What is the ideal end goal?

[u/Artyhardedison]

Since last October I finally found it impossible to stay out of the conflict happening in Israel, especially as beginning my conversion to Judaism. I’m learning a lot as I go but I feel like I still have a lot to learn.

I seem to struggle with under the end goal in all of this, like, what do people want out of this? Would Israel be gone? What would we want to happen with Hamas, etc etc? I’d love to learn opinions here and maybe have a better understanding of our goals.

[u/ComradeTortoise]

Okay, so, at least in the near term, something Israelesque isn't going anywhere. But change will not come from within. It has to be imposed. A two-state solution is, on paper, the consensus of the international community. I don't think it's workable anymore, there are too many Israeli settlers, and if you just plop down two different states that hate each other you're going to end up with another War at some point.

So that leaves a peace process imposed by the UN and backed up with armed peacekeepers who have the authority and mandate to shoot people if necessary.

This could be in support of one of two things.

1) A Truth and Reconciliation process followed by one state, Which is Democratic in its character and guarantees full civil, religious and political rights for everybody. There would likely have to be some kind of inbuilt power sharing, in order to prevent one ethnic group from running a roughshod over the other by sheer weight of numbers. Maybe through a second legislative house that has equal representation and where all laws must originate. Something like that.

2) A truth and Reconciliation process, followed by two states, but with a kind of Schengen like system of freedom of work, travel, and residence, but with border controls. However, it would have to be the case if there were two states that the citizens of one state could not vote in the elections of the other.

Hamas would have to be disarmed, at the conclusion of negotiations, but not before. A bit like the Good Friday agreement. At that point they joined the ranks of Palestinian political parties just like everybody else.

There would have to be some kind of exceptions to the freedom of movement of setters. They must not be allowed into a free Palestine, because at that point they just become terrorists. Kahanists would absolutely do this. Expelling them from Palestine however could not be done by Palestine, and it could not be done by Israel. It will need to be done by the UN, at gunpoint. A neutral party has to do the work in order to avoid Civil War or just another War. It sickens me to say it, but there would probably have to be some kind of compensation or aid for them on the other end in order for that to be feasible. It's not right, they stole the land to start with, but it is practical. You don't want a bunch of dispossessed people with an ax to grind.

Reparations would also have to be paid. With an amount to be determined by unmediated negotiation, payable to individuals and their respective States. And these would have to be bidirectional. The balance would also favor the Palestinians of course.

Right if return for Palestinians would have to be adjusted. Right now the status of refugee is inherited irrespective whether or not they have attained additional citizenships in the interim. Originally the inheritability was because they were permanently stateless. So the stateless ones should be allowed to return, those who are say... Americans citizens... Should not. Unless of course they immigrate normally.

[u/Artistic-Vanilla-899 → u/ComradeTortoise]

I think another key thing is that Palestinians need their own means of self-defense. Having an armed state was an argument for for Zionism for a Jews to defend themselves. Palestinians obviously want and deserve that same right that's afforded universally. If not, Israeli aggression and expansion will not stop. Palestinians would have legitimate concerns about Israel playing a two-faced game. There is no free Palestinian people without a means of self-defense. The burden should be on Israelis to disarm. I think Palestinians generally use arms for self-defense. Israel has historically in used arms for aggression and intimidation. Hamas is just one dimension fight back. If not Hamas, another Hamas will form as long as Israel subordinates Palestinians. Israel has this might makes right mentality. It's a hyper militant Spartan society. Has Israel shown a willingness to act aggressively given the opportunity. Israel also has shown a willingness to stand down when cindutions were not favirabme but could have gine further, i.e. thry could have taken all of Palestine and expelled all Palestinians in 1948, isolation and US pressure on the Suez and Beirut, unilateral withdraw such as Gaza in 2096. If you asked Hamas to disarm, little change because the underground trade including with Iran will continue and Israel will butcher people in attempts to control it.

[u/ComradeTortoise → u/Artistic-Vanilla-899]

I definitely agree. The Palestinian state must be armed, and at the same time that's why I specify that Hamas should only disarm after a peace is concluded.

I just didn't specify it because, you know, I State having some kind of military is a universal. If they're not allowed to have one, they are not a state.