Democratic socialist politicians like Cori Bush and Rashida Tlaib are right about the violence in Israel and Palestine: we should both be mourning civilian deaths and calling for an end to the Israeli occupation.
I completely agree. I understand why radicalization occurs within Palestine, but this attack does not advance the goals of Palestine in any way but in fact exacerbates their already-dismal conditions tenfold. To me, I feel that Israel has nearly all of the agency to actually change the paradigm, but of course won’t. Meanwhile Palestinians are pretty much voiceless on the world-stage and so “acting out” is the only way they can get attention. It’s a horrible state of affairs that can only resolve by some miracle of a true leader presenting themselves within both camps and seeking to truly turn the page.
I don’t think Israel has “all the agency.” Part of the problem is that, with Hamas in charge, Israel would be trying to negotiate with someone whose stated goal is the complete destruction of Israel.
Suppose that, starting tomorrow, Israel treated the Palestinians perfectly. No military members assaulting innocent Palestinian citizens. No blockades of crucial supplies. Not even guards at checkpoints keeping Palestinians from entering/leaving certain areas.
If Hamas and similar organizations kept up attacks (because they wouldn’t have achieved their goal of wiping out Israel), it would just lead to pressure to restore those measures (despite them being flawed). The more attacks, the more pressure to act as the more likely that the government would crack down again.
It’s tricky because the Palestinians don’t want to stop because they fear the Israelis trampling them and the Israelis don’t want to stop because they fear terrorist attacks. Both fears are valid but it’s resulting in a toxic cycle of violence. It would take both sides cooperating to break this cycle. Sadly, I don’t think the current leaders on either side want to even attempt this.
I generally agree with you here; though as a caveat if I understand right, Hamas changed their charter to accept the the 1967 borders two-state solution as of 2017, suggesting a willingness to coexist.
I completely agree. I understand why radicalization occurs within Palestine, but this attack does not advance the goals of Palestine in any way but in fact exacerbates their already-dismal conditions tenfold. To me, I feel that Israel has nearly all of the agency to actually change the paradigm, but of course won’t. Meanwhile Palestinians are pretty much voiceless on the world-stage and so “acting out” is the only way they can get attention. It’s a horrible state of affairs that can only resolve by some miracle of a true leader presenting themselves within both camps and seeking to truly turn the page.
I don’t think Israel has “all the agency.” Part of the problem is that, with Hamas in charge, Israel would be trying to negotiate with someone whose stated goal is the complete destruction of Israel.
Suppose that, starting tomorrow, Israel treated the Palestinians perfectly. No military members assaulting innocent Palestinian citizens. No blockades of crucial supplies. Not even guards at checkpoints keeping Palestinians from entering/leaving certain areas.
If Hamas and similar organizations kept up attacks (because they wouldn’t have achieved their goal of wiping out Israel), it would just lead to pressure to restore those measures (despite them being flawed). The more attacks, the more pressure to act as the more likely that the government would crack down again.
It’s tricky because the Palestinians don’t want to stop because they fear the Israelis trampling them and the Israelis don’t want to stop because they fear terrorist attacks. Both fears are valid but it’s resulting in a toxic cycle of violence. It would take both sides cooperating to break this cycle. Sadly, I don’t think the current leaders on either side want to even attempt this.
I generally agree with you here; though as a caveat if I understand right, Hamas changed their charter to accept the the 1967 borders two-state solution as of 2017, suggesting a willingness to coexist.
Whether that’s in good faith or not I don’t know.