We can exchange snippets from authors aligning with our views all day without making any progress at all.
I mean I quoted a fact; you quoted an opinion. Notice that as an avowed Zionist and Nakba apologist Benny Morris isn’t an unbiased actor here, so while his statements of fact do mean something as a historian his opinions mean jack shit.
Fact is: there won’t be the necessary trust from Palestinians towards actors such as the IDF for them to live under their rule - there won’t be the necessary trust of Israelis towards actors auch as Hamas for them to live under their rule.
Who said anything about either of that? In the event of a one-state solution, military apparatuses on both sides should be dismantled, in the same way militias stopped operating in post-Troubles Ireland.
As far as I can tell, we both stated something Morris said. I wouldn’t consider one thing a fact and the other a biased view, no matter which one. I wouldn’t consider both things “a fact” per se. But as I said, we can exchange those snippets all day long and won’t get anywhere, so I don’t see a point.
Who said anything about either of that?
Well, afaik, both Hamas and expansionist Israelis each think of a solution where they take over the entire other part, not of one where they equally cohabit in one common nation together.
Well, afaik, both Hamas and expansionist Israelis each think of a solution where they take over the entire other part, not of one where they equally cohabit in one common nation together.
I don’t think Hamas has been pitching itself as the future rulers of Palestine (they’re not anywhere near that delusional), but either way there’s no reason for us to accept either of those. If the international community gives Israel an ultimatum saying “equal rights for Palestinians now or no weapons” the whole problem will fix itself in a few election cycles as Israel is forced to accept and Palestinians are in no position to refuse the prospect of not being genocided.
I don’t think Hamas has been pitching itself as the future rulers of Palestine
They certainly were very keen on becoming rulers of Gaza at leaat and conveniently forgot to allow free elections ever after. Hamas has indeed a strong political agenda and their main goal is and was to destroy Israel.
If the international community gives Israel an ultimatum saying “equal rights for Palestinians now or no weapons” the whole problem will fix itself
Only if the international community can effectively exert the same pressure on actors such as Hamas. If only Israel is militarily weakened while Hamas can then resume their terror again, this absolutely won’t fly. This is why Hamas and/or their main goal would need to disappear, too.
They certainly were very keen on becoming rulers of Gaza at leaat and conveniently forgot to allow free elections ever after.
Hamas has agreed to peace conditions that would include letting go of Gaza more than once before, most recently in the Trump-brokered ceasefire. Not ruling Gaza has never been a deal-breaker for them.
Only if the international community can effectively exert the same pressure on actors such as Hamas.
Again the Troubles in Ireland are a good reference here. If the injustices cease groups such as Hamas will have no way of selling themselves to the people of Palestine, and if that doesn’t happen there are multiple ways of exerting pressure to stop them from doing anything too flashy, the most obvious of which would be threatening to arm Israel again.
Not ruling Gaza has never been a deal-breaker for them.
No, but disarming has. Giving up their rule in Gaza is one thing, but they’d also need to agree on disarming and effectively dissolving themselves. So far, I can’t see them make that step.
If the injustices cease groups such as Hamas will have no way of selling themselves to the people
The problem is that it already is an injustice for too many people on both sides that the other ones should have their own state. Here, the injustice for Hamas is the mere existence of Israel. The Good Friday Agreement includes both sides to acknowledge the other side, this would have to happen here as well.
I mean I quoted a fact; you quoted an opinion. Notice that as an avowed Zionist and Nakba apologist Benny Morris isn’t an unbiased actor here, so while his statements of fact do mean something as a historian his opinions mean jack shit.
Who said anything about either of that? In the event of a one-state solution, military apparatuses on both sides should be dismantled, in the same way militias stopped operating in post-Troubles Ireland.
As far as I can tell, we both stated something Morris said. I wouldn’t consider one thing a fact and the other a biased view, no matter which one. I wouldn’t consider both things “a fact” per se. But as I said, we can exchange those snippets all day long and won’t get anywhere, so I don’t see a point.
Well, afaik, both Hamas and expansionist Israelis each think of a solution where they take over the entire other part, not of one where they equally cohabit in one common nation together.
I don’t think Hamas has been pitching itself as the future rulers of Palestine (they’re not anywhere near that delusional), but either way there’s no reason for us to accept either of those. If the international community gives Israel an ultimatum saying “equal rights for Palestinians now or no weapons” the whole problem will fix itself in a few election cycles as Israel is forced to accept and Palestinians are in no position to refuse the prospect of not being genocided.
They certainly were very keen on becoming rulers of Gaza at leaat and conveniently forgot to allow free elections ever after. Hamas has indeed a strong political agenda and their main goal is and was to destroy Israel.
Only if the international community can effectively exert the same pressure on actors such as Hamas. If only Israel is militarily weakened while Hamas can then resume their terror again, this absolutely won’t fly. This is why Hamas and/or their main goal would need to disappear, too.
Hamas has agreed to peace conditions that would include letting go of Gaza more than once before, most recently in the Trump-brokered ceasefire. Not ruling Gaza has never been a deal-breaker for them.
Again the Troubles in Ireland are a good reference here. If the injustices cease groups such as Hamas will have no way of selling themselves to the people of Palestine, and if that doesn’t happen there are multiple ways of exerting pressure to stop them from doing anything too flashy, the most obvious of which would be threatening to arm Israel again.
No, but disarming has. Giving up their rule in Gaza is one thing, but they’d also need to agree on disarming and effectively dissolving themselves. So far, I can’t see them make that step.
The problem is that it already is an injustice for too many people on both sides that the other ones should have their own state. Here, the injustice for Hamas is the mere existence of Israel. The Good Friday Agreement includes both sides to acknowledge the other side, this would have to happen here as well.