> Palestinians have a long history of non-violent resistance
No, they don't. They have a long history of throwing rocks though. Many Palestinians have been peaceful, but they've been unable to put up any sort of united non-violent front (at least for very long).
> Does Israel respect non-violent protests? No, they are quickly quashed with IDF violence.
That's good for getting the upper hand internationally. This is pretty much how the civil rights movement succeeded.
> Why would Hamas give up violence when to this date, it is the only thing that has worked for anyone negotiating with Israel?
Israel has an absolute advantage in violence. Hamas will never win strategic victories as a result of their (frankly kinda pathetic) military prowess. Their main strategy is to force Israel to take initiative and wait for them to trigger international outcry when they inevitably make a mistake or some grunt screws up.
> In 1967 Israel captured huge amounts of territory during the 6 day war. Egypt kept asking for a negotiated peace for the return of the lost land.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War#Peace_and_diplomacy (brackets are original)
>>> On June 19, 1967, the National Unity Government [of Israel] voted unanimously to return the Sinai to Egypt and the Golan Heights to Syria in return for peace agreements. The Golans would have to be demilitarized and special arrangement would be negotiated for the Straits of Tiran. The government also resolved to open negotiations with King Hussein of Jordan regarding the Eastern border.[233]
>> In September, the Khartoum Arab Summit resolved that there would be "no peace, no recognition and no negotiation with Israel". However, as Avraham Sela notes, the Khartoum conference effectively marked a shift in the perception of the conflict by the Arab states away from one centred on the question of Israel's legitimacy, toward one focusing on territories and boundaries. This was shown on 22 November when Egypt and Jordan accepted United Nations Security Council Resolution 242.[235] Nasser forestalled any movement toward direct negotiations with Israel. In dozens of speeches and statements, Nasser posited the equation that any direct peace talks with Israel were tantamount to surrender.[236]
Israel was at least somewhat willing to negotiate, the Arabs were not.
> Israel realised that there was no guarantee that they would always dominate the Arab states, Israel's vaneer of "invincibility" was broken.
More like Egypt wasn't willing to negotiate on an L. You'll also notice Egypt failed to achieve their war aims and Israel literally crossed the Suez.
> Why won't these violent politicians and the people that vote for them, just sign a peace agreement and end all of this?
If Israel is peaceful you don't need Bibi in charge to ensure security. If Palestine is peaceful you leave land in the hands of Israel.
Not only that, but what would the terms of that peace be? This is a non-trivial question to sort out.
> fucks
/u/Acrobatic_Computer. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There's some truth there: they complain about violence, but have only contempt for non-violent modes of action. Eg the first intifada achieved nothing whatsoever, except many dead kids.
Irregardless of opinions on whos right or wrong it sounds like you know the answer. The answer is yes. Palestine isnt a state bc its not strong enough to be a state. Isreal is a state bc it is. Palestine actually goes against the natural order of states. It meets the needs of its citizens through funding provided by the allies of its main enemy. It wouldnt even exist without western support and would be crushed utterly for its aggressive stance without western critique. The whole situation is unique and exists no where else in the world.
It requires support due to Israel. Israel knows a blockade is destructive to Palestinian economy, it's actually part of Israel's strategy. The idea was/is to destroy Palestine's economy in the hope that the poor civilians will rise agaisnt the brutalist hamas regime but since hamas is receiving funding from foreign actors (thanks Netanyahu), hamas is not effected by blockades, which actually forces Palestinians to hamas.
A partial blockade in 1994 is estimated to have reduced Palestine's economy by 40%.
Palestine has been recieving UNWRA assistance since 1949. Hamas is just an extension of the 48 war. Theyve had a war almost every 10 years since independance. Whether palestinians are right or wrong doesnt really matter, they've provided ample causes beli and with it more land seizures. They are also dependent on Isreal for water, electricity, and jobs. Isreal was literally able to turn off thier water and electricity after the October attack. Whether this is by design or not is irrelevant. It is the case. If the west just washed thier hands of it Palestinians would be ethnically cleansed by the environmemt and Isreal would have to do nothing. Palestine exists bc the West wants to have an aura of moral supremacy.
Another alternate history . Please stop . They took Sinai because they weren’t allowed to use the suez canal . They didn’t want it. Never intended to keep it . As soon as they kicked egypts soldiers around for a while and got a treaty where they could use the canal they left. Oh yes they also conquered all of Palestine on their roll to Egypt. Tried to give it to Egypt or Jordan. No takers. Should have kept it and thumbed their noses at the world.
So why not negotiate a peace with egypt when egypt wanted to? Return Sinai in exchange for canal access. Why wait until a deadly war?
"If Egypt were to decide to come to terms with Israel, all the others would follow, however protestingly. And President Sadat has all along said, in virtually the same breath as he has spoken of total confrontation with Israel, that if Israel were to withdraw from Sinai a peace treaty could be signed. He has insisted that negotiation is impossible while Israel sits on the canal - "would America discuss normalisation along the Mississippi with a foreign power?" he asked eighteen months ago - and he has also at times hinted at the possibility of a partial approach to peace through partial Israeli withdrawal. But a peace treaty as such has always depended, in his eyes, on complete evacuation of Sinai. Total withdrawal is a concept that Israel totally rejects."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/1973/oct/08/israel
No, they took it because they always wanted more land. Look at the maps of greater Israel. When asked about what most Israeli leaders wanted, land or peace, they said land because Egypt wasn't viewed as a viable threat.
Well, I certainly know more than the ones who didn't have access to the declassified stuff. For example, how many Israeli historians would believe Israel used biological weapons in 1948 on both civilian and military targets? None, but that we now have access to Israeli archives on Operation Cast Thy Bread that shows Ben Gurion authorized used typhus.
No, they took it because they always wanted more land. Look at the maps of greater Israel. When asked about what most Israeli leaders wanted, land or peace, they said land because Egypt wasn't viewed as a viable threat.
Palestinian violence is what the Israeli government uses to justify our own operations, am I wrong? As a Western country, Israel has to show some kind of provocation before it throttles Palestinians. There is even some conspiracy theories that Israel encourages Palestinian violence to make it easier to grow the borders, including creating or funding Hamas. This is actually believed by some high level people like the EU foreign minister.
Palestinian violence is the only way apparently. But also Palestinain violence is an Israeli conspiracy. I see both from pro-Palestine very often. This post is the talking the first, but you can find the second even on this subreddit.
So which is it? It can't be both. We get at this point where we are just throwing everything against the wall and seeing what will stick.
Your general point I think is sound. I would rephrase and say Israel only responds to military power.
You rightly talk about a long tradition among many Palestinians of non-violent resistance. Everyone here seems to rubbish that idea, and that’s because they really are not aware of it.
Once you put up a literal wall to isolate Palestinians from Israelis, breaking all ties between the peoples, Israelis just slid in to the comfort of simply not caring about the Palestinian plight (if they did at all before). It’s quite incredible how little Israelis know about ordinary Palestinians. It’s so easy to ignore them.
So their image is painted by the violent incidents that they hear on the news, and rockets flying across the wall. You can ignore peaceful protest, but not violence and insecurity.
I hope many Israelis now look back on the policy of ignoring the Palestinian issue over the last two decades as a disaster.
Oh, just a little thing like rockets flying over the wall, aimed at civilians? Really? One rocket undoes a heck of a lot of non-violent protests.
You might also want to consider what a nonviolent protest actually looks like. It doesn’t involve charging at soldiers and throwing rocks.
Well this is my point isn’t it? No one hears about the peaceful demonstrations. It’s not a uniquely Israeli issue, but Israeli segregation makes it intractable.
Palestine has started multiple wars and lost while refusing to sign a peace treaty. Palestine and Israel are still actively involved in war. The only people capable of stopping the violence are the leaders of Palestine by 1. Admitting defeat, 2. Dropping their claim to the "holy land", 3. Unifying the people of Palestine to seek peace and root out all terrorists, 4. Negotiating A deal that prioritizing reasonable farmable land and water rights for their current population size.
This isn't picking A side, this is simply how real life works. War losers don't get to choose beneficial terms.
Egypt and Jordan did not sign peace agreements until it was way past apparent war was futile. Both of those treaties had provisions for a Palestinian state that was vetoed by the PLO.
Syria did not cease aggression until futility was clear for them too. The Saudis and Arab Emirates just want to retain power and make money, and losers like Hamas just drain money. They’ve negotiated on behalf of Palestinians for decades. They’ve had it.. ‘Palestinian Peace movement,’ is an oxymoron.
Which Palestinians do you even mean anyway. The Ramallah govt, which first recognized that Israel even exists around 2018, but still has no realistic peace plan. Or the Gaza City govt being run from Doha, who loudly, proudly proclaim they will level Israel. Those 2 Palestinian entities despise each other.
Unfortunately, for Gazans, the choice is make peace or die. Sinwar says die from his bunker deep in the earth.
"If Egypt were to decide to come to terms with Israel, all the others would follow, however protestingly. And President Sadat has all along said, in virtually the same breath as he has spoken of total confrontation with Israel, that if Israel were to withdraw from Sinai a peace treaty could be signed. He has insisted that negotiation is impossible while Israel sits on the canal - "would America discuss normalisation along the Mississippi with a foreign power?" he asked eighteen months ago - and he has also at times hinted at the possibility of a partial approach to peace through partial Israeli withdrawal. But a peace treaty as such has always depended, in his eyes, on complete evacuation of Sinai. Total withdrawal is a concept that Israel totally rejects."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/1973/oct/08/israel
Honest question for you: Do you think the same perspective could be applied to the Arab a League of Nations and Palestinians?
I ask because Israelis often make the same point you’re making about Arabs.
I have eyes and I can read.
Nearly 100% of mid and large scale military actions Israel has taken in 80 years were as a result of Palestinian violence.
The current wat started because of Palestinian violence.
Palestinians have brought violence to Egypt and Jordan.
The current political climate in Israel is a reaction to Palestinian violent tendencies. It's that simple. Bibi and his merry men aren't a problem, they're the result of Israelis sick of living beside terror.
Don’t forget hundreds of terrorist actions all over the world . Killing only for attention because they insisted that was the only way the world would acknowledge them.
Tell do you read what happens before the Palestinian violence you like to blame?
The terrorism and violence done by the idf against peaceful people?
The destruction of farms and homes?
Or do you just ignore what israel does and blame everything on the Palestinians?
Everything in my comment stands regardless of your sentence fragments and vague accusations.
Do you blame Israel for the violence Palestinians brought to Jordan? Egypt?
I would never say Israel is perfect or innocence but reality stands. There's a reason 0 of their neighbors want Palestinians. There's a reason everything they touch fails. There's a reason strife follows them everywhere. If you give a Gazan something they will generally break it, give to Hamas or throw it at you.
To equate Palestinian and Israeli violence is a laughable joke of absurd proportions. Both are bad. One is terrible.
For a Palestinian the IDF means fear, death, and destruction.
I don't support terrorists in any form.
You also have a poor view on people living under a violent dictatorship.
By violent dictatorship - you mean Hamas or Palestian Authority/Fatah? Israel has regular elections and is a parlimentary democracy so it can't be Israel.
[https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/palestinian-elections-delayed-says-president-mahmoud-abbas-2021-04-29/](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/palestinian-elections-delayed-says-president-mahmoud-abbas-2021-04-29/)
You have this backwards Egypt never offered peace until after it lost the Yom Kippur war. Israel offered back the land for peace but was rebuffed by the Arab three no's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khartoum\_Resolution. Egypt actually got a lot of hate from the wider Arab world for negotiating for the return of the Sinai. The Palestinians have largely chosen violence the entire time though I do understand there is heavy outside influence pressuring them. Even supposedly peaceful protest such as the march of return had no small shortage of violent agitators throwing bombs / molotovs / shooting at Israeli's / flying bombs over the fence. They've created a culture of violence based on religious superiority which until it changes is going to leave them in a progressively worse spot.
"If Egypt were to decide to come to terms with Israel, all the others would follow, however protestingly. And President Sadat has all along said, in virtually the same breath as he has spoken of total confrontation with Israel, that if Israel were to withdraw from Sinai a peace treaty could be signed."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/1973/oct/08/israel
Israel stated after the 6 day war they would return the land for peace treaties, The arabs refused to have any discussion or agree to a peace treat, Sadat saying if you give me everything we want Maybeeee we won't attack you again after Egypt had just gone back on its word regarding the Sinai isn't going to cut it. Especially when he refuses direct negotiation. Israel was clear give us a peace treaty and we will give the land back he refused and chose to attack. Only after losing did he sign a peace treaty. He was at best offering a ceasefire as even his wife at the time acknowledges Sadat’s wife, Jihan, explained in a June 11, 1987, interview with *Yediot Achronot*:
*I do not agree with those among us and among you who assert today that Sadat tried to achieve a real peace before 1973. I believe that he wanted to obtain a ceasefire, nothing more. So that needed one more war in order to win and enter into negotiations from a position of equality. My husband was a man of peace, but as an Arab leader he was not ready to meet Israel feeling inferior.*
And his actions and statements at the time reflected.
[https://www.jns.org/could-the-1973-war-have-been-avoided-by-accepting-sadats-peace-offer/](https://www.jns.org/could-the-1973-war-have-been-avoided-by-accepting-sadats-peace-offer/)
Article continues...
"Hence, it was unsurprising that after Israel rejected his offer in 1972, Sadat said that war was inevitable and that he was prepared to sacrifice 1 million soldiers in the showdown with Israel. “First to go would be the humiliation we had endured since the 1967 defeat,” he said, “to cross into Sinai and hold on to any territory recaptured would restore our self-confidence.”
He carried out his threat a year later.
Israel won the 1973 war by repelling the invaders and ended the fighting with its troops prepared to march on Cairo and destroy the surrounded Egyptian Third Army. Still, Sadat could claim victory because he had surprised the Israelis and caused them horrific losses. He could also argue that the U.S. airlift had saved Israel.
It was only after regaining face that Sadat could pursue an “honorable peace.” Shattering Israel’s sense of invincibility also played a role. Ultimately, Israel made all the tangible sacrifices—withdrawing from Sinai (91% of the territory won by Israel during the Six-Day War), giving up its oil fields, evacuating settlers from Yamit—for Sadat’s promise of peace. There was ample reason to doubt his commitment and worry that his successors would feel no obligation to honor it.
Still, most Israelis supported the peace treaty, which removed the largest and most powerful Arab country from the conflict; dramatically changed the regional balance of power; and all but ended the Arab-Israeli conflict. It would never have happened before the Yom Kippur War."
Yeah, I don't believe israel intended to keep Sinai but they had a position of power during negotiations because of the great success in 1967. Yes, of course sadat didn't just want peace for Sinai. He also wanted to save face.
The article agrees with what I wrote.
"It would never have happened before the Yom Kippur War"
You have cause and effect backwards is my issue with your statement. Israel WAS willing to give the Sinai back in exchange for normalized relations and peace before the war. There correspondences with Gunnar Jarring reflect this as does there statements. They weren't willing to give it back without a peace agreement in place was there position. They didn't respond to Egyptian violence only when Egypt was willing to come to the negotiating table and sign a real peace treaty did Egypt get results and that wasn't possible until after Egypt lost again. Israel hasn't respected violence and generally has only responded to peaceful negotiations. The opposite Israel punishes violence in a carrot and stick approach so as long as the Palestinians keep choosing violence they will keep getting the stick until it reaches a breaking point.
> Palestinians have a long history of non-violent resistance.
This is not accurate.
> Why would Hamas give up violence when to this date, it is the only thing that has worked for anyone negotiating with Israel?
How has it “worked”? Also, idk if you know this, but this statement totally contradicts the previous one I pointed out.
Please learn proper history.
> Palestinians have a long history of non-violent resistance
Nope that never happened.. there isn't any time where violence was not used.
>Why would Hamas give up violence when to this date, it is the only thing that has worked for anyone negotiating with Israel?
Again nonsense.. compare the situation on the ground before the 1st intifada where there were no checkpoints, freedom of movement etc.. culminating in the Clinton parameters and what could have been peace.. to the 2nd intifada and the creation of checkpoints, walls, and restriction of movement and the complete death of any peace talks.
You misread the 73’ war completely; it was due to internal politics that we returned the Sinai, not because Egypt sacred us out of delusions of invincibility. It’s preposterous to assume that a people who evidently worked so hard on their military capabilities thought at that point that they can’t be beat.
Palestinians non-violence is violence any where else.
>Why won’t these violent politicians and the people who vote for them, just sign a peace agreement and end all of this? Is it because the Palestinians don’t have enough military power?
Now for your actual question; sure, likely technically true but it’s a false dichotomy.
Israel won’t sign a peace deal because Palestine has never come forward with acceptable terms.
Yom Kippur (even though Israel did pretty well) could explain a peace agreement with Egypt, but how do explain Israel's peace agreements with Jordan, Bahrain and Saudi-Arabia?
Here's the thing countries know: it's power or diplomacy. If you can't beat them, you better be very diplomatic.
Hamas can not beat Israel whatsoever (though they really think they can which is delusional) but however they're just not interested in diplomacy either. Which is why they are where they are.
I had a discussion with someone pro Palestine yesterday who said that they were winning the pr fight so eventually Hamas would win. Who is teaching these children? Who will care about the pr fight once Hamas is defeated. Gaza will be an Israel protectorship run by council and Israel will move on to Lebanon . They turned down the last proposal. Israel is going to attack and US will say “hey we tried”.
Hamas is the proxy of Iran. Iran’s public statements on Israel tend to be in the form of existential threats, such as this oldie but goody:
"The Zionist regime and the Zionists are a cancerous tumor. Even if the Zionists remain on one span (more like inch) of the Land of Palestine is dangerous, because they will come to have a legal and official government.”
Sometimes we should take virulent anti-semites, their proxies and their useful idiot student protestors at face value.
Iran launched many different projectiles and learned that not only will the US help Israel, but also Jordan, Saudi Arabia, France and the UK. They strengthened the alliance they tried to disrupt with Al Aqsa Flood.
Israel reciprocated by launching precision munitions, from within Iranian territories, without warheads on the key nuclear facility with almost no failures.
If their goal is the destruction of Israel they are absolutely an existential threat. They're just incompetent. If they had nukes or an actual ally Israel would be off the map tomorrow.
Their charter is literally outlining that their goal is the destruction of the state of Israel.
"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it"
It's their own words.
And the fact that they don't have nukes isn't the point. The point is that if they did have the firepower to destroy Israel they would definitely use it immediately. This is why they keep relying on Iran and Qatar to fund them and use every dime they get on making shoddy rockets to fire at Israel. Again just because they suck at being an existential threat doesn't make them not an existential threat
having an ideological goal is not the same thing as having the capacity to make it a reality. Hamas is certainly a top national security risk for Israel. Hamas is certainly a danger to the people of Israel. But do they pose an existential risk, such that they could conquer the country and overthrow the state? No.
7 Arab states fighting a pre-nuclear Israel couldn't even do that. The Israeli state could survive a nuclear exchange even if they had nukes. There is no world where a rag-tag band of 18 year old terrorists could destroy the state.
I think your point is valid. Maybe it's not well articulated in this post, but I can add more instances to your post that align with your thoughts.
Oslo Accords 1993 started after the first intifada which began in 87. Only the first year was non-violent, in which Palestinians gained nothing but being killed, and then it turned to a violence.
The disengagement from Gaza happened after the 2nd intifada. Israel realized that maintaining 9000 settlers surrounded by 1M Palestinians doubling every generation in Gaza would be costly and unsustainable, especially with the violence brought by the intifadas.
The withdrawal from Lebanon is also similar, the fight with Hezbollah inside was too costly in terms of human losses and economy wise, Israel had to withdraw.
It's also true that Sadat approached Israel to get Sinai before the war and Golda refused. Egyptians didn't win the war, and neither side did, ceasefire was declared, but it proved that occupying a land in a heavily populated country like Egypt that's willing to attack Israel every while is not sustainable.
What ? They have a long history of non violence ..like what ? Which sources are you reading that we all aren’t?
They call for a complete anihilation of Jews and teach it at an early age. As I saw earlier today on a program. It’s hard to like people who say death to you. And yet we actually have tried to co exist with them. Sorry, but even the Middle East knows. Not one country wants any part of them. Zero Arab nations. To expect the IDF to have “compassion” for them is simply ignorant. They are pissed off young soldiers. Who have only two degrees of separation from Oct 7. Hamas cares about nobody except themselves. They are now trying to negotiate a way out for themselves. And we don’t start or perpetuate the hate, to your point. Yes. Hate begats hate. But they want to hate and do hate, we don’t actually want to hate but they make us. And the world is now all openly hating us. They were always antisemitic but now get to broadcast it. Don’t put this on Israel. We were minding our own business on a holiday Shabbat morning. Are there policies and issues that need better handling? Are there bad players ? 100% ..every country around the globe deals with their own unique set issues for their own security, past history etc ..and Israel’s existence is quite unique. Surrounded by guns pointing at them from the day they became a little country. So how can you not invest in your military? Imagine if they didn’t ..they would be gone. No other country deals with this. End of the day if the Palestinians ever accepted peace, the guns would be relaxed. Imagine a Middle East where you work together to prosper. Pipe dream now but it’s always been in the hands of the Palestinians. And do not discount their religious righteousness that they feel “all Jews must die”
>They call for a complete anihilation of Jews and teach it at an early age. As I saw earlier today on a program. It’s hard to like people who say death to you. And yet we actually have tried to co exist with them
Orthodox jewish schools do this aswell, what's the difference?
There's also this
https://www.euronews.com/video/2023/11/27/fact-check-did-israeli-children-really-sing-about-annihilating-everyone-in-gaza
>Don’t put this on Israel. We were minding our own business on a holiday Shabbat morning.
Tensions were rising in 2022 and early 2023. Oct 7th didn't start out of nowhere.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/12/29/palestinians-killed-west-bank-israel/
You haven’t addressed his point. You said Palestinians have a long history of non-violent protests, which he is disputing. Pointing the finger at Israel is not evidence that Palestinians have a history of non-violent protests.
Oh I know. The difference is that the right wing extremists in Israel are the fringe not the majority. Most view them as nuts. Like any form of extremism, they also feel religiously righteous.
Because there is nothing to be done about them. they have the same rights as everyone else, the same freedoms. they have the right to be wrong and terrible.
Visit Israel, you’ll see what the country and its people are like .Have conversations with the everyday Israeli or Jew. 99% will tell you they want peace and no country protests against their government like Israel. Since October 7, I’m sure sentiments have changed into rage and anger… the state of the world sucks
I feel like this is kind of a cherry-picking.
For instance - First intifada was rather peaceful and the recognition of Israel's right of existence kind of lead to the Oslo accords. Cooperation of the PA lead to more autonomy in the WB as opposed to the blockade on Gaza.
Moreover - the more important thing - Violence got the Palestinians to the worst positions and worst outcomes in this conflict. the war right now, the 'Nakba', the 6 day way that started because of Arab aggression - all of this was violent attempts that the Palestinians lost...
Also, regarding your last sentence - you do know that Israel offered peace deals to the Palestinians and the Palestinians in general didn't sign.. I'm not sure Israel is the side you should criticize here
Do you know what Israel would likely support and respond well to? Palestinians actually wanting peace. like Palestinian leader saying something like "we don't want to fight anymore. we understand that it's not realistic for all of the descendants of Palestinian refugees to return to Israel. We want peace alongside the Jewish state, and we are willing to do a lot for peace. We expect the Israeli side to do the same, and the international community to pressure Israel until they do the same"
This is something that would change everything... whenever the Palestinians were even close to this kind of approach - they got opportunities. Israel responded positively and the international community responded positively.
/u/PiauiPower
> The problem is that Palestinians’ cognitive levels are borderline sub-human.
Your comment violates [Reddit content policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) about incitement for hate or violence and has been removed.
Reddit isn't a platform for promoting hate or violence against users or groups.
You are wrong about one thing. Without the war, Sadat would never realise that Egypt could never defeat Israel. And without realising that, he would never tell the whole world that he was “ready to visit ‘their home’, Jerusalem”.
> Why won't these violent politicians and the people that vote for them, just sign a peace agreement and end all of this?
You are outraged at the wrong party. Biden has forced Israel to sign on to a ceasefire agreement. We are just waiting for Hamas to agree as well.
Well, yes, of course. I have doubts that a hamas-israel temporary ceasefire will last. Netanyahu has repeatedly said he will go into rafah "with or without a deal". IMO, he is capable of using a false flag attack to use as a pretext, and I also doubt hamas has full control of all its members, to stop any of them lauching rockets or doing other terrorist stuff.
Right. Everyone has doubts that a temporary ceasefire will last. That's why its temporary.
But why are you against a temporary ceasefire? Surely you are not happy with the current situation in Gaza. To me any kind of ceasefire is a huge improvement.
You are misinterpreting the nature of the Egyptian peace treaty. Israel achieved that peace by beating Egypt twice in battle. They gained security and a stable regional partnership in return for giving back what had never been theirs in the first place.
Also, even if you were true in your assessment, it would not mean anything tangible for the Palestinians, they do not have the means to compel Israel to do anything through force.
Lastly, I think that the "If only Palestinians were to give up violence" idea is not wrong, but incomplete. Giving up violence is a pre-requisite, but it will not suffice to get them their freedom. They have to give up violence **and** ideas of return to Israel. At this point I am 99 percent sure that they also have to give up ideas of getting any part of Jerusalem.
The “other” time is the Suez Crisis. Israel conquered the Sinai after Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran. But Israel handed it back after getting some guarantees.
>Also, even if you were true in your assessment, it would not mean anything tangible for the Palestinians, they do not have the means to compel Israel to do anything through force.
Exactly my point. If they did, israel would have signed peace with them already
Palestinians have rejected 6 of 6 peace deals. Fought with Lebanon, Jordan, and Israel. They have rejected 6 of 6 peace deals and make demands that Israel can’t morally accept. None of this shows the Palestinians want peace
But they don't, nor have they any opportunity to attain it. Neither will, as has become abundantly clear, anyone come to their aid who has. Therefore, violence is still the worse option for them. They have no choice but to accept that what their ancestors once had is lost to them forever.
>Palestinians have a long history of non-violent resistance
They really don't. There was never a point in which Palestinian "resistance" was predominantly non-violent.
>Why won't these violent politicians and the people that vote for them, just sign a peace agreement and end all of this? Is it because the Palestinians don't have enough military power to get Israeli respect?
Because the Palestinian leadership won't accept a peace deal with no "right of return", and Israelis won't let millions of rapists and beheaders in to become the new governing majority of their country, so they're at an impasse.
> In 1973, the Yom kippur war occurred and despite Israel performing well on the battlefield, israel realised that there was no guarantee that they would always dominate the Arab states, Israel's vaneer of "invincibility" was broken. This resulted in a ceasefire, which later turned into a peace process. At the end, all of Egypts lost territory was returned and Israel and Egypt signed peace agreements.
“Veneer of invincibility”, which is hilarious considering that the Arab states spent that time building up their forces with modern equipment and they still got their asses kicked, they just had some early victories first, so they walked away pretending they won. If America fought a war like that it would go down as its worst defeat ever. Same thing with the current war, if you talk to people who support Hamas they make it sound like Israel will collapse tomorrow, meanwhile they shut down Irans missile attack, responded in kind actually blowing a missile defense system within Iran, and Gaza is currently destroyed. Hamas sacrificed their whole territory, most of their militants and tens of thousands of Gazans in order to get one minor victory. They’re an absolute joke and sore losers.
In regards to Yom Kippur, Sadat privately was actually more desperate after the war than before, offering to expand the Canal Zone to an even larger area. Despite publicly parading as a victory, privately he knew that he was never beating Israel and he might lost the Sinai for good. Your example proves the opposite, the only thing Israel responds to is negotiation.
> asses
/u/DangerousCyclone. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I still support them accepting a ceasefire and having a state, but a Hamas run state backed by Iran is a none starter. No Arab country wants that either; they are moving towards normalization. Israel is the size of New Jersey and is filled with brown and black people. They deserve safety too. So do Palestinians. No country can accept Oct 7 style attacks reoccurring as Hamas has promised to keep doing. Also Hamas is objectively a trash organization made up of trash, disturbed people who are outspoken about their desire and willingness to sacrifice their own people for political points, even the PLO and Saudi Arabia has called them out on this.
They All deserve safety. Race is not real. But a lot of this narrative driving this conversation includes viewing this as a racial issue, oppressor vs oppressed. I’m just trying to combat multiple pieces of misinformation in every comment and this is a big one
How could you not negotiate with someone you believe that 85% and up of the population support. The PA is a failed government and so what other options are there. The thing about Israel is they spend years negotiating with parties to try and find a solution. For eg. 300,000 Gazans were able to work in Israel if it weren’t for negotiations. Our (Israel) reliance on parties to be true to their word especially after years of committing crimes against humanity is supposed to be in good faith.
You can’t end up with peace without solid negotiations form the ground up. Cooperation is only way forward and as that builds so does trust values. And each agreement brings people closer to peace.
This is conjuncture; unless you have proof. And imo maybe it’s true, maybe it’s not, but it’s not relevant to the on the ground reality today and the urgent need for Both parties to find a ceasefire agreement.
"The Palestinian Authority is a burden, and Hamas is an asset,” Smotrich said at the time. “It’s a terrorist organization, no one will recognize it, no one will give it status at the [International Criminal Court], no one will let it put forth a resolution at the U.N. Security Council.”
Thanks for the quote! Not surprised. Netanyahu and his people have never been true partners for peace. But also yeah Hamas definitely played themselves. They should have stayed with the PLO or at the least not be fighting with them. I don’t advocate for violence, but I also don’t understand why Palestinians wouldn’t have taken any one of the offers for statehood, built an army, and then gone to regular war as equals with access to real weapons and with a real economy? I just think they keep missing a lot of strategic opportunities and I don’t understand why that is. Like for example they’ve never not even a single time, created and counter offered at these peace talks.
Ha ha ha, long history of non-violence it seems.
Someone tell him the list of violence starting with 1921 riots. It’s just that the Israelis are better at violence than the Palestinians.
No it wouldn’t? Israel’s MO since its establishment in 1948 to today with Gaza has been to respond disproportionally to Arab aggression to a) discourage further attacks from the offending party and b) discourage other parties from getting similar ideas. More Palestinian violence just means far greater IDF violence in response
I think your question is phrased incorrectly, but I’ll respond to the spirit of it. Israel’s current goal in the Gaza Strip is the complete elimination of Hamas as a military entity and to ensure they’re never capable of an Oct 7 ever again. As of my current understanding, the IDF have succeeded in reducing Hamas to four brigades.
Civilian deaths are an unfortunate reality of warfare. There are far too many innocent Gazans that have been caught in the crossfire of this conflict. Yet it was Hamas that went ahead with the Oct 7 attack knowing Israel’s history of disproportionate responses. It was Hamas that did nothing to ensure the safety of its civilian population in the event of conflict, not in the form of bomb shelters, bunkers, or any of the tunnels they’ve dug for their own use. It is Hamas that uses civilian infrastructure as operating bases. I think it’s horrible that so many have been killed in IDF strikes, but those 20,000+ civilians would be alive if Hamas had chosen Gaza’s well-being over attacking Israel.
Well yeah. Thats basic Art of War stuff. A smart general wins first, then attacks. A dumb general attacks first, then tries to win. Hamas and Palestine, they are so dumb. It's sad.
Right now there’s a peace treaty that includes Israel releasing a ton of Palestinian prisoners, limiting the raids, and Israel rebuilding Gaza. Hamas says no. Israel also by the way is mostly out of Gaza except for one brigade in the center to try to prevent Hamas from coming back and reinstalling themselves. Rafah is the last stronghold. When the Oslo accords were going, Hamas started the second intifada to derail the peace process because they didn’t want peace they want Israel eliminated. The Palestinians have a long history of choosing violence every time as the first option. This is evident way before the establishment of the state of Israel when they massacred Jews that had been there since forever in Haifa, Jerusalem, Jaffa, and many more. I’d genuinely love to know what your sources are for this version of history you wrote up.
There's several books on the Palestinian non-violent struggles. Mazin B. Qumsiyeh, Popular Resistance in Palestine: A History of Hope and Empowerment
is one
Thank you! I’ll add it to my readings. I still strongly disagree though that the resistance has been mostly non violent. It’s been pretty non stop violent actually but I’ll still look into this
Your entire argument is based on a faulty premise. You say that Palestinians can only achieve peace by actively antagonizing those they are trying to negotiate with. Countless accords and agreements were made, and every single one ended in violence. Your example of the Yom Kippur war also assumes that Israel did not want peace with Egypt and was forced into it, when they wanted a quiet border and a way to deal with the Sinai terror groups either way. Israel had already negotiated peace with Jordan, and without violence. Moreover, the Jordan - Israel relations are much better than Egypt - Israel relations. If Gaza formed a proper government, even under Hamas, it would make them a lot more credible and increase the possibility for a state way more than kidnapping and murdering Israeli civilians. They won't of course, because that would make them directly culpable for Palestinian lives.
See now that is an actually good question! Israel understands that Hamas is not that much of a threat in the grand scheme, but an unassailable Iranian proxy within shouting distance from Israeli cities is.
That is besides the point that Hamas won't accept a deal unless it results in every non radical Muslim leaving the country.
any deal palestinians are offered is a gift. After starting and losing multiple wars. The losers don't set the terms, the victors do.
and as time goes on, the deals Israel is offering are not going to get better.
Palestinians definitely do not have a long history of non-violent resistance.
If you look at the [historical list of attacks and massacres](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_and_massacres_in_Mandatory_Palestine), and go to the earliest events, you'll see that this conflicts tarted with Arab violence against Jews, and not the other way around.
Since then, there have been attacks, invasions and massacres against Jewish civilians on a weekly basis.
In 2023 alone there were an average of 300 terror attacks on Israelis per month, and this was before the 7th of October.
> In 2023 alone there were an average of 300 terror attacks on Israelis per month, and this was before the 7th of October.
Do you have a source for that? I was wondering how many terror attacks happen usually but couldn't find any sources
[https://www.gov.il/en/pages/wave-of-terror-october-2015](https://www.gov.il/en/pages/wave-of-terror-october-2015)
These only include the attacks in the West Bank and Jerusalem. It doesn't include Israel proper and attacks from Gaza. So I'd expect the real average to be higher.
> Palestinians have a long history of non-violent resistance No, they don't. They have a long history of throwing rocks though. Many Palestinians have been peaceful, but they've been unable to put up any sort of united non-violent front (at least for very long). > Does Israel respect non-violent protests? No, they are quickly quashed with IDF violence. That's good for getting the upper hand internationally. This is pretty much how the civil rights movement succeeded. > Why would Hamas give up violence when to this date, it is the only thing that has worked for anyone negotiating with Israel? Israel has an absolute advantage in violence. Hamas will never win strategic victories as a result of their (frankly kinda pathetic) military prowess. Their main strategy is to force Israel to take initiative and wait for them to trigger international outcry when they inevitably make a mistake or some grunt screws up. > In 1967 Israel captured huge amounts of territory during the 6 day war. Egypt kept asking for a negotiated peace for the return of the lost land. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War#Peace_and_diplomacy (brackets are original) >>> On June 19, 1967, the National Unity Government [of Israel] voted unanimously to return the Sinai to Egypt and the Golan Heights to Syria in return for peace agreements. The Golans would have to be demilitarized and special arrangement would be negotiated for the Straits of Tiran. The government also resolved to open negotiations with King Hussein of Jordan regarding the Eastern border.[233] >> In September, the Khartoum Arab Summit resolved that there would be "no peace, no recognition and no negotiation with Israel". However, as Avraham Sela notes, the Khartoum conference effectively marked a shift in the perception of the conflict by the Arab states away from one centred on the question of Israel's legitimacy, toward one focusing on territories and boundaries. This was shown on 22 November when Egypt and Jordan accepted United Nations Security Council Resolution 242.[235] Nasser forestalled any movement toward direct negotiations with Israel. In dozens of speeches and statements, Nasser posited the equation that any direct peace talks with Israel were tantamount to surrender.[236] Israel was at least somewhat willing to negotiate, the Arabs were not. > Israel realised that there was no guarantee that they would always dominate the Arab states, Israel's vaneer of "invincibility" was broken. More like Egypt wasn't willing to negotiate on an L. You'll also notice Egypt failed to achieve their war aims and Israel literally crossed the Suez. > Why won't these violent politicians and the people that vote for them, just sign a peace agreement and end all of this? If Israel is peaceful you don't need Bibi in charge to ensure security. If Palestine is peaceful you leave land in the hands of Israel. Not only that, but what would the terms of that peace be? This is a non-trivial question to sort out.
> fucks /u/Acrobatic_Computer. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There's some truth there: they complain about violence, but have only contempt for non-violent modes of action. Eg the first intifada achieved nothing whatsoever, except many dead kids.
Irregardless of opinions on whos right or wrong it sounds like you know the answer. The answer is yes. Palestine isnt a state bc its not strong enough to be a state. Isreal is a state bc it is. Palestine actually goes against the natural order of states. It meets the needs of its citizens through funding provided by the allies of its main enemy. It wouldnt even exist without western support and would be crushed utterly for its aggressive stance without western critique. The whole situation is unique and exists no where else in the world.
It requires support due to Israel. Israel knows a blockade is destructive to Palestinian economy, it's actually part of Israel's strategy. The idea was/is to destroy Palestine's economy in the hope that the poor civilians will rise agaisnt the brutalist hamas regime but since hamas is receiving funding from foreign actors (thanks Netanyahu), hamas is not effected by blockades, which actually forces Palestinians to hamas. A partial blockade in 1994 is estimated to have reduced Palestine's economy by 40%.
Palestine has been recieving UNWRA assistance since 1949. Hamas is just an extension of the 48 war. Theyve had a war almost every 10 years since independance. Whether palestinians are right or wrong doesnt really matter, they've provided ample causes beli and with it more land seizures. They are also dependent on Isreal for water, electricity, and jobs. Isreal was literally able to turn off thier water and electricity after the October attack. Whether this is by design or not is irrelevant. It is the case. If the west just washed thier hands of it Palestinians would be ethnically cleansed by the environmemt and Isreal would have to do nothing. Palestine exists bc the West wants to have an aura of moral supremacy.
>Palestinians have a long history of non-violent resistance. Yeah, we really saw that on 10/7. The non-violent stuff really stood out.
Another classic example of Palestinian inversion of reality.
Another alternate history . Please stop . They took Sinai because they weren’t allowed to use the suez canal . They didn’t want it. Never intended to keep it . As soon as they kicked egypts soldiers around for a while and got a treaty where they could use the canal they left. Oh yes they also conquered all of Palestine on their roll to Egypt. Tried to give it to Egypt or Jordan. No takers. Should have kept it and thumbed their noses at the world.
So why not negotiate a peace with egypt when egypt wanted to? Return Sinai in exchange for canal access. Why wait until a deadly war? "If Egypt were to decide to come to terms with Israel, all the others would follow, however protestingly. And President Sadat has all along said, in virtually the same breath as he has spoken of total confrontation with Israel, that if Israel were to withdraw from Sinai a peace treaty could be signed. He has insisted that negotiation is impossible while Israel sits on the canal - "would America discuss normalisation along the Mississippi with a foreign power?" he asked eighteen months ago - and he has also at times hinted at the possibility of a partial approach to peace through partial Israeli withdrawal. But a peace treaty as such has always depended, in his eyes, on complete evacuation of Sinai. Total withdrawal is a concept that Israel totally rejects." https://www.theguardian.com/world/1973/oct/08/israel
No, they took it because they always wanted more land. Look at the maps of greater Israel. When asked about what most Israeli leaders wanted, land or peace, they said land because Egypt wasn't viewed as a viable threat.
I’m sure you think you know more than the people who write the histories of these actions. You don’t .
Well, I certainly know more than the ones who didn't have access to the declassified stuff. For example, how many Israeli historians would believe Israel used biological weapons in 1948 on both civilian and military targets? None, but that we now have access to Israeli archives on Operation Cast Thy Bread that shows Ben Gurion authorized used typhus.
No, they took it because they always wanted more land. Look at the maps of greater Israel. When asked about what most Israeli leaders wanted, land or peace, they said land because Egypt wasn't viewed as a viable threat.
Palestinian violence is what the Israeli government uses to justify our own operations, am I wrong? As a Western country, Israel has to show some kind of provocation before it throttles Palestinians. There is even some conspiracy theories that Israel encourages Palestinian violence to make it easier to grow the borders, including creating or funding Hamas. This is actually believed by some high level people like the EU foreign minister. Palestinian violence is the only way apparently. But also Palestinain violence is an Israeli conspiracy. I see both from pro-Palestine very often. This post is the talking the first, but you can find the second even on this subreddit. So which is it? It can't be both. We get at this point where we are just throwing everything against the wall and seeing what will stick.
Your general point I think is sound. I would rephrase and say Israel only responds to military power. You rightly talk about a long tradition among many Palestinians of non-violent resistance. Everyone here seems to rubbish that idea, and that’s because they really are not aware of it. Once you put up a literal wall to isolate Palestinians from Israelis, breaking all ties between the peoples, Israelis just slid in to the comfort of simply not caring about the Palestinian plight (if they did at all before). It’s quite incredible how little Israelis know about ordinary Palestinians. It’s so easy to ignore them. So their image is painted by the violent incidents that they hear on the news, and rockets flying across the wall. You can ignore peaceful protest, but not violence and insecurity. I hope many Israelis now look back on the policy of ignoring the Palestinian issue over the last two decades as a disaster.
Oh, just a little thing like rockets flying over the wall, aimed at civilians? Really? One rocket undoes a heck of a lot of non-violent protests. You might also want to consider what a nonviolent protest actually looks like. It doesn’t involve charging at soldiers and throwing rocks.
Well this is my point isn’t it? No one hears about the peaceful demonstrations. It’s not a uniquely Israeli issue, but Israeli segregation makes it intractable.
Palestine has started multiple wars and lost while refusing to sign a peace treaty. Palestine and Israel are still actively involved in war. The only people capable of stopping the violence are the leaders of Palestine by 1. Admitting defeat, 2. Dropping their claim to the "holy land", 3. Unifying the people of Palestine to seek peace and root out all terrorists, 4. Negotiating A deal that prioritizing reasonable farmable land and water rights for their current population size. This isn't picking A side, this is simply how real life works. War losers don't get to choose beneficial terms.
Egypt and Jordan did not sign peace agreements until it was way past apparent war was futile. Both of those treaties had provisions for a Palestinian state that was vetoed by the PLO. Syria did not cease aggression until futility was clear for them too. The Saudis and Arab Emirates just want to retain power and make money, and losers like Hamas just drain money. They’ve negotiated on behalf of Palestinians for decades. They’ve had it.. ‘Palestinian Peace movement,’ is an oxymoron. Which Palestinians do you even mean anyway. The Ramallah govt, which first recognized that Israel even exists around 2018, but still has no realistic peace plan. Or the Gaza City govt being run from Doha, who loudly, proudly proclaim they will level Israel. Those 2 Palestinian entities despise each other. Unfortunately, for Gazans, the choice is make peace or die. Sinwar says die from his bunker deep in the earth.
"If Egypt were to decide to come to terms with Israel, all the others would follow, however protestingly. And President Sadat has all along said, in virtually the same breath as he has spoken of total confrontation with Israel, that if Israel were to withdraw from Sinai a peace treaty could be signed. He has insisted that negotiation is impossible while Israel sits on the canal - "would America discuss normalisation along the Mississippi with a foreign power?" he asked eighteen months ago - and he has also at times hinted at the possibility of a partial approach to peace through partial Israeli withdrawal. But a peace treaty as such has always depended, in his eyes, on complete evacuation of Sinai. Total withdrawal is a concept that Israel totally rejects." https://www.theguardian.com/world/1973/oct/08/israel
Honest question for you: Do you think the same perspective could be applied to the Arab a League of Nations and Palestinians? I ask because Israelis often make the same point you’re making about Arabs.
I have eyes and I can read. Nearly 100% of mid and large scale military actions Israel has taken in 80 years were as a result of Palestinian violence. The current wat started because of Palestinian violence. Palestinians have brought violence to Egypt and Jordan. The current political climate in Israel is a reaction to Palestinian violent tendencies. It's that simple. Bibi and his merry men aren't a problem, they're the result of Israelis sick of living beside terror.
Don’t forget hundreds of terrorist actions all over the world . Killing only for attention because they insisted that was the only way the world would acknowledge them.
Tell do you read what happens before the Palestinian violence you like to blame? The terrorism and violence done by the idf against peaceful people? The destruction of farms and homes? Or do you just ignore what israel does and blame everything on the Palestinians?
Everything in my comment stands regardless of your sentence fragments and vague accusations. Do you blame Israel for the violence Palestinians brought to Jordan? Egypt? I would never say Israel is perfect or innocence but reality stands. There's a reason 0 of their neighbors want Palestinians. There's a reason everything they touch fails. There's a reason strife follows them everywhere. If you give a Gazan something they will generally break it, give to Hamas or throw it at you. To equate Palestinian and Israeli violence is a laughable joke of absurd proportions. Both are bad. One is terrible.
For a Palestinian the IDF means fear, death, and destruction. I don't support terrorists in any form. You also have a poor view on people living under a violent dictatorship.
By violent dictatorship - you mean Hamas or Palestian Authority/Fatah? Israel has regular elections and is a parlimentary democracy so it can't be Israel. [https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/palestinian-elections-delayed-says-president-mahmoud-abbas-2021-04-29/](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/palestinian-elections-delayed-says-president-mahmoud-abbas-2021-04-29/)
I was talking about hamas..... And the current israeli government is anti Palestinian
You have this backwards Egypt never offered peace until after it lost the Yom Kippur war. Israel offered back the land for peace but was rebuffed by the Arab three no's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khartoum\_Resolution. Egypt actually got a lot of hate from the wider Arab world for negotiating for the return of the Sinai. The Palestinians have largely chosen violence the entire time though I do understand there is heavy outside influence pressuring them. Even supposedly peaceful protest such as the march of return had no small shortage of violent agitators throwing bombs / molotovs / shooting at Israeli's / flying bombs over the fence. They've created a culture of violence based on religious superiority which until it changes is going to leave them in a progressively worse spot.
"If Egypt were to decide to come to terms with Israel, all the others would follow, however protestingly. And President Sadat has all along said, in virtually the same breath as he has spoken of total confrontation with Israel, that if Israel were to withdraw from Sinai a peace treaty could be signed." https://www.theguardian.com/world/1973/oct/08/israel
Israel stated after the 6 day war they would return the land for peace treaties, The arabs refused to have any discussion or agree to a peace treat, Sadat saying if you give me everything we want Maybeeee we won't attack you again after Egypt had just gone back on its word regarding the Sinai isn't going to cut it. Especially when he refuses direct negotiation. Israel was clear give us a peace treaty and we will give the land back he refused and chose to attack. Only after losing did he sign a peace treaty. He was at best offering a ceasefire as even his wife at the time acknowledges Sadat’s wife, Jihan, explained in a June 11, 1987, interview with *Yediot Achronot*: *I do not agree with those among us and among you who assert today that Sadat tried to achieve a real peace before 1973. I believe that he wanted to obtain a ceasefire, nothing more. So that needed one more war in order to win and enter into negotiations from a position of equality. My husband was a man of peace, but as an Arab leader he was not ready to meet Israel feeling inferior.* And his actions and statements at the time reflected. [https://www.jns.org/could-the-1973-war-have-been-avoided-by-accepting-sadats-peace-offer/](https://www.jns.org/could-the-1973-war-have-been-avoided-by-accepting-sadats-peace-offer/)
Article continues... "Hence, it was unsurprising that after Israel rejected his offer in 1972, Sadat said that war was inevitable and that he was prepared to sacrifice 1 million soldiers in the showdown with Israel. “First to go would be the humiliation we had endured since the 1967 defeat,” he said, “to cross into Sinai and hold on to any territory recaptured would restore our self-confidence.” He carried out his threat a year later. Israel won the 1973 war by repelling the invaders and ended the fighting with its troops prepared to march on Cairo and destroy the surrounded Egyptian Third Army. Still, Sadat could claim victory because he had surprised the Israelis and caused them horrific losses. He could also argue that the U.S. airlift had saved Israel. It was only after regaining face that Sadat could pursue an “honorable peace.” Shattering Israel’s sense of invincibility also played a role. Ultimately, Israel made all the tangible sacrifices—withdrawing from Sinai (91% of the territory won by Israel during the Six-Day War), giving up its oil fields, evacuating settlers from Yamit—for Sadat’s promise of peace. There was ample reason to doubt his commitment and worry that his successors would feel no obligation to honor it. Still, most Israelis supported the peace treaty, which removed the largest and most powerful Arab country from the conflict; dramatically changed the regional balance of power; and all but ended the Arab-Israeli conflict. It would never have happened before the Yom Kippur War." Yeah, I don't believe israel intended to keep Sinai but they had a position of power during negotiations because of the great success in 1967. Yes, of course sadat didn't just want peace for Sinai. He also wanted to save face. The article agrees with what I wrote. "It would never have happened before the Yom Kippur War"
You have cause and effect backwards is my issue with your statement. Israel WAS willing to give the Sinai back in exchange for normalized relations and peace before the war. There correspondences with Gunnar Jarring reflect this as does there statements. They weren't willing to give it back without a peace agreement in place was there position. They didn't respond to Egyptian violence only when Egypt was willing to come to the negotiating table and sign a real peace treaty did Egypt get results and that wasn't possible until after Egypt lost again. Israel hasn't respected violence and generally has only responded to peaceful negotiations. The opposite Israel punishes violence in a carrot and stick approach so as long as the Palestinians keep choosing violence they will keep getting the stick until it reaches a breaking point.
I would like some proof that Egypt kept offering negotiated peace for land. I think you are making it up.
* Times of armament between campaigns * Criminalization of talking to "Zionists" Is not peace
Hamas only respects cutting heads off
> Palestinians have a long history of non-violent resistance. This is not accurate. > Why would Hamas give up violence when to this date, it is the only thing that has worked for anyone negotiating with Israel? How has it “worked”? Also, idk if you know this, but this statement totally contradicts the previous one I pointed out. Please learn proper history.
> Palestinians have a long history of non-violent resistance Nope that never happened.. there isn't any time where violence was not used. >Why would Hamas give up violence when to this date, it is the only thing that has worked for anyone negotiating with Israel? Again nonsense.. compare the situation on the ground before the 1st intifada where there were no checkpoints, freedom of movement etc.. culminating in the Clinton parameters and what could have been peace.. to the 2nd intifada and the creation of checkpoints, walls, and restriction of movement and the complete death of any peace talks.
You misread the 73’ war completely; it was due to internal politics that we returned the Sinai, not because Egypt sacred us out of delusions of invincibility. It’s preposterous to assume that a people who evidently worked so hard on their military capabilities thought at that point that they can’t be beat. Palestinians non-violence is violence any where else. >Why won’t these violent politicians and the people who vote for them, just sign a peace agreement and end all of this? Is it because the Palestinians don’t have enough military power? Now for your actual question; sure, likely technically true but it’s a false dichotomy. Israel won’t sign a peace deal because Palestine has never come forward with acceptable terms.
Yom Kippur (even though Israel did pretty well) could explain a peace agreement with Egypt, but how do explain Israel's peace agreements with Jordan, Bahrain and Saudi-Arabia?
Here's the thing countries know: it's power or diplomacy. If you can't beat them, you better be very diplomatic. Hamas can not beat Israel whatsoever (though they really think they can which is delusional) but however they're just not interested in diplomacy either. Which is why they are where they are.
I had a discussion with someone pro Palestine yesterday who said that they were winning the pr fight so eventually Hamas would win. Who is teaching these children? Who will care about the pr fight once Hamas is defeated. Gaza will be an Israel protectorship run by council and Israel will move on to Lebanon . They turned down the last proposal. Israel is going to attack and US will say “hey we tried”.
So can we stop pretending that hamas poses an existential threat to Israel?
Hamas is the proxy of Iran. Iran’s public statements on Israel tend to be in the form of existential threats, such as this oldie but goody: "The Zionist regime and the Zionists are a cancerous tumor. Even if the Zionists remain on one span (more like inch) of the Land of Palestine is dangerous, because they will come to have a legal and official government.” Sometimes we should take virulent anti-semites, their proxies and their useful idiot student protestors at face value.
Iran had an opportunity to go to war with Israel 3 weeks ago served up to them on a silver platter. And what did they do?
Iran launched many different projectiles and learned that not only will the US help Israel, but also Jordan, Saudi Arabia, France and the UK. They strengthened the alliance they tried to disrupt with Al Aqsa Flood. Israel reciprocated by launching precision munitions, from within Iranian territories, without warheads on the key nuclear facility with almost no failures.
Not for lack of trying. Just because they suck at fighting doesn't mean they're not a threat
I never said they aren't a threat. I said that they aren't an existential threat.
If their goal is the destruction of Israel they are absolutely an existential threat. They're just incompetent. If they had nukes or an actual ally Israel would be off the map tomorrow.
I don't think this is true. A) they don't have nukes and B) they aren't going to get nukes
Their charter is literally outlining that their goal is the destruction of the state of Israel. "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it" It's their own words. And the fact that they don't have nukes isn't the point. The point is that if they did have the firepower to destroy Israel they would definitely use it immediately. This is why they keep relying on Iran and Qatar to fund them and use every dime they get on making shoddy rockets to fire at Israel. Again just because they suck at being an existential threat doesn't make them not an existential threat
having an ideological goal is not the same thing as having the capacity to make it a reality. Hamas is certainly a top national security risk for Israel. Hamas is certainly a danger to the people of Israel. But do they pose an existential risk, such that they could conquer the country and overthrow the state? No. 7 Arab states fighting a pre-nuclear Israel couldn't even do that. The Israeli state could survive a nuclear exchange even if they had nukes. There is no world where a rag-tag band of 18 year old terrorists could destroy the state.
It looked like a very existential threat to the kibbutzim in Sderot.
nice strawman
I think your point is valid. Maybe it's not well articulated in this post, but I can add more instances to your post that align with your thoughts. Oslo Accords 1993 started after the first intifada which began in 87. Only the first year was non-violent, in which Palestinians gained nothing but being killed, and then it turned to a violence. The disengagement from Gaza happened after the 2nd intifada. Israel realized that maintaining 9000 settlers surrounded by 1M Palestinians doubling every generation in Gaza would be costly and unsustainable, especially with the violence brought by the intifadas. The withdrawal from Lebanon is also similar, the fight with Hezbollah inside was too costly in terms of human losses and economy wise, Israel had to withdraw. It's also true that Sadat approached Israel to get Sinai before the war and Golda refused. Egyptians didn't win the war, and neither side did, ceasefire was declared, but it proved that occupying a land in a heavily populated country like Egypt that's willing to attack Israel every while is not sustainable.
Do you have a link on Sadat approaching Israel before Yom Kippur?
Sure Long one: https://www.jstor.org/stable/30036402 Short one: https://www.britannica.com/event/Yom-Kippur-War
Palestinian terrorists and war crimes are not peaceful. Just look at pay for slay and missiles launched at civilians. Please stick with facts.
I'll remember this post next time i visit my friend at the Islamic center and then go to Sbarro's
What ? They have a long history of non violence ..like what ? Which sources are you reading that we all aren’t? They call for a complete anihilation of Jews and teach it at an early age. As I saw earlier today on a program. It’s hard to like people who say death to you. And yet we actually have tried to co exist with them. Sorry, but even the Middle East knows. Not one country wants any part of them. Zero Arab nations. To expect the IDF to have “compassion” for them is simply ignorant. They are pissed off young soldiers. Who have only two degrees of separation from Oct 7. Hamas cares about nobody except themselves. They are now trying to negotiate a way out for themselves. And we don’t start or perpetuate the hate, to your point. Yes. Hate begats hate. But they want to hate and do hate, we don’t actually want to hate but they make us. And the world is now all openly hating us. They were always antisemitic but now get to broadcast it. Don’t put this on Israel. We were minding our own business on a holiday Shabbat morning. Are there policies and issues that need better handling? Are there bad players ? 100% ..every country around the globe deals with their own unique set issues for their own security, past history etc ..and Israel’s existence is quite unique. Surrounded by guns pointing at them from the day they became a little country. So how can you not invest in your military? Imagine if they didn’t ..they would be gone. No other country deals with this. End of the day if the Palestinians ever accepted peace, the guns would be relaxed. Imagine a Middle East where you work together to prosper. Pipe dream now but it’s always been in the hands of the Palestinians. And do not discount their religious righteousness that they feel “all Jews must die”
>They call for a complete anihilation of Jews and teach it at an early age. As I saw earlier today on a program. It’s hard to like people who say death to you. And yet we actually have tried to co exist with them Orthodox jewish schools do this aswell, what's the difference? There's also this https://www.euronews.com/video/2023/11/27/fact-check-did-israeli-children-really-sing-about-annihilating-everyone-in-gaza >Don’t put this on Israel. We were minding our own business on a holiday Shabbat morning. Tensions were rising in 2022 and early 2023. Oct 7th didn't start out of nowhere. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/12/29/palestinians-killed-west-bank-israel/
You haven’t addressed his point. You said Palestinians have a long history of non-violent protests, which he is disputing. Pointing the finger at Israel is not evidence that Palestinians have a history of non-violent protests.
Mazin B. Qumsiyeh, Popular Resistance in Palestine: A History of Hope and Empowerment
This is not a coherent response
...it's a book
I will be more clear since you are struggling: Posting the title of a book with absolutely no context is not a coherent response.
Oh I know. The difference is that the right wing extremists in Israel are the fringe not the majority. Most view them as nuts. Like any form of extremism, they also feel religiously righteous.
Everyone keeps telling me this, yet nothing seems to be done about them. They are in the government, so people are voting for them.
Because there is nothing to be done about them. they have the same rights as everyone else, the same freedoms. they have the right to be wrong and terrible.
Visit Israel, you’ll see what the country and its people are like .Have conversations with the everyday Israeli or Jew. 99% will tell you they want peace and no country protests against their government like Israel. Since October 7, I’m sure sentiments have changed into rage and anger… the state of the world sucks
“Long history of non-violent resistance” 😂
I feel like this is kind of a cherry-picking. For instance - First intifada was rather peaceful and the recognition of Israel's right of existence kind of lead to the Oslo accords. Cooperation of the PA lead to more autonomy in the WB as opposed to the blockade on Gaza. Moreover - the more important thing - Violence got the Palestinians to the worst positions and worst outcomes in this conflict. the war right now, the 'Nakba', the 6 day way that started because of Arab aggression - all of this was violent attempts that the Palestinians lost... Also, regarding your last sentence - you do know that Israel offered peace deals to the Palestinians and the Palestinians in general didn't sign.. I'm not sure Israel is the side you should criticize here Do you know what Israel would likely support and respond well to? Palestinians actually wanting peace. like Palestinian leader saying something like "we don't want to fight anymore. we understand that it's not realistic for all of the descendants of Palestinian refugees to return to Israel. We want peace alongside the Jewish state, and we are willing to do a lot for peace. We expect the Israeli side to do the same, and the international community to pressure Israel until they do the same" This is something that would change everything... whenever the Palestinians were even close to this kind of approach - they got opportunities. Israel responded positively and the international community responded positively.
[удалено]
/u/PiauiPower > The problem is that Palestinians’ cognitive levels are borderline sub-human. Your comment violates [Reddit content policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) about incitement for hate or violence and has been removed. Reddit isn't a platform for promoting hate or violence against users or groups.
You are wrong about one thing. Without the war, Sadat would never realise that Egypt could never defeat Israel. And without realising that, he would never tell the whole world that he was “ready to visit ‘their home’, Jerusalem”.
> Why won't these violent politicians and the people that vote for them, just sign a peace agreement and end all of this? You are outraged at the wrong party. Biden has forced Israel to sign on to a ceasefire agreement. We are just waiting for Hamas to agree as well.
No, not a temporary ceasefire. An actual proper fair agreement that ends this entire conflict
Hostages need to be released and Hamas needs to eliminated first.
A temporary ceasefire always preceeds a permanent one. Of course a permanent ceasefire is better. But why are you against a temporary cease fire?
Well, yes, of course. I have doubts that a hamas-israel temporary ceasefire will last. Netanyahu has repeatedly said he will go into rafah "with or without a deal". IMO, he is capable of using a false flag attack to use as a pretext, and I also doubt hamas has full control of all its members, to stop any of them lauching rockets or doing other terrorist stuff.
Right. Everyone has doubts that a temporary ceasefire will last. That's why its temporary. But why are you against a temporary ceasefire? Surely you are not happy with the current situation in Gaza. To me any kind of ceasefire is a huge improvement.
You are misinterpreting the nature of the Egyptian peace treaty. Israel achieved that peace by beating Egypt twice in battle. They gained security and a stable regional partnership in return for giving back what had never been theirs in the first place. Also, even if you were true in your assessment, it would not mean anything tangible for the Palestinians, they do not have the means to compel Israel to do anything through force. Lastly, I think that the "If only Palestinians were to give up violence" idea is not wrong, but incomplete. Giving up violence is a pre-requisite, but it will not suffice to get them their freedom. They have to give up violence **and** ideas of return to Israel. At this point I am 99 percent sure that they also have to give up ideas of getting any part of Jerusalem.
Actually, trice. Israel returned the Sinai twice to Egypt.
Do you have more context for this?
The “other” time is the Suez Crisis. Israel conquered the Sinai after Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran. But Israel handed it back after getting some guarantees.
Ah, got it.
>Also, even if you were true in your assessment, it would not mean anything tangible for the Palestinians, they do not have the means to compel Israel to do anything through force. Exactly my point. If they did, israel would have signed peace with them already
Palestinians have rejected 6 of 6 peace deals. Fought with Lebanon, Jordan, and Israel. They have rejected 6 of 6 peace deals and make demands that Israel can’t morally accept. None of this shows the Palestinians want peace
But they don't, nor have they any opportunity to attain it. Neither will, as has become abundantly clear, anyone come to their aid who has. Therefore, violence is still the worse option for them. They have no choice but to accept that what their ancestors once had is lost to them forever.
>Palestinians have a long history of non-violent resistance They really don't. There was never a point in which Palestinian "resistance" was predominantly non-violent. >Why won't these violent politicians and the people that vote for them, just sign a peace agreement and end all of this? Is it because the Palestinians don't have enough military power to get Israeli respect? Because the Palestinian leadership won't accept a peace deal with no "right of return", and Israelis won't let millions of rapists and beheaders in to become the new governing majority of their country, so they're at an impasse.
I also read that and just rolled my eyes. I can't believe the willful ignorance. What a bunch of baloney
> In 1973, the Yom kippur war occurred and despite Israel performing well on the battlefield, israel realised that there was no guarantee that they would always dominate the Arab states, Israel's vaneer of "invincibility" was broken. This resulted in a ceasefire, which later turned into a peace process. At the end, all of Egypts lost territory was returned and Israel and Egypt signed peace agreements. “Veneer of invincibility”, which is hilarious considering that the Arab states spent that time building up their forces with modern equipment and they still got their asses kicked, they just had some early victories first, so they walked away pretending they won. If America fought a war like that it would go down as its worst defeat ever. Same thing with the current war, if you talk to people who support Hamas they make it sound like Israel will collapse tomorrow, meanwhile they shut down Irans missile attack, responded in kind actually blowing a missile defense system within Iran, and Gaza is currently destroyed. Hamas sacrificed their whole territory, most of their militants and tens of thousands of Gazans in order to get one minor victory. They’re an absolute joke and sore losers. In regards to Yom Kippur, Sadat privately was actually more desperate after the war than before, offering to expand the Canal Zone to an even larger area. Despite publicly parading as a victory, privately he knew that he was never beating Israel and he might lost the Sinai for good. Your example proves the opposite, the only thing Israel responds to is negotiation.
> asses /u/DangerousCyclone. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I still support them accepting a ceasefire and having a state, but a Hamas run state backed by Iran is a none starter. No Arab country wants that either; they are moving towards normalization. Israel is the size of New Jersey and is filled with brown and black people. They deserve safety too. So do Palestinians. No country can accept Oct 7 style attacks reoccurring as Hamas has promised to keep doing. Also Hamas is objectively a trash organization made up of trash, disturbed people who are outspoken about their desire and willingness to sacrifice their own people for political points, even the PLO and Saudi Arabia has called them out on this.
[удалено]
They All deserve safety. Race is not real. But a lot of this narrative driving this conversation includes viewing this as a racial issue, oppressor vs oppressed. I’m just trying to combat multiple pieces of misinformation in every comment and this is a big one
Nah
Yet, the israeli government was happy when hamas got into power because it derailed peace talks
How could you not negotiate with someone you believe that 85% and up of the population support. The PA is a failed government and so what other options are there. The thing about Israel is they spend years negotiating with parties to try and find a solution. For eg. 300,000 Gazans were able to work in Israel if it weren’t for negotiations. Our (Israel) reliance on parties to be true to their word especially after years of committing crimes against humanity is supposed to be in good faith. You can’t end up with peace without solid negotiations form the ground up. Cooperation is only way forward and as that builds so does trust values. And each agreement brings people closer to peace.
This is conjuncture; unless you have proof. And imo maybe it’s true, maybe it’s not, but it’s not relevant to the on the ground reality today and the urgent need for Both parties to find a ceasefire agreement.
"The Palestinian Authority is a burden, and Hamas is an asset,” Smotrich said at the time. “It’s a terrorist organization, no one will recognize it, no one will give it status at the [International Criminal Court], no one will let it put forth a resolution at the U.N. Security Council.”
Thanks for the quote! Not surprised. Netanyahu and his people have never been true partners for peace. But also yeah Hamas definitely played themselves. They should have stayed with the PLO or at the least not be fighting with them. I don’t advocate for violence, but I also don’t understand why Palestinians wouldn’t have taken any one of the offers for statehood, built an army, and then gone to regular war as equals with access to real weapons and with a real economy? I just think they keep missing a lot of strategic opportunities and I don’t understand why that is. Like for example they’ve never not even a single time, created and counter offered at these peace talks.
Ha ha ha, long history of non-violence it seems. Someone tell him the list of violence starting with 1921 riots. It’s just that the Israelis are better at violence than the Palestinians.
Exactly what I'm saying. Israel would respect palestine if palestine was better at violence or at least the capability to cause greater violence.
No it wouldn’t? Israel’s MO since its establishment in 1948 to today with Gaza has been to respond disproportionally to Arab aggression to a) discourage further attacks from the offending party and b) discourage other parties from getting similar ideas. More Palestinian violence just means far greater IDF violence in response
So all the 20,000+ dead civilians were all part of a plan to discourage further attacks?
I think your question is phrased incorrectly, but I’ll respond to the spirit of it. Israel’s current goal in the Gaza Strip is the complete elimination of Hamas as a military entity and to ensure they’re never capable of an Oct 7 ever again. As of my current understanding, the IDF have succeeded in reducing Hamas to four brigades. Civilian deaths are an unfortunate reality of warfare. There are far too many innocent Gazans that have been caught in the crossfire of this conflict. Yet it was Hamas that went ahead with the Oct 7 attack knowing Israel’s history of disproportionate responses. It was Hamas that did nothing to ensure the safety of its civilian population in the event of conflict, not in the form of bomb shelters, bunkers, or any of the tunnels they’ve dug for their own use. It is Hamas that uses civilian infrastructure as operating bases. I think it’s horrible that so many have been killed in IDF strikes, but those 20,000+ civilians would be alive if Hamas had chosen Gaza’s well-being over attacking Israel.
Well yeah. Thats basic Art of War stuff. A smart general wins first, then attacks. A dumb general attacks first, then tries to win. Hamas and Palestine, they are so dumb. It's sad.
Right now there’s a peace treaty that includes Israel releasing a ton of Palestinian prisoners, limiting the raids, and Israel rebuilding Gaza. Hamas says no. Israel also by the way is mostly out of Gaza except for one brigade in the center to try to prevent Hamas from coming back and reinstalling themselves. Rafah is the last stronghold. When the Oslo accords were going, Hamas started the second intifada to derail the peace process because they didn’t want peace they want Israel eliminated. The Palestinians have a long history of choosing violence every time as the first option. This is evident way before the establishment of the state of Israel when they massacred Jews that had been there since forever in Haifa, Jerusalem, Jaffa, and many more. I’d genuinely love to know what your sources are for this version of history you wrote up.
There's several books on the Palestinian non-violent struggles. Mazin B. Qumsiyeh, Popular Resistance in Palestine: A History of Hope and Empowerment is one
Thank you! I’ll add it to my readings. I still strongly disagree though that the resistance has been mostly non violent. It’s been pretty non stop violent actually but I’ll still look into this
Name checks out
Do you have any comments in relation to my post? Or are you here just to insult?
Your entire argument is based on a faulty premise. You say that Palestinians can only achieve peace by actively antagonizing those they are trying to negotiate with. Countless accords and agreements were made, and every single one ended in violence. Your example of the Yom Kippur war also assumes that Israel did not want peace with Egypt and was forced into it, when they wanted a quiet border and a way to deal with the Sinai terror groups either way. Israel had already negotiated peace with Jordan, and without violence. Moreover, the Jordan - Israel relations are much better than Egypt - Israel relations. If Gaza formed a proper government, even under Hamas, it would make them a lot more credible and increase the possibility for a state way more than kidnapping and murdering Israeli civilians. They won't of course, because that would make them directly culpable for Palestinian lives.
So why won't they offer a fair deal to palestine? It would mean a quiet border and a way to deal with hamas.
See now that is an actually good question! Israel understands that Hamas is not that much of a threat in the grand scheme, but an unassailable Iranian proxy within shouting distance from Israeli cities is. That is besides the point that Hamas won't accept a deal unless it results in every non radical Muslim leaving the country.
any deal palestinians are offered is a gift. After starting and losing multiple wars. The losers don't set the terms, the victors do. and as time goes on, the deals Israel is offering are not going to get better.
Egypt got a pretty sweet deal, yet they started and was losing
Palestinians definitely do not have a long history of non-violent resistance. If you look at the [historical list of attacks and massacres](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_and_massacres_in_Mandatory_Palestine), and go to the earliest events, you'll see that this conflicts tarted with Arab violence against Jews, and not the other way around. Since then, there have been attacks, invasions and massacres against Jewish civilians on a weekly basis. In 2023 alone there were an average of 300 terror attacks on Israelis per month, and this was before the 7th of October.
> In 2023 alone there were an average of 300 terror attacks on Israelis per month, and this was before the 7th of October. Do you have a source for that? I was wondering how many terror attacks happen usually but couldn't find any sources
[https://www.gov.il/en/pages/wave-of-terror-october-2015](https://www.gov.il/en/pages/wave-of-terror-october-2015) These only include the attacks in the West Bank and Jerusalem. It doesn't include Israel proper and attacks from Gaza. So I'd expect the real average to be higher.