Here are quite a few of those people:
This trope is constantly repeated as though it’s self-evident.
The Allies fought wars against Germany and Japan that killed millions of civilians, yet the German and Japanese people had no difficulty understanding what caused those wars, and no difficulty understanding that the Allies had no beef with ordinary German or Japanese people who rejected the values of the evil regimes that controlled their nations. By your reasoning, after WW2 there should have been ten times as many Nazi sympathizers in Germany.
Is your hypothesis that Palestinians are all already Hamas sympathizers who want to exterminate all Jews? If so then there is nothing to increase 10-fold, the situation is already hopeless. To the extent that they are (largely, I hope) not, then is your hypothesis that they are congenitally more stupid than (say) German and Japanese people, and are incapable of understanding that Hamas brought this horror upon them?
War is always horrific, but what is crucially important is what happens after Hamas is removed from power.
Excellent point, however the situation is a bit different. Israel is seen as an occupier and the Palestinians are acting in resistance to the occupier. A better comparison is to the displaced soldiers of Poland and France. They joined the allies and fought with them. They did not have the same attitude as resident Germans and Japanese.
Israel has brought this horror upon itself by not having an end game for defining it’s nation.
Has Palestine brought horror upon itself?
I thought the end game was to leave Gaza. It hasn’t gone well.
The US was very clear about it’s end game. Manifest destiny was openly pursued. Half of Mexico was stolen without blinking. Genocide of native Americans was public policy. The US openly defended it’s policies and it’s borders.
I’m not speaking for @Alessan, and I would probably use slightly different terminology here than he does, but I don’t think that follows. Let me elaborate.
First, I would say that there is a war that started on Oct 7, which was declared by Hamas, and which is being fought between Hamas and Israel. But this war is only part of the larger Arab-Israeli Conflict, which did start in 1947, and which is ongoing.
That hasn’t been a monolithic or unshifting conflcit. For example, it used to mostly involve Arab states attacking Israel, and now it mostly involves conflict with non-state actors. But it isn’t limited to a conflict with Hamas. For example, the Palestinian Authority participates in the larger conflict and even in the current war - Hamas fighters who are killed in the fighting, or on Oct 7, will earn their families payments from the PA.
Defeating Hamas and winning the current war with them will not magically resolve the wider conflict, and I don’t think that simply pointing this out is anti-peace. Destroying Hamas doesn’t solve the settler issue, doesn’t dry up the Martyr’s Fund, etc.
Bit destroying Hamas is a necessary step to take before we can continue to progress on other fronts.
I agree with you that true peace will require some policy changes on Israel’s part, and hope to see those occur once we finally have a new government.
It will also require radically different people with radically different priorities in charge of the Palestinian leadership. I know there are many Palestinians who would support peace and who just want to be left alone to live their lives in a Palestine adjacent to an Israel - they need to be represented by leaders who will work to bring that about.
I agree that destroying Hamas is a necessary part of any path towards peace. But ISTM that so is destroying the idea that Israel is at war with the Palestinians, as a people or a nation. What needs to happen is empowering those that are actually willing to negotiate and compromise for peace. That’s obviously easy to say, and incredibly hard to put into practice. Right now, it’s pretty clear the Israeli government doesn’t qualify (and, obviously, neither does Hamas). If Israelis continue to believe they’re at war with the Palestinians as a people, as opposed to at war with Hamas and other extremists, then how can they make peace (or for that matter, how could the Palestinians)?
Israel has a 20% dissident population. How will a few policy changes solve anything?
If you are referring to the 21% of Israelis who are ethnically Arab as “dissidents”, that is pretty racist and offensive.
Correct - and that has to come from the outside
OK - give me a better number.
What do you mean by “dissidents”? There are lots of Israeli Jews (and Arabs, of course) who disagree with the policies of their government.
Then my number is low.
I think that recognizing the fact that the Palestinian leadership is opposed to Israel to the point of armed hostility and that this needs to be remedied for Israel to be “at peace” with the Palestinian people is just recognizing reality. Again, I wouldn’t necessarily say we are ‘at war with the Palestinian people’ until we reach that point, but I think that’s just a matter of terminology, not a true difference.
Your number for what? I don’t understand what you’re trying to say. What do you mean by “dissidents”?
Israel has a serious domestic problem that it is not addressing. Eliminating Hamas will not have any impact on that issue.
I am confused too. Before this war my 90 year old grandma marched every weekend to protest the judicial reform bill. Is she a “dissident”?
Also, she is not an Israeli Arab, so I still find the fact that @Crane used the ethnically Arab percent of the population as his figure for “dissidents” to be highly offensive.
Based on the kill ratio in the West Bank, I’d say the Israeli leadership is opposed to the Palestinians to the point of armed hostility.
There are tons of barriers to peace, unfortunately. Hamas is definitely one of them. What are you talking about? Please be specific. You’ve been extremely vague.