.

That’s the reason why.

As abundantly mentioned already, the Palestinian survivors will remember and have their revenge someday.

…unless the plan is: “there will be no survivors”.

Have you noticed how shocking the above “plan” is? Events seem to closely align with it. A literal final solution. Equally shocking is how little people care about actual genocide, and - consequently - how normalized this is in practice.

The international community lets Israel get away with far too much.

[bluecheese452]

We don’t know this. There are several wealthy nations that have produced many terrorists and several poor nations that have produced none. The most famous terrorist in history was a wealthy man from a wealthy nation.

[giardini]

Whom do you refer to as "the most famous terrorist in history"?

[aspenmayer]

Considering that they mention his family wealth, I can only assume that they mean Osama bin Laden.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden

[bluecheese452]

Yep that is who I meant.

[nandomrumber]

Why do that? If you mean to say something, go ahead and say it.

[aspenmayer]

I knew with reasonable certainty who they were alluding to, so I didn’t read it as them being vague to be honest, more literary.

[bluecheese452]

No.

[ohdeargodno]

>what will ever give Israel confidence that Oct 7 will never happen again

Why are you asking "what will give the genocidal state confidence", and not bothering for a single second about what will give the hundred of thousands of permanently traumatised, hurt and dead Palestinians confidence that their genocidal neighbours will not do it again ?

>still in Gaza with no options to leave and resent Israel who they will consider to be effectively their jailer.

Which, yes, is the reason for October 7. Seems like oppressing a people (that already doesn't particularly like you for various reasons) has consequences. Unfortunately, these consequences land on civilians. Breeding the conditions for Hamas (and soon enough Hamas 2 provided the Gazan population isn't dead from famine within the next few months)

> I don't like to think that the result of Oct 7 is a more open Gaza but I don't really know what other options Israel has.

Why do you not enjoy the idea of giving a group independence and ownership over the land that has been theirs for centuries ?

>Hamas obviously started this but Israel won the war a long time ago.

Opening history books would tend to show that it started over 70 years ago with the forced resettlement of Palestinians already living within the protectorate (land already stolen from them), the colonization of Gaza, Golan heights, the nakba and the repeated offensives on Gaza and Cisjordania as well as the assassinations of multiple political leaders (both Palestinian and Israeli), but I guess the Israeli propaganda that Oct 7 started it all has taken root.

>The world deserves an end.

Your feelings about seeing this ongoing conflict doesn't really matter. Palestinians deserve an end to this suffering. The Israelis not supporting the ongoing genocide deserve an end to the conflict. The world has nothing to do with this.

>The longer it goes on the more Hamas will actually have achieved some kind of lasting positive image of Gaza which is rooted in their actions on Oct 7th and that would be an incredibly bad outcome for all.

You do realize that Hamas is getting a positive image despite being literal terrorists embezzling money and food from the Gaza population and establishing a dictatorship because the "only democracy in the middle east" is committing a genocide, right ? Genocide supported by the vast majority of the Israeli government, as well as the Knesset ?

This situation ends in two ways: either the Palestinians disappear, or Israel disappears. With their recent actions, they've ensured that a two state solution is impossible. Of course, the likelihood of Israel being destroyed is almost nil, so the only way this happens is a single state where both arabs and jews live equally and freely (and most likely under HEAVY international peacekeeping missions), but the ethnostate proponents are slightly iffy about this proposition.

[brentm]

> This situation ends in two ways: either the Palestinians disappear, or Israel disappears.

See this is the problem, that kind of thought is why Israel is comfortable allowing the people of Gaza to suffer indefinitely. Hamas and the people of Gaza have zero power in this situation. They can either bend over backwards and appease Israel to try to regain some trust and maybe at some point Israel will slowly loosen restrictions over them. Or Hamas and the people of Gaza can be defiant, say there is no room for both countries and then the obvious choice is for Israel to persecute them indefinitely because what else are they going to do? They are winning and they have that option right now.

Look I am not saying Israel has not done things here that appear from my perspective to be too much but Hamas brought this on Gaza. They murdered innocent people in their homes in a disgusting sneak attack and for that they have brought suffering on their people.

[ohdeargodno]

Bend over backwards to a country that tortured them and is committing a genocide against them? Would you have asked the Jews to bend over backwards to Nazi Germany to appease them?

You're not interested in discussing in good faith, pretending that this is only because of October 7. Hope you sleep soundly while tens of thousands of children die at the hand of a genocidal state.

[andriesm]

Not the original commentor, but outrage aside, what choices are there? Sometimes a problem isn't solved despite a solution existing. But in this case it's not clear to me that any real "solution" exists?

For Palestine: Either defiant resistance until extermination (or victory whatever it means) or bowing to a group one hates with every fiber of your being? No? Other alternatives? Alternatives they would be willing to accept? How do you even get concensus on such charged matters?

A lot of Palestinians are non-negotiable about wanting all Israelis gone from the region. And a lot of Israeli's may be willing to accept terrible solutions - terrible for the Palestinians. Some say genocide. But how do you choose between genocide or tolerating ongoing attacks?

Other solutions: Outside intervention. Outside world intervenes, but how and at what cost?

And for how long, and will it really be effective? And effective for which side? Is there a way to intervene without tipping the balance in favour of one side over the other? How to intervene in the most fair way to all sides? And is the cost and risk even worth it - unlikely?

I don't see how. I don't see any solutions. I have not heard of any viable solutions acceptable to majorities of populations on both sides, or even acceptable to most impartial outsiders.

Problem is not solved, because it is unsolvable. So it will end badly? Or continue as is for decades more.

I pasted this into Gemini trying to find solutions, the best I can come up with is a two state solution, involving land swaps to clear up the border, and then an international peace keeping force seperating them.

Exploring this solution reveals problems on both sides with proposed land swaps, suggesting basically that outsiders will have to ram a compromise solution down the throats of both sides - which to me sounds rather terrible.

[ImPostingOnHN]

> Exploring this solution reveals problems on both sides with proposed land swaps, suggesting basically that outsiders will have to ram a compromise solution down the throats of both sides

The point of land swaps is to seek an optimal solution, so all it requires for negotiation is israel and palestine starting from a mutually-acceptable (or mutually-unacceptable) set of lands, and swapping until either wants to stop. Not that it's necessarily the best way to do things.

Of course, it might require 3rd parties to arbitrate, which is totally reasonable, because there is not a consistent track record of each "side" treating the other "side" as absolute, inalienable equals, which is a prerequisite to equitable negotiation without intermediaries.

> how do you choose between genocide or tolerating ongoing attacks?

I don't understand how this is even a question. War crimes [and crimes against humanity] are always bad, wrong, and illegal, no matter how much one feels they're being attacked. There is simply no justification for them whatsoever, not even war crimes from "the other side". That's the point of them being war crimes: some crimes are so heinous that even "war" doesn't justify them.

[brentm]

> Would you have asked the Jews to bend over backwards to Nazi Germany to appease them?

The holocaust did not happen because Jews were sneaking into Berlin and murdering innocent people in their homes. When the current conflict begins in that way then the group who started it needs to beg for forgiveness, especially when that is their only card. Hamas is no match for Israel militarily and have no cards to play here. Their only options is to continue to make their people suffer and hope that somehow that leads to outside powers interjecting and changing their situation for the better. The best way to resolve this is to beg for forgiveness and internally remove Hamas from power. Hamas is the problem here, I'd like to think the average citizen of Gaza could find a way to live in peace with Israel if given the choice.

[ohdeargodno]

>The holocaust did not happen because Jews were sneaking into Berlin and murdering innocent people in their homes. When the current conflict begins in that way

At the risk of repeating myself: you're not interested in discussing in good faith and are pretending this all started because of Oct 7. But sure, let's play that game: Some jews did kill nazis in Berlin. Maybe even mistakenly killed their innocent wives. Collective punishment was the only option to respond to this behavior, and all the jews needed to suffer from the actions of some.

I don't believe that's a game you want to play, because that's straight up nazi propaganda. It coming from the mouth of an Israeli and targeting Palestinians does not make it any less nazi behavior.

[ImPostingOnHN]

you speak as if the bad part of the holocaust was the excuse, rather than the ethnic cleansing and genocide

by this logic, if only the nazis had provided an excuse acceptable to germans, like israel has provided one acceptable to israelis, the ethnic cleansing and genocide would have been ok

oh wait, they did, and it was the same excuses: 'the preservation of our ethnicity is more important than them'; 'they’re subhuman'; 'we must wipe them out for the good of our society'; etc; etc

so much for 'never again'