Quote (Handcuffs @ 16 Oct 2023 01:51)
I can understand why that imbalance may be seen. My hope was to lean heavily into the hypothetical in which Israel takes all levels of needed accountability, to include the very things you're describing in terms of leadership change. My anticipation is that there is nothing short of completely leaving the region that would make Hamas content.
The civilians of Palestine and Israel may be open to peace. The Israeli government and Hamas are the barriers to that peace. The Israeli government can at least be challenged and communicated with much more easily than Hamas can. I worry that there is no level of accountability short of the dissolution of the State of Israel that will get Hamas to stop. While I do think there's something to be said about reducing the conditions that funnels average Palestinians into Hamas, the reality is that Hamas is the strongest force in Gaza. Is the expectation that Palestinian civilians overthrow Hamas? Hamas seems highly violent against critics.
why? why not ask concrete and challenging questions about what would be required of israel? why just hand wave their side of the equation as a realistic hypothetical, while exclusively focusing on the
'impossible task of eradicating the 'terror gene', the completely unreasonable and entirely unfounded hatred, that is inherent to the evil sub-human nature of the palestinian' - which seems to be the only aspect worth addressing specifically when talking about a possible way out of this senseless violence?
(again my disclaimer: i'm not suggesting that's what YOU personally think or do, i'm just pointing out what's happening in general in this thread, how this whole debate is being framed - mostly due to one-sided pro-occupation propaganda and thinly veiled, racist notions).
but ok, let's approach your concern by just looking at the facts:
- the last time actual moderates were in charge in both camps, it was an ultra-orthodox jew who sabotaged peace by assassinating the moderate prime minister - after netanyahu spent months doing everything in his power to smear him and put a target on his back to interrupt the peace process
- it took the active intervention and support of netanyahu in order to legitimise and make hamas the dominant force in gaza, and to undermine fatah and more moderate voices
- unlike the palestinians, israel can hold actual, free elections - yet they CHOSE, or at the least did not reject, pro-occupation hardliners, who swore to never end their systemic violation of human rights as long as they are the elected leaders of their country
to me it looks like the whole "
the israelis are simply more moderate / more reasonable / more accountable and susceptible to international calls for peace and moderation" argument stands on very shaky grounds - and that is DESPITE the fact that they are not the ones suffering from an illegal occupation, from hunger and imprisonment, torture and violence on a daily basis.
they "only" have to deal with the occasional attack from some of their radicalised prisoners. that's still terrible of course, especially on an individual level, but i don't think it's even close if you had to decide which side has objectively more reasons to feel aggrieved, and therefore inclined to support more radical voices...
oh, and let's not forget WHY israel's leadership can be "communicated with much more easily": because they do everything in their power to prevent nations from establishing diplomatic relations with palestine, or acknowledging their existence. diplomatic availability is hardly a sign of good intentions or openness to reason in this case...
This post was edited by fender on Oct 15 2023 07:14pm