Comment on [deleted]

• regnskog@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

  Oh but we can definitely sketch something, for sure.

  • There has to be some degree of truth and reconciliation, and that will not look like “and all the bad people get punished forever”. There’s plenty of sides and plenty of atrocities and people have to somehow get over them. That’s fucking hard and will take generations, but it’s been done before and it can be done again.
  • Israel will, technically, have to give up the most. They’re occupying territory in explicit violation of international law, for starters, but they also have a lot more resources generally. Not to mention their export industry in arms, including anti-riot stuff, surveillance tech etc that they explicitly test on their simmering conflict next door. The only way this happens realistically is when the current Israeli line loses national and international support.
  • there has to be an expansion of practical rights of Palestinians, and probably in the end a one-state solution where they become Israeli citizens (in a country probably not called Israel anymore) and have equal rights, including voting rights. But at the very least the blockade of Gaza has to end, and Palestinians need the same access to wealth, education, etc as Israelis. Otherwise that’s perfect conditions for resentment that will only get worse.
  • this is a special case of the first bullet point, but Palestinians who were driven from their homes during the establishment of Israel will also need some degree of economic compensation for that, and ideally the ability to move back to where they were originally living

  source

  • redballooon@lemm.ee ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

    Your second bullet point implies that Israel won’t exist at a point of “peace”.

    source

    • Teodomo@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

      I didn’t took it to mean “Israel will be erased” but “Israel and Palestina will be fused”. So maybe it won’t be named Israel but Israel-Palestina (kinda like Bosnia-Herzegovina) or something like that. Of course that seems impossible today but who knows, maybe there’s a timeline where that’s the name of the country 500 years into the future.

      source

      • redballooon@lemm.ee ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

        You think antisemitism will be removed enough in 500 years to allow that? I would be glad if that was conceivable, but that’s something so deeply ingrained in so widely different societies all over the world, I don’t see it happening.

        Look into the history of antisemitism to get a feeling how this is different than “just” your usual tension between neighboring ethnicities.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • regnskog@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

      That depends what you mean by “Israel”. I don’t think it can be an exclusively Jewish ethnostate. That means excluding Palestinians who have equal claims to the territory and I don’t see how that can lead to anything but oppression and further cycles of violence.

      But sure it can exist as a state. They just can’t do military occupation etc.

      source

      • redballooon@lemm.ee ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

        There are several highly armed groups and Iran whose explicit goal is to remove Israel from the map, implying removing the Jews there one way or another.

        As soon as Israel loses support from the West, it can not push back military, and there will be no diplomatic solution.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• Snorf@reddthat.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

  Is it really about the holy lands? Or mostly about land and resources?

  source

  • rentar42@kbin.social ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

    What it's "really" about is something that future historians can try to figure out, but in situ it's almost impossible to tell.

    We can list all kinds of factors that came together when the conflict started or which factors are around while the conflict keeps going for a long time. What it's "about"? That kind of answer only really exists in games like Civilization where the answer is "because a player wanted X" or "the PC faction AI decided that the value of war exceeded the cost" ... the real world doesn't have as neat an answer.

    Beware those who are sure about the "real reason": they are either ignorant of the complexities of societies and wars or they have an agenda.

    And even those future historians won't be able to pinpoint a single reason for all of this (or most other wars), because it's almost always multiple factors acting together.

    Imagine for a second a war that looks like it's "clearly about the aggressor getting land/resources": that might be the main reason, but maybe historical and religious factors made the war easier to "get going" for those who don't actually care about that (or the other way around: someone powerful want's to wage a religious war, but it's easier to convince the military to fight for the resources ...).

    source
  • Ordoabchao@kbin.social ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

    From where I sit, it's literally mostly about dirt, rocks and oil.

    This is just a continuation of the crusdades from the medieval period. Let's also not forget just how strategically important Israels location is to the Western countries as it's their springboard into the middle east.

    There are a lot of different factors and nuance and play, but essentially it's over religion and "holy lands".

    source