It’s still pie in the sky thinking as far as I can see. I think most of us remember the violent scenes of settlers being forcibly removed from Gaza , and the convulsions that were felt across Israel during Sharon’s disengagement policy . And they only numbered 8,000.
Even if Netanyahu is no longer PM and Ben-Gvir and the racist religious right no longer hold sway in the Knesset , it’s almost unthinkable to imagine that a nation freshly traumatised by Oct 7 and now already much further to the right than it was twenty years ago is going to condone this happening.
For it to occur it’s going to take someone with balls of steel , who is genuinely committed to two states and peace. Does someone like that even exist anymore in Israel ? The only person I can think of is Ehud Barak , and he’s a very long way from the centre of power atm.
Unbelievable that anyone can believe this. Almost all of the 20k dead are civilians.
So they shoot anyone that moves, but are minimising civilian casualties. Incredible mental gymnastics you’re going through to justify the most horrific war crimes
As @peterroberts says, you are misunderstanding what I said. At the very least, IDF rules of engagement are shoot first, ask questions later. Take no identification risk, use maximum force to preserve the unit, without regard for civilian consequences. Hence the dead 3rd hostage, and I am not sure even those rules would get you there. The man was unarmed and taking cover in a building.
Frankly, that seems like an odd comment on a report which had a crew of at least three touring an incident site in Gaza. Journalists have died, and I have little trouble believing that IDF units have had very little regard for their safety at the very least. That doesn’t seem to have been a problem for that report.
I watched an interview/podcast of Daniel Levy and he was saying that public opinion/anger on both the sides will be lot different once the guns fall silent. I think the biggest hurdles are
The need to revamp the leaderships of both the sides. The combination of Netanyahu, Ben-Gvir, Smotrich, Hamas, and Abbas is the nightmare scenario and these are the turd that won’t flush.
I think if the first point had to happen , it would require a major change in mindset of the common people from both sides. The majority of both Israelis and Palestinians have gone so far to the right that as of now , the extremists in both hold total sway. Also you’ll be hard pressed to find a political party of Israel (even the left ones) still having credibility among the voters if they press for a less radical line on the I-P issue
Good point. But whose the mediators ? Def not the US with its explicit support of Israel. And also the same goes for Qatar who’s hosting the terrorists there.
Which country would like to involve themselves in this mess ?
But seriously , normally you would expect a body like the UN to step in , but with its bias already predetermined in Israeli eyes , that would be next to impossible. Maybe some kind of commission could be set up with members acceptable to both parties and an agreement to either abide by the negotiated terms of a settlement or have it imposed upon them.
Probably more magical thinking I know , but then so is the prospect of any two state solution as far as I can see. I have to admit a certain amount of hilarity listening to Biden , Sunak , Macron et al earnestly insisting on something while simultaneously the country that matters is telling us it will never happen.
Israel has brunt so many bridges, and most probably very deliberately. They have antagonized even countries like Ireland , Spain , and Belgium . Maybe, just maybe, countries like Iceland or Norway still retains goodwill among both the sides.
Worth noting that Qatar allowed Hamas to open up their representative office in Qatar at the explicit request of the US, during the Obama administration. They wanted a reliable means to communicate.
No, we don’t. Norway voted for the Cease Fire proposal that had been watered down and did not include Hamas Oct 7 attack as origin etc., so the Israelis are furious. Then again, the Israelis deal with the likes of Qatar but I don’t think they want Norway as a mediator in the conflict. Norway is seen as too Pro Palestinian and the Israeli gov is Hard Right and therefore cannot concede anything at all, as it is against their ideological foundation and against all they promise to their electorate. And a Peace Process that is to lead to anything at all, must include some very note worthy concessions (such as removal and evacuation of all settlements in the West Bank, shared Jerusalem status and some sort of territorial link to Gaza. It’s not going to happen this decade.
I also think the Israelis sees Iceland as they see Norway (and they would be right, there is little difference in our outlook and view of the world/narrative, Scandinavians and Nordics tends to generally think in the same way with some exceptions due to special experience. But since our culture is the same, our way of thinking is also generally the same).
Maybe, but I was focusing on the having to abide by the terms of a deal imposed on them bit, which is exactly what the UN did to them in the 40s with a deal at odds with the direction the Brits gave.
The thing I’ve never got a good answer to is what do Palestinians mean in practice with “right to return”. This seems to be the sticking point and part of that is I’ve never heard a really clear explanation for what they mean by it in the context of a two state solution.
I’ve always taken it to mean that those with a provable link to the land should be allowed to return and enjoy citizenship in the same way that the Jewish diaspora can. That was obviously never going to be allowed to happen , as evidenced by the collapse of Oslo after Arafat’s ridiculous last minute demand for it to be included. I think more recently it’s been refined to mean only a right of return to any new Palestinian state and not Israel proper but even that position may have been modified since by Abbas but I’m not really sure.
I think that’s my point. We can take it to mean many things when trying to square the circle, but I’ve never heard anyone in a position of authority, or close enough to it to talk about it say anything to help do that, based on their thinking.
Part of me thinks its a reflection that people are often a mishmash of contradictory ideas and their view on policy can often be incoherent (I say I want low government spending and am concerned about the national debt, but demand we increase our military spending because national security is important to me). But the cynic in me thinks it is used as a poison pill provision designed to reject any two state solution.
Nope. No European Country would involve themselves in this and rightly so. It isn’t about the goodwill.
India for example has good relations with Israel and has always maintained the lines of two nations theory. But ask them to mediate , they’ll shit themselves on the potential domestic fallout due to the sensitive matter this is if India volunteered to be in the council
In the same way , the likes of Germany and any other country of some substantial influence would rule themselves out of being in any commission.
has brunt so many bridges, and most probably very deliberately. They have antagonized even countries like Ireland 
, Spain 
, and Belgium 
. Maybe, just maybe, countries like Iceland 
or Norway 
still retains goodwill among both the sides.