If anything why do you expect them to make that step now?

I don’t expect them to make that step. But there must be true willingness apparent to take that step, should this conflict ever come to an end.

there needs to be a good faith effort from, well, anyone.

True!

There’s no reason they should be disallowed from running for elections in a post-conflict Palestine.

If they give up their current main goal, the destruction of Israel, yes.

Israel as a Jewish state built by Jews for Jews is already full of injustices

How much Jewish life is there left in Palestine or even Gaza? Is Gaza, run by the Hamas, a secular entity open to all religions, protecting also their rights?

I mean, I completely agree with you concerning equal rights for all regions, but this shouldn’t only apply to one side of the conflict. As far as I can tell, the problem of Hamas with Israel is not that a minority religion is not granted full rights along the states “main religion”, it is only that Judaism is the main religion and not Islam. That’s however no basis for a solution, only changing to opposite signs.

Everything you want should come as part of negotiations between the two sides, not as a mere prelude to negotiations. It takes two to tango here

Absolutely agree! However, speaking of pressure to be exerted by supporting nations on Israel, there has to be at least a perspective of achieving something positive with that and not just switching the upper hand to the other radical side. Then, there’s not only Hamas but also Iran that is set to destroy Israel. The potential pressure hence is also limited by the fact that Israel still needs to be able to fully deter this regime. And that’s where it becomes completely complicated…

Not ruling Gaza has never been a deal-breaker for them.

No, but disarming has. Giving up their rule in Gaza is one thing, but they’d also need to agree on disarming and effectively dissolving themselves. So far, I can’t see them make that step.

If the injustices cease groups such as Hamas will have no way of selling themselves to the people

The problem is that it already is an injustice for too many people on both sides that the other ones should have their own state. Here, the injustice for Hamas is the mere existence of Israel. The Good Friday Agreement includes both sides to acknowledge the other side, this would have to happen here as well.

I don’t think Hamas has been pitching itself as the future rulers of Palestine

They certainly were very keen on becoming rulers of Gaza at leaat and conveniently forgot to allow free elections ever after. Hamas has indeed a strong political agenda and their main goal is and was to destroy Israel.

If the international community gives Israel an ultimatum saying “equal rights for Palestinians now or no weapons” the whole problem will fix itself

Only if the international community can effectively exert the same pressure on actors such as Hamas. If only Israel is militarily weakened while Hamas can then resume their terror again, this absolutely won’t fly. This is why Hamas and/or their main goal would need to disappear, too.

As far as I can tell, we both stated something Morris said. I wouldn’t consider one thing a fact and the other a biased view, no matter which one. I wouldn’t consider both things “a fact” per se. But as I said, we can exchange those snippets all day long and won’t get anywhere, so I don’t see a point.

Who said anything about either of that?

Well, afaik, both Hamas and expansionist Israelis each think of a solution where they take over the entire other part, not of one where they equally cohabit in one common nation together.

The facts are clear that Palestine’s Jewish population was not at risk of extermination or displacement by the Arab armies.

The same author (Morris) also said this:

While Benny Morris considers the real picture of the Arab aims to be more complex, notably because they were well aware they could not defeat the Jews,[101] he argues that the Yishuv was indeed threatened with extinction and feared what would happen if the Arabs won.

We can exchange snippets from authors aligning with our views all day without making any progress at all.

Fact is: there won’t be the necessary trust from Palestinians towards actors such as the IDF for them to live under their rule - there won’t be the necessary trust of Israelis towards actors auch as Hamas for them to live under their rule.

They’ll never live in one state, as they each have reasonable doubt about the respective other side - hence everyone still advocating the idea of one side surpassing the other and taking over the other part is only ensuring that this conflict will never end. This includes Israelis that want to destroy Palestine - this includes Palestinians that want to destroy Israel - and those on the outside advocating either of it.

They show a devotion comparable to religious sects. Those don’t work for money but because they are completely absorbed by their respective belief. :)

I can recall off the top of my head multiple examples where military conquest or regime change happened without mass civilian casualties.

I’m talking about Israel/Palestine specifically. And I guess we both know things tend to take the more violent route there if two options exist.

No it’s not; that’s pseudohistory.

There have been massacres by Arabs against Israelis (and vice versa, just to be sure). No side can claim clean hands.

I don’t think you understand what jihad is.

All I know is that the usage here, i.e. calling the war against Israel a duty toward God, isn’t making the conflict a more peaceful one.

They don’t get paid, they do it out of conviction

People can be annihilated, which is obviously not what I’m talking about.

But this is what would be (and has historically been) at stake. Such a war would be (and was) not only about dismantling an administrative entity such as the state Israel but inevitably would also include the killing of the inhabitants of this state. That happened when the military coalition of Arab states invaded Israel in '48 and it btw also happened when Israel occupied Gaza. Muslim religious leaders declaring the war against Israel per fatwa as djihad didn’t help either. The core problem is that too many people (on both sides!) think they are in the right of denying the opposing site existence. This will never lead anywhere. Although superior in numbers, the Arab states will never achieve a Middle East without Israel due to the Western support that precisely due to this scenario will never cease to ensure Israel’s safety. At the same time, power-hungry corrupt politicians such as Netanyahu that need war to stay in office and out of prison teaming up with fundamentalist Israelis dreaming of a Middle East without Palestine will never succeed. The knot must be cut - starting with, on both sides, isolating those that think there is a possibility where only one side will prevail while the other gets destroyed. This won’t ever happen.

the IDF is still one of the most advanced militaries in the world. It’s not like they’d be sitting ducks without Western support.

Almost all large equipment is in one way or the other attributed to the US or another larger Western power. Israel is an isolated, small land surrounded by parties that more or less openly seek to destroy it. It is regionally only respected for its military power, nothing else. As developed as it is, it has almost no resources and is highly dependend on access to markets and the help of others.

Yeah why is that a bad thing?

Just to be clear: you’re seriously asking why it is a bad thing of a country is annihilated by its neighbours?

33% of people killed on October 7th were military targets

Your point being? That it’s tough luck for the remaining allegedly 66% civilian “targets”? Wouldn’t you agree that Hamas showed a very high level of brutality, also against civilians - think Nova Festival Massacre?

calling for the genocide of Jews

We were talking about the annihilation of Israel here, something both parties still desire.

extremely bad faith argument

I’m not trying to give a bad faith argument here. I also don’t want to apologise the way Netanyahu is waging his war, just to be clear. I just want to point out why it is that a country such as Germany realistically is supporting Israel. This support was born from a historical responsibility but also from a dire necessity given the amount of aggression Israel was facing from its surroundings from the start on.

Had Israel not received this support from “the West” and given the sheer amounts of adversaries it faced and faces, it simply wouldn’t exist anymore, I hope we can agree on that. So that’s one of the fundamental problems in this region that needs fixing should this conflict ever come to an end.

to protect Israeli Jews from the genocide you’re talking about (which no major Palestinian group actually wants, to be clear)

Hamas’ goal still is the annihilation of Israel and - as shown in October '23 - its population. Iran, having the same goal, is also actively supporting groups in the region to destroy Israel. Hate Netanyahu or illegal Israeli settlers all you want, but this needs to be fixed. Given that this threat to Israel wouldn’t perish if Israel were to become weaker under external pressure but instead would probably grow and “seize its opportunity”, realistically there is very little chance for countries such as Germany to end their support, even if they oppose the way and purpose of Netanyahus war that left the scope of rightful self-defense quite a while ago. I don’t think its bad faith to try to understand the motivation behind actions, even if I criticise them.

We’re not talking about “any risk at all to Israelis”, we’re talking about the threat of complete annihilation, the very same genocidal aspirations you see on Netanyahu’s side. Obviously, that’ doesn’t excuse the way Netanyahu is waging this war. But that’s what keeps the fundamental support from countries such as Germany going. And that’s what’s needs to be fixed before “the West” will actually expose Israel to pressure threatening their security. As long as people still want to wipe Israel from the map, the support will remain intact. Realistically, that’s something one can’t get past, regardless of where one stands in this conflict.

… and they are not a crumbling but constantly threatening nuclear power with phantom pain and ambitions to regain a tight authoritarian grip on a large part of Europe.

That’s the key condition. As soon as other partners aren’t willing to give them what they want, they will not hesitate.

But wouldn’t that make the AfD their second best option at best? The way you state it makes it seem as though they are actually poised to form a coalition with them, i.e. actually go for them as their prime partner in a coalition. I’d say they’d always try to form a coalition first with red, green and/or yellow.

Also, as stated, I don’t see any hard-bitten aspirations to form a coalition with them later as the key driver in their reluctance to ban the AfD, but rather the fear of failure. Wouldn’t you agree?

While I don’t believe fascism would die with them, don’t underestimate the power of “popular” leading figureheads. The system behind Trump for example is in need of a person such as Trump that does as they want and still gives the people the impression of doing something for them instead.

Merz is power-hungry and wanted to become chancellor pretty bad. Also, I’d agree that there is too much spinelessness in the party when push comes to shove (but also in the SPD, as can be seen in the ‘cautious’ comments concerning a ban of the AfD).

Yet, I don’t really see them wanting to form a coalition with the Nazis in 2029 and concerning Merz, it is one of the very few things I actually believe him that he personally won’t form a coalition with the AfD. They also don’t want to burn themselves in a failed attempt to ban the party, or, in the Unions case, don’t want backlash from the voters they want to attract back from the AfD. But I honestly wouldn’t say they are keen to cooperate with the AfD, especially as long as it is possible to achieve their goals with a partner as malleable as the SPD. The reasons of them not wanting to ban the party are primarily fears of accountability and backlash, not strategic ones.

Genuine question: what/who do you base that assumption on?

So far, those most thinking about such a coalition seem to be those that aren’t in the Union.

The company also has plans to set up a facility in Turkey in the near future, and is considering a third factory in Europe, the report suggests.

Hm, given this track record, my money is on Serbia… /s

Saying he considers Comac brings his company into the newspapers and minds of people. Saying he considers Airbus doesn’t.

Realistically, the support will stop if there is the impression that this will bring peace to the region - and not only enable those who want to destroy Israel to regain the upper hand and restart their aggression.

As long as Netanyahu is able to point on an enemy that aims to destroy Israel, he will get support for his war. Not because they like the way he does it but because they will never allow Israel to again be faced by superior neighbours poised to destroy it, as experienced in its early years.

My guess is: if Gaza rids itself of Hamas and their goal to destroy Israel, Netanyahu will have a hard time finding war support in Europe.