submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by to c/world@lemmy.world
 

Edited title to match articles title.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 25 points 2 years ago (4 children)

One of these “sides” could unilaterally peacefully end the conflict. For the other side choosing “peace” just means submitting to living under an occupying force as eternal second class citizens. insert mlk quote here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    If you really think that Israel casually choosing to disarm itself doesn't immediately end with it being destroyed, I'd invite you to look at the 2005 IDF withdrawal from Gaza, which was done as a token of goodwill on the path to peace.

    Gazans then elected Hamas and immediately began launching rockets. Israel won't make that mistake again.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (3 children)

    why did they simply not have another election? or has another entity completely stopped that?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    Yeah, both the Fatah and Gaza because both know that Palestinian people have largely become fed up with their combined inefficacy in trying to make a country of millions with a superior military just disappear.

    Not to mention Iran constantly intervening to keep Hamas armed enough to suppress dissent.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    "They", meaning the Israeli government, couldn't force an election because they withdrew from Gaza and have no direct power there. Hamas suspended democracy to any meaningful degree because they don't care about it. In the West Bank, elections have been suspended by the Palestinian Authority because it's likely that Hamas would win them and create another Gaza, which Israel would not allow to happen.

  • source
  • parent