The recent recognitions of a Palestinian state and the October 10 ceasefire have been followed by a flurry of calls to “deradicalize” Palestinian society. The New York Times editorial board went so far as to compare this deradicalization project to the denazification of Germany after the Second World War. These calls have the situation backwards to the point of farce.
I acknowledged that when I said “If a Palestinian leader becomes too moderate, Hamas will do their own thing.”.
No, they don’t. There are many blameless Palestinians. And there are Israelis who voted for the current government, they surely carry more guilt in this war than Palestinian victims.
Firstly, I never said they have to accept it. If you think war is the only means of not accepting and trying to change it, it says a lot about you. Secondly, someone else in this comment section said: “what will lead to an enduring peace is actually more important than what is just.”
This is why this will never end.
Like I told you, it’s Israel that “mows the grass” to make sure no moderate gets ahead. Bargouti is in an Israeli jail.
But that’s the point: if it is not just, it will not be enduring. I don’t understand what is confusing about “no justice no peace”. Justice by the way does not mean that Palestinians get everything. It means that they get enough to feel that they have gotten a deal they can live with. Ireland is a fantastic example here actually. The Irish didn’t get a united Ireland in the early 20th century, but they got an independent country. And in the next chapter of struggle, the republicans and the unionists again didn’t get everything, but they got enough to get to a place they can live with. But Britain had to fucking let go in both cases. The Israelis have to fucking let go and they have to come to terms with what they’ve done and realize that they will have to pay some kind of reparation at the very least.
Nothing about it is confusing, it is very clear. And it is an absolute position that will make this conflict go on forever. Why? Because in an asymmetric conflict like this, there will always be injustice.
You have to find a way to end this injustice with peaceful means. I refuse to accept that only violence can solve this. That’s all I am saying.
What absolute position? I wrote a whole paragraph after the bit that you quote exactly on why it is not an absolute position.
Okay, I admit I didn’t pay enough attention to what you wrote. Probably because I don’t like being lectured about history.
But in that case, even better! They tried working on a two-state solution. It was shot down, but you gotta try again. And again. And again.
Everything Israel and the Palestinians are doing at the moment is the exact opposite. They create more violence, hatred, death, destruction and desire for vengeance, which in turn will be the fuel for more decades of war.
Stop both sides-ing for goodness sake! There are no two equal sides here. There are the perpetrators and the victims of a genocide, of apartheid, and of occupation.
Not to mention that you are literally factually wrong. Hamas controls Gaza but the PA controls the West Bank. There is nothing the PA does that “creates violence, hatred, destruction and desire for vengeance” among Israelis. So to be extremely clear YOUR FRAMING IS FACTUALLY WRONG. The PA has recognized Israel, supports the two state solution. The PA is so actively trying to supress radicals that if you look around this thread you will see people accusing it of being collaborationists. And what do they get in response? Colonization, occupation, apartheid, and pogroms. If Israel achieves its war goals and eliminates Hamas from Gaza, the result will be that that insufferable misery also extended there. The Palestinians are literally given a choice of genocide or apartheid, of a quick fiery death or a slow bleeding death. This is Israel’s policy and it isn’t just Bibi, it is the Israeli state policy of the last 30 fucking years.
Interesting thread, although your definition of ‘Justice’ being one where ‘each side gets what they can live with’ isn’t quite in line with how it’s defined. Many dictionaries word it slightly differently, but it all boils down to legality and morality, both of which have no absolute basis.
I.e. any side can cite any law or moral reference to support their view(s) and establish a casus belli. That only their described outcome is ‘just’. Justice =! compromise or reparation. It’s merely an interpretation.
In our current frame of reference, what Bibi and the Israeli forces are doing is reprehensible. However, the cessation and ‘deradicalization’ of such actors followed by the delivery of some form of ‘justice’ to all concerned doesn’t deliver a blank slate and an enduring solution, simply because the interpretation and basis of justice is so vastly different for each involved state in the whole region.
The concept of justice I’m advocating for in this context (and I’m not claiming to be a moral philosopher) is a mix of Transitional and Restorative concepts of justice. I’m inspired from things like ending vendettas/blood feuds. For such long standing conflicts, absolute justice is just not realizable, because absolute evil has already happened. However we can get to functional relationships and communities that work towards a future. So when I say ‘each side gets what they can live with’ I mean exactly the question of how far can you get to justice without breaking the future. And I actually mean “live with” not just tolerate but actually live. It’s not a compromise in the sense of horse trading, it is a compromising in the sense of accepting that some wrongs just cannot be amended but that a better future is still possible.
I understand your description of justice in this context. Could you follow that with real life examples of where a lasting peace has been achieved between actors after an ‘absolute evil’ has been done that meets your definition?
Also, what constitutes ‘living’ in your context? Would say, the relationship / situation between Greece and Turkey be accurately classified as living, even though quite some ‘hatred’ bubbles beneath the surface?