(I'm not arguing that this position is correct, just trying to explain another possible perspective.)
And since both sides are "right", there is no way this can end without outside intervention. An intervention that won't come, becaues nobody who could intervene is neutral enough, nor willing to be drawn into this.
You can't be a successful politician in Palestine with a position of "lets make concessions to Israel so we can stop suffering." The only successful politicians for the past 60-odd years have been the ones promising to fight Israel and get the Palestinians their stuff back.
The problem is that Palestine as a state has no military, economic, cultural or geopolitical bargaining chips to get their stuff back.
That means every successful Palestinian politician is elected with a mandate to "get our stuff back" but without the means to do it. So they have two options: either make concessions to get some stuff back, or try to fight.
If they make concessions, they lose their grip on power to the groups saying "Those guys are giving away stuff to Israel! We'll get your stuff back!"
If they try to fight a conventional war they lose in a matter of weeks (evidently.) So their only option is to fight just enough that their constituents are convinced they're doing a good job, but not so much that Israel wipes them out. Hence, the 60-year history of terrorism and targeting civilians.
In conclusion:
Palestinians need to make concessions for peace so that they can accumulate the bargaining chips they need to get their stuff back from Israel. They are not doing that because the Palestinian people will not support any leaders that pursue that strategy; they believe violence is a viable means of getting their stuff back even though that has been factually incorrect for the past 60 years. It is possible that the geopolitical landscape may change in the future, and violence becomes a viable option, but wasting resources on fruitless wars does not help change it.
Therefore it is not true that both sides have very good reasons to do what they do.
The armed struggle hasn't done them any favours, yes. Neither has peace (Oslo).
> The problem is that Palestine as a state has no military, economic, cultural or geopolitical bargaining chips to get their stuff back.
Hamas agreed to 1967 borders back in 2017. PLO has long given up armed struggle.
> If they make concessions, they lose their grip on power to the groups saying "Those guys are giving away stuff to Israel! We'll get your stuff back!"
A typical racist characterisation.
Arab male or female is continually fair game to either poke fun at, or more seriously, be confined to and judged by a representation that is either inherently bad, angry, irrational or stupid, misogynistic or repressed, exotic or lascivious.
> So their only option is to fight just enough that their constituents are convinced they're doing a good job
You make it sound like Palestinians want war in perpetuity. Such a hateful rhetoric. How many Palestinians do you personally know?
> Palestinians need to make concessions for peace so that they can accumulate the bargaining chips they need to get their stuff back from Israel
Not so quick: https://www.972mag.com/trump-peace-plan-apartheid/
The peace was immediately undermined by groups who did not want to stop fighting. Look, the wikipedia article on the 1996 palestinian general election following the accords literally says, quote:
The Islamist Hamas, Fatah's main rival, refused to participate in the election; they felt that doing so would lend legitimacy to the PNA, which was created out of *what they called unacceptable negotiations and compromises with Israel.* [0]
This is well documented history, see above for one such example. I know there are people out there who think we actually have an obligation to alter historical facts to avoid coming to uncomfortable conclusions, but I am not interested in debating that view here, if an honest accounting of the facts makes me racist in your eyes, so be it.
> You make it sound like Palestinians want war in perpetuity. Such a hateful rhetoric.
Of course not, they want their stuff back. I'm pointing out that they have consistently chosen a way of going about it that is actually preventing them from getting what they want.
Again, this is based purely on the actual history of the past 60 years where every Palestinian government has reverted to allowing anti-Israel violence because the public will not allow criticism of the fight to get their stuff back. As an example, the PA of today had to walk back its criticism of Hamas' Oct 7 attack after public backlash [1]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Palestinian_general_elect...
[1] https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/abbas-appears-t...
Your mischaracterisation is racist. You may or may not be. I can't judge on back of just this one interaction.
> I know there are people out there who think we actually have an obligation to alter historical facts
Bill Clinton lamented Bibi's election, and called him out for specifically sabotaging the peace process after the initial unrest, once the parties were back at the negotiation table: https://foreignpolicy.com/2011/09/22/bill-clinton-netanyahu-...
> Of course not, they want their stuff back.
Who wouldn't? You make it sound like this is unreasonable. Last I checked, '67 borders, reparations, and a right of return for some small percentage of the refugees, and they are good?
> the PA of today had to walk back its criticism of Hamas' Oct 7 attack after public backlash
If one were in Pal shoes, pretty sure they'd hate an occupying force with all their might. This Haaretz article explains their possible psychological state after close to 3 decades of humiliation: https://archive.is/rLq02
I'm not saying Israel is blameless. But you must recall Bibi was literally elected because Palestinians began a wave of suicide bombings right before the Israeli elections, which swayed their electorate towards a hard-liner. I.e. the violent Palestinian groups could not be controlled by the peaceful-er ones, and their terrorism ended up being counter-productive.
> Who wouldn't? You make it sound like this is unreasonable.
I am making no value judgements about their goals. I am asserting that their method for achieving those goals is not rational insofar as it is counterproductive.
> pretty sure they'd hate an occupying force with all their might
Being really emotional doesn't make your decisions rational. I'm not telling Palestinians to love their enemies. I'm telling them to pick their battles and not take losing fights.
Agree, and his 2 decades led to apartheid, continued violation of Oslo, and flirting dangerously with the Temple Mount status quo... culminating in 7 Oct. Which is why I pointed out it was wrong to call out Pals as unreasonable and irrational (a typical stereotype, co-opted by the IDF https://archive.is/P4PyJ) when the fault is with both the sides.
(The Jordanian King shouldn't have endorsed Bibi at the time he did, which apparently tipped polls in his favour against Peres)
> asserting that their method for achieving those goals... I'm telling them to pick their battles and not take losing fights
True. The reason why Israeli far-right loves propping up Hamas. The extremists on the either side feed on each other. Remains to be seen what comes after the current situation. Sincerely hope 67 borders and it is done. Have a feeling West Bank and E Jerusalem settlers and their billionaire American donors won't like it.
Because Palestine has no bargaining chips, a peace deal will involve Israel making unilateral concessions to Palestine, i.e. charity. Israel will relinquish territory where it currently is the de-facto owner, and agree to put new limits on its treatment of the Palestinians. Palestine will continue to receive a great deal of international aid which it could use to rebuild quite quickly if at peace, and they could easily choose to rebuild into a more credible threat to Israel.
In exchange, Israel gets:
Maybe improved relations with their Arab neighbors. (It could also make things worse; their neighbors may become more openly hostile if their "arm the Palestinians against Israel" strategy is taken off the table)
Slightly improved international relations because the settlements Israel keeps would be legitimized.
Maybe a reduction in terrorism (assuming the Palestinian peace-making faction retains enough power to enforce this).
Maybe a reduction in defense costs (Israel still needs to maintain a large defense force because it is surrounded by potentially hostile countries).
Is that trade worth it for Israel? Its not obvious, and depends on how likely you think the positive outcomes are. This is reflected in their domestic politics, Israelis have supported both doves and hawks over the past 60 years depending on how likely they think a positive peace is, which largely depended on Palestinian behavior.
So while I don't think its worth assassinating people over, I do think reasonable people can come to different conclusions about the appropriateness of peace deals from the Israeli perspective.
Three ways how piece can be achieved here:
- side a is wiped out
- side b is wiped out
- both sides turn the other cheek and shake hands.
Both sides know that, and neither of them believe in cheeky business.
I really, really hope it will be tze "cheely" solution, the alternatives are, unfortunately, very much imaginable and incredibly painful and ugly.