I agree with one caveat: the Palestinians can help themselves the same way India, South Africa, and other colonial peoples have. Non-violent resistance gets really good results in democracies. It's not easy, but it's less dangerous than attacking a modern military.
The hardest step is getting rid of Hamas, which is more like a mafia than a government. They're more interested in keeping their power and position with help from Iran. In South Africa, Nelson Mandela was a violent terrorist before he turned to 100% non-violence.
Here's an interesting article that no one will read:
I agree with one caveat: the Palestinians can help themselves the same way India, South Africa, and other colonial peoples have. Non-violent resistance gets really good results in democracies.
They tried. They tried a lot (well the first intifada also had a violent element but yk). The result was the Oslo accords, which were almost there until the then-PM was assassinated and Netenyahu who succeeded him just called the whole thing off. Since you mentioned India, the situation in Palestine is more like the troubles in Northern Ireland. You need people who actually care about human rights (many Israelis do, but enough don't that Netenyahu was/has been PM for a total of 16+ years).
The hardest step is getting rid of Hamas, which is more like a mafia than a government.
Hamas aren't actually 100% opposed to peace. They've already made three good faith efforts (2008 ceasefire, 2012 ceasefire, 2012-2013 united government), but in all three Israel actively rejected peace.
Edit: I know it's weird that a terrorist organization is being the (slightly) reasonable side here, but yeah the fact that the conflict went on for so long is on Israel's far-right party and Netenyahu specifically for rejecting peace time and time again. As soon as peace comes Hamas will either mellow out into an Islamist government or die off.
The result was the Oslo accords, which were almost there until the then-PM was assassinated and Netenyahu who succeeded him just called the whole thing off.
The reason why israeli people became more conservative during that time was due to Hamas executing several terrorist strikes during the Oslo Accords. Not surprisingly, the extremists on all sides hate peace – prime minister Rabin was murdered by a Jewish extremist.
I can only think to part of a response Orwell had for pacifists:
I am not interested in pacifism as a ‘moral phenomenon’. If Mr Savage and others imagine that one can somehow ‘overcome’ the German army by lying on one’s back, let them go on imagining it, but let them also wonder occasionally whether this is not an illusion due to security, too much money and a simple ignorance of the way in which things actually happen. As an ex-Indian civil servant, it always makes me shout with laughter to hear, for instance, Gandhi named as an example of the success of non-violence. As long as twenty years ago it was cynically admitted in Anglo-Indian circles that Gandhi was very useful to the British government. So he will be to the Japanese if they get there. Despotic governments can stand ‘moral force’ till the cows come home; what they fear is physical force.
Despotic governments can stand ‘moral force’ till the cows come home; what they fear is physical force.
That's why I said democracies are vulnerable to non-violent resistance.
Democracies, like Israel, are the opposite of authoritarian governments. Developed democracies can withstand all the force you send at them because they rule with the consent of the governed and have much larger resources at their disposal.
They are more vulnerable to soft power. Hamas already has broadcast abilities. They should literally get rid of most weapons, and start broadcasting 24/7 about the hardships of living in the West Bank and Gaza. They have an unlimited amount of ammo because Israel genuinely makes people's lives terrible.
just because a place calls its self or even is a democracy doesn't mean it can't be despotic.
there is no inherent "democracy is not despotic" we have seen plenty of despotic democratic governments, almost all of them only toppled due to outside influence.
and a side point Democracies aren't more resistant to force, they are just a little less likely to collapse due to a general trust in the standing government, nothing to do with resources.
Doesn't help when most of the "offers" they get are basically, "you give up at least half of your land (including most of the Mediterranean Coast) and in return, we'll stop genociding you."
I agree with one caveat: the Palestinians can help themselves the same way India, South Africa, and other colonial peoples have. Non-violent resistance gets really good results in democracies. It's not easy, but it's less dangerous than attacking a modern military.
The hardest step is getting rid of Hamas, which is more like a mafia than a government. They're more interested in keeping their power and position with help from Iran. In South Africa, Nelson Mandela was a violent terrorist before he turned to 100% non-violence.
Here's an interesting article that no one will read:
https://time.com/5338569/nelson-mandela-terror-list/
They tried. They tried a lot (well the first intifada also had a violent element but yk). The result was the Oslo accords, which were almost there until the then-PM was assassinated and Netenyahu who succeeded him just called the whole thing off. Since you mentioned India, the situation in Palestine is more like the troubles in Northern Ireland. You need people who actually care about human rights (many Israelis do, but enough don't that Netenyahu was/has been PM for a total of 16+ years).
Hamas aren't actually 100% opposed to peace. They've already made three good faith efforts (2008 ceasefire, 2012 ceasefire, 2012-2013 united government), but in all three Israel actively rejected peace.
Edit: I know it's weird that a terrorist organization is being the (slightly) reasonable side here, but yeah the fact that the conflict went on for so long is on Israel's far-right party and Netenyahu specifically for rejecting peace time and time again. As soon as peace comes Hamas will either mellow out into an Islamist government or die off.
The reason why israeli people became more conservative during that time was due to Hamas executing several terrorist strikes during the Oslo Accords. Not surprisingly, the extremists on all sides hate peace – prime minister Rabin was murdered by a Jewish extremist.
I can only think to part of a response Orwell had for pacifists:
Yeah, that's correct:
That's why I said democracies are vulnerable to non-violent resistance.
Democracies, like Israel, are the opposite of authoritarian governments. Developed democracies can withstand all the force you send at them because they rule with the consent of the governed and have much larger resources at their disposal.
They are more vulnerable to soft power. Hamas already has broadcast abilities. They should literally get rid of most weapons, and start broadcasting 24/7 about the hardships of living in the West Bank and Gaza. They have an unlimited amount of ammo because Israel genuinely makes people's lives terrible.
just because a place calls its self or even is a democracy doesn't mean it can't be despotic.
there is no inherent "democracy is not despotic" we have seen plenty of despotic democratic governments, almost all of them only toppled due to outside influence.
and a side point Democracies aren't more resistant to force, they are just a little less likely to collapse due to a general trust in the standing government, nothing to do with resources.
THEY'VE TRIED.
Doesn't help when most of the "offers" they get are basically, "you give up at least half of your land (including most of the Mediterranean Coast) and in return, we'll stop genociding you."
And those are the "good" offers.