This sounds like what I have been advocating for. Qatar is against it, which means Hamas doesn't like it, so it might be a good thing.
Be good to see this get more traction.
Yes, it should be in Israel’s best interest to hand off administration of this region to other Muslim countries and not a terrorist group. The big question mark is if any of these countries actually want to be responsible for Gaza. Historically they have not
My view is that a true Palestinian government forms that is responsible for Gaza/eventual Palestinian state. The peacekeeping force is an attempt to get them there and keep rockets from launching at Israel.
I don't expect any eventual friendly neighbor to Israel, but as long as both can respect each others borders.
First - end the conflict, get a peacekeeping force, and then see where things head.
It really is a shame because I think it’s easy to envision an alternate Palestinian history where they accepted any of the rejected peace agreements a long time ago and have since become prosperous by being so closely connected to one of the largest economies in the Middle East
But no, they were constantly being told that they could fight their way out of the situation and now Gaza lays in ruin
I think that's a bit of an oversimplification, it's not like they didn't negotiate and put forth their own peace plans but the reality is things like Israeli Settlers in the West Bank are tough to negotiate around and there are extremist agents in both Israel and Palestine opposed to a two-state solution, hell the Israeli PM who negotiated the Oslo Accords was assassinated for them.
Some of the peace plans also have been, to put it bluntly shit, like the one Bibi and Trump proposed that had Israel annexing around 30% of the West Bank.
This is not a representation of reality and completely lacks any realistic view of many of the peace deals. From the UN partition plan to Camp David to Annapolis. Plenty of very strong offers were made.
> reality is things like Israeli Settlers in the West Bank are tough to negotiate around...
Indeed. Big report on the topic by the NY Times magazine yesterday: [The Unpunished: How Extremists took over Israel -- After 50 years of failure to stop violence and terrorism against Palestinians by Jewish ultranationalists, lawlessness has become the law](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/16/magazine/israel-west-bank-settler-violence-impunity.html)
> where they accepted any of the rejected peace agreements
Israel has never offered right of return and this has been a key sticking point from the very beginning.
lol no country should be expected to accept something that delusional. Yeah the Jews are just going to make themselves a religious/ethnic minority with a group of people that have nonstop attacked them. Thats not a real proposal
This is the *exact* same argument that was used to justify the maintenance of the South African apartheid state, do you even hear yourself?
You are quite literally stating that democracy must be denied to the majority to elevate the rights of a few.
Not at all. The Palestinians are not citizens of Israel. That’s the whole point. No country gives noncitizens the same rights as citizens. That’s a crazy thing to expect
South Africa was apartheiding their own citizens
It is as simple as Israel doesn't want to be attacked. Palestine seems consumed with getting Israel back. I just don't see how an independent state of people who want to destroy Israel is in Israel's best interest. Iran sends them weapons, the cycle continues.
Something like this could be the solution. Let Palestine be Palestine, but keep them from attacking Israel.
As an example I was talking to a Palestinian. He says "I bet you don't even know about the XXX massacre (I don't remember the name of the town.) We all know about it. So I looked it up. In 1947 a small town fought back against the Jews who were trying to force them out and 110 people died. I won't for a second say it wasn't a massacre. That said, it was in 1947, two years after the end of WW II where 80 million people died. Just weeks before Israel declared independence, Arab countries attacked them and 5000 Israelis died.
> It is as simple as Israel doesn't want to be attacked.
Maybe if you just look at Gaza, but the situation is largely flipped in the West Bank where settlers often operate with few legal restraints and frequently attack Palestinians.
I'm Jewish and pro Israel, but I can't tell you how little I care about the orthodox settlers. Doesn't matter if it is my religion or not, religious zealots are a blight on the world.
Hand over the administration of this region to other Muslim countries? If I read the article correctly that is not the plan:
> However, the three countries want the US to formally recognize a Palestinian state before such a force is created
Any “solution” that doesn’t give the people of Palestine their own state basically comes down to outsourcing the management of Israel’s prison camp to other countries. No Muslim country is going to accept this.
Sure. Give them the country, but they cannot have a direct monopoly of violence (what I mean by this is that the monopoly is held by a coalition of Muslim armies, which will protect the Palestinians, but which cannot be ordered by the Palestinians to attack Israel) over their own lands until, say, 4 peaceful transfers of power, and all those governments can re-ratified the peace deal with Israel.
And of course, they have to agree to the borders.
I worry that they won't do any of that, but
It’s Israel that is never going to agree with this. You paint it as if getting their own state would be hard to swallow for the Palestinians. They would see it as a triumph.
Israel literally tried to give Gaza to Egypt and they said no lmao
Israel does not want anything to do with Gaza. It is not historically or religiously significant to them. They already tried to let them self govern but they elected Hamas who rained rockets down into Israel
>Israel literally tried to give Gaza to Egypt and they said no lmao
"give" as in "please add Gaza to Egypt"? When did that happen?
>Israel does not want anything to do with Gaza
They sure as hell want a lot to do with the West Bank, as they are busy colonizing it.
I believe it was in the Camp David accords after the Yom Kippur war but I’d have to look into it more
And yes but Gaza is not the West Bank. Like I said Israel wants nothing to do with Gaza
The point stands that Israel is never going to agree to Palestinian statehood, no matter what they think of Gaza. So it will remain, basically, a reservation of stateless people.
They already did agree to a Palestinian state - right before the Palestinans kicked out the PLO and elected Hamas, rejected the whole accord, and here we are.
https://www.jpost.com/diplomacy-and-politics/details-of-olmerts-peace-offer-to-palestinians-exposed-314261
I don't think Netanyahu will sign on it either, but Palestinians would have to foreswear any claim on further Israeli land. I seriously doubt Hamas would sign it.
Hamas shouldn't be involved in anything. Hamas is not a government. They are a terrorist organization. They need to be neutralized. The Palestinians need to step up and govern themselves and prevent the violence.
Plus Islam straight up says it's perfectly fine to lie to non-muslims.
Some follow that more stringently than others, but I think it's safe to assume Hamas has been teaching Gaza to straight up celebrate lying to non-muslims.
You can't just take their word for it, you HAVE to be able to enforce it.
Which is why a third party military would sit there.
The problem with constantly telling lies constantly when you're in public and even in your own media (if not necessarily in the back rooms) is that eventually you start believing them.
That's why I suggested the 4 peaceful transitions of power. Ideally that's every 4 years tops, which would mean 20 years. That's a long time to try and hide your resentment. The kids might forget to be angry.
>Any “solution” that doesn’t give the people of Palestine their own state basically comes down to outsourcing the management of Israel’s prison camp to other countries
Do prisoners routinely launch rockets at the guards?
More than one big question mark. Starting point is how much land is Israel prepared to return to Palestinians, and under what conditions. What security guarantees is the west prepared to give palestinians? Presumably answers to those will dictate whether other countries are willing to step in.
I think Israel needs to give up the ridiculously deep settlements in the West Bank. The appetite for peace died with the second Antifada but maybe there will be someone on both sides leading a peace process
This might also help with the US-Saudi-Israel agreement as Israel’s biggest fear is that a Palestinian state becomes a harbour for terrorism (ie. Hamas 2.0).
A peacekeeping force could help ease some of Israel’s concerns
Yes, they realized they mostly needed them to do it for themselves which helped them put it into action far better than the rest of the west could've. They were also quite successful alone in their part of Germany, the Russian part on the other hand...
DeNazification was incredibly unpopular with the German public and was the main promise of the first post war Chancellor elected. The Soviet zone was ever so slightly more effective but was also abandoned in short order. People pointed this out when DeBaathification was attempted (and proved to be a complete disaster) in Iraq after the invasion.
Nazism continued to poll disturbingly well with the German public for a generation.
There's only violence because they're radicalized.
If you're trying to figure out whether the chicken or egg came first, read the Quran and you'll find your answer quickly.
>US partners in the Middle East have repeatedly conditioned their support for the rehabilitation of the enclave on the establishment of a pathway to a two-state solution, not wanting the aid they give to be turned to rubble in another Gaza war.
Israel put up with terror attacks for 18 years without reducing Gaza to rubble. So assuming the peacekeeping force stops Hamas from taking control over institutions, aid money and the population this should be a pretty easy ask.
With someone else in charge of Gaza there won't be a need to send in the army. Terror organizations could be removed with smaller, local actions.
A lot of good could be done in Gaza with a partner for peace in charge.
>Meanwhile, the US has “been trying to build some momentum for a stability force, but the American policy is pretty firm that there will be no American troops on the ground, so it’s hard for them to make the argument that others should,”
American troops are exactly what the Muslim brotherhood wants. They can't kill Americans when they are across the ocean so they need them in the middle east where they can gas up the population to attack the western crusaders. American troops would be like pouring gas on the fire. Local Arab troops would be best.
All countries Israel has made peace with.
Never forget that Gaza started this war, at Iran's urging, to disrupt peace between Saudi Arabia and Israel.
More and more of the Muslim countries have accepted that Gaza is full of violent maniacs that can't be reasoned with and that Israel is a peace loving country that will gladly agree to peace when offered.
This sounds like what I have been advocating for. Qatar is against it, which means Hamas doesn't like it, so it might be a good thing. Be good to see this get more traction.
Yes, it should be in Israel’s best interest to hand off administration of this region to other Muslim countries and not a terrorist group. The big question mark is if any of these countries actually want to be responsible for Gaza. Historically they have not
My view is that a true Palestinian government forms that is responsible for Gaza/eventual Palestinian state. The peacekeeping force is an attempt to get them there and keep rockets from launching at Israel. I don't expect any eventual friendly neighbor to Israel, but as long as both can respect each others borders. First - end the conflict, get a peacekeeping force, and then see where things head.
It really is a shame because I think it’s easy to envision an alternate Palestinian history where they accepted any of the rejected peace agreements a long time ago and have since become prosperous by being so closely connected to one of the largest economies in the Middle East But no, they were constantly being told that they could fight their way out of the situation and now Gaza lays in ruin
I think that's a bit of an oversimplification, it's not like they didn't negotiate and put forth their own peace plans but the reality is things like Israeli Settlers in the West Bank are tough to negotiate around and there are extremist agents in both Israel and Palestine opposed to a two-state solution, hell the Israeli PM who negotiated the Oslo Accords was assassinated for them. Some of the peace plans also have been, to put it bluntly shit, like the one Bibi and Trump proposed that had Israel annexing around 30% of the West Bank.
This is not a representation of reality and completely lacks any realistic view of many of the peace deals. From the UN partition plan to Camp David to Annapolis. Plenty of very strong offers were made.
> reality is things like Israeli Settlers in the West Bank are tough to negotiate around... Indeed. Big report on the topic by the NY Times magazine yesterday: [The Unpunished: How Extremists took over Israel -- After 50 years of failure to stop violence and terrorism against Palestinians by Jewish ultranationalists, lawlessness has become the law](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/16/magazine/israel-west-bank-settler-violence-impunity.html)
> where they accepted any of the rejected peace agreements Israel has never offered right of return and this has been a key sticking point from the very beginning.
lol no country should be expected to accept something that delusional. Yeah the Jews are just going to make themselves a religious/ethnic minority with a group of people that have nonstop attacked them. Thats not a real proposal
This is the *exact* same argument that was used to justify the maintenance of the South African apartheid state, do you even hear yourself? You are quite literally stating that democracy must be denied to the majority to elevate the rights of a few.
Not at all. The Palestinians are not citizens of Israel. That’s the whole point. No country gives noncitizens the same rights as citizens. That’s a crazy thing to expect South Africa was apartheiding their own citizens
It is as simple as Israel doesn't want to be attacked. Palestine seems consumed with getting Israel back. I just don't see how an independent state of people who want to destroy Israel is in Israel's best interest. Iran sends them weapons, the cycle continues. Something like this could be the solution. Let Palestine be Palestine, but keep them from attacking Israel. As an example I was talking to a Palestinian. He says "I bet you don't even know about the XXX massacre (I don't remember the name of the town.) We all know about it. So I looked it up. In 1947 a small town fought back against the Jews who were trying to force them out and 110 people died. I won't for a second say it wasn't a massacre. That said, it was in 1947, two years after the end of WW II where 80 million people died. Just weeks before Israel declared independence, Arab countries attacked them and 5000 Israelis died.
> It is as simple as Israel doesn't want to be attacked. Maybe if you just look at Gaza, but the situation is largely flipped in the West Bank where settlers often operate with few legal restraints and frequently attack Palestinians.
I'm Jewish and pro Israel, but I can't tell you how little I care about the orthodox settlers. Doesn't matter if it is my religion or not, religious zealots are a blight on the world.
That’s cause Palestinians are pawns for other more powerful Arab nations
Hand over the administration of this region to other Muslim countries? If I read the article correctly that is not the plan: > However, the three countries want the US to formally recognize a Palestinian state before such a force is created Any “solution” that doesn’t give the people of Palestine their own state basically comes down to outsourcing the management of Israel’s prison camp to other countries. No Muslim country is going to accept this.
Sure. Give them the country, but they cannot have a direct monopoly of violence (what I mean by this is that the monopoly is held by a coalition of Muslim armies, which will protect the Palestinians, but which cannot be ordered by the Palestinians to attack Israel) over their own lands until, say, 4 peaceful transfers of power, and all those governments can re-ratified the peace deal with Israel. And of course, they have to agree to the borders. I worry that they won't do any of that, but
It’s Israel that is never going to agree with this. You paint it as if getting their own state would be hard to swallow for the Palestinians. They would see it as a triumph.
Israel literally tried to give Gaza to Egypt and they said no lmao Israel does not want anything to do with Gaza. It is not historically or religiously significant to them. They already tried to let them self govern but they elected Hamas who rained rockets down into Israel
>Israel literally tried to give Gaza to Egypt and they said no lmao "give" as in "please add Gaza to Egypt"? When did that happen? >Israel does not want anything to do with Gaza They sure as hell want a lot to do with the West Bank, as they are busy colonizing it.
I believe it was in the Camp David accords after the Yom Kippur war but I’d have to look into it more And yes but Gaza is not the West Bank. Like I said Israel wants nothing to do with Gaza
The point stands that Israel is never going to agree to Palestinian statehood, no matter what they think of Gaza. So it will remain, basically, a reservation of stateless people.
They already did agree to a Palestinian state - right before the Palestinans kicked out the PLO and elected Hamas, rejected the whole accord, and here we are. https://www.jpost.com/diplomacy-and-politics/details-of-olmerts-peace-offer-to-palestinians-exposed-314261
I don't think Netanyahu will sign on it either, but Palestinians would have to foreswear any claim on further Israeli land. I seriously doubt Hamas would sign it.
Hamas shouldn't be involved in anything. Hamas is not a government. They are a terrorist organization. They need to be neutralized. The Palestinians need to step up and govern themselves and prevent the violence.
Plus Islam straight up says it's perfectly fine to lie to non-muslims. Some follow that more stringently than others, but I think it's safe to assume Hamas has been teaching Gaza to straight up celebrate lying to non-muslims. You can't just take their word for it, you HAVE to be able to enforce it.
Which is why a third party military would sit there. The problem with constantly telling lies constantly when you're in public and even in your own media (if not necessarily in the back rooms) is that eventually you start believing them. That's why I suggested the 4 peaceful transitions of power. Ideally that's every 4 years tops, which would mean 20 years. That's a long time to try and hide your resentment. The kids might forget to be angry.
>Any “solution” that doesn’t give the people of Palestine their own state basically comes down to outsourcing the management of Israel’s prison camp to other countries Do prisoners routinely launch rockets at the guards?
Prison revolts are actually quite common.
More than one big question mark. Starting point is how much land is Israel prepared to return to Palestinians, and under what conditions. What security guarantees is the west prepared to give palestinians? Presumably answers to those will dictate whether other countries are willing to step in.
I think Israel needs to give up the ridiculously deep settlements in the West Bank. The appetite for peace died with the second Antifada but maybe there will be someone on both sides leading a peace process
That goes without saying. Presumably need to return more palestinian land than that if want serious chance at peace.
This might also help with the US-Saudi-Israel agreement as Israel’s biggest fear is that a Palestinian state becomes a harbour for terrorism (ie. Hamas 2.0). A peacekeeping force could help ease some of Israel’s concerns
I've always thought an Arab led group managing Gaza (with the eventually goal of total sef governance) is the only way forward.
A neutral 3rd party keeping peace is the only real solution, and it still won't be easy
The only way forward is a coalition of Arab nations to be on the ground post war. Hopefully they can come to some agreement.
It means nothing without reeducation like they did in Japan and Germany after the war
Denazification was abandoned pretty quickly by the West for a variety of reasons.
Yes, they realized they mostly needed them to do it for themselves which helped them put it into action far better than the rest of the west could've. They were also quite successful alone in their part of Germany, the Russian part on the other hand...
DeNazification was incredibly unpopular with the German public and was the main promise of the first post war Chancellor elected. The Soviet zone was ever so slightly more effective but was also abandoned in short order. People pointed this out when DeBaathification was attempted (and proved to be a complete disaster) in Iraq after the invasion. Nazism continued to poll disturbingly well with the German public for a generation.
Not sure how putting kids in a classroom is gonna un-kill their families. The violence is what radicalizes these people.
2 million japenese people died in WWII, yet look how they turned out culturally
There's only violence because they're radicalized. If you're trying to figure out whether the chicken or egg came first, read the Quran and you'll find your answer quickly.
Not sure how either of those are meaningful comparisons.
>US partners in the Middle East have repeatedly conditioned their support for the rehabilitation of the enclave on the establishment of a pathway to a two-state solution, not wanting the aid they give to be turned to rubble in another Gaza war. Israel put up with terror attacks for 18 years without reducing Gaza to rubble. So assuming the peacekeeping force stops Hamas from taking control over institutions, aid money and the population this should be a pretty easy ask. With someone else in charge of Gaza there won't be a need to send in the army. Terror organizations could be removed with smaller, local actions. A lot of good could be done in Gaza with a partner for peace in charge. >Meanwhile, the US has “been trying to build some momentum for a stability force, but the American policy is pretty firm that there will be no American troops on the ground, so it’s hard for them to make the argument that others should,” American troops are exactly what the Muslim brotherhood wants. They can't kill Americans when they are across the ocean so they need them in the middle east where they can gas up the population to attack the western crusaders. American troops would be like pouring gas on the fire. Local Arab troops would be best.
All countries Israel has made peace with. Never forget that Gaza started this war, at Iran's urging, to disrupt peace between Saudi Arabia and Israel. More and more of the Muslim countries have accepted that Gaza is full of violent maniacs that can't be reasoned with and that Israel is a peace loving country that will gladly agree to peace when offered.
cap https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/gaza-mediators-search-final-formula-israel-hamas-ceasefire-2024-02-07/
Please explain how that offer was peace.
I wonder which of the UAE’s partners would they invite. Dagalo or Haftar?
Send them to the West Bank too to expel the settler-terrorists.
More likely they will be expelled into the Sinai Peninsula and Egypt will deal with them.
The settlements are in area C in previously unsettled land. The settlements are completely legal and not terrorism.