| 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. |
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.