I hear some answers like “end the Zionist project” and things like that, but there no clarification as to what that entails (is it a one-state solution?).
Hamas stated goal at current is to end the Israeli occupation of Gaza & the WB. Hamas, the PLO, and other Palestinian movements have also been looking for political recognition.
In other words: current goal is short term peace and rebuilding. Palestine is fragmented politically, so there isn’t much more concrete than this.
Movements which have come about due to the Palestinian diaspora (like the Palestinian Youth Movement [PYM] in America) are more openly radical and are calling for a one state solution (the end to the Zionist project).
So Hamas does not have an end-goal beyond Gaza/WB? My understanding is that Oct 7 was to set up the dominos to fall to eventually lead to something. So Hamas must be having some long term goal here right?
Not really, Hamas has pretty much accepted a two state solution along the 67 border in their rectified manifesto.
The problem is Israel can’t accept a two state solution. It will be one more nail in the coffin of the Zionist project, something they can’t come to terms with. Israel as it is now (literally the most evil country on earth) has no future and the Palestinian resistance reminds them of that and drives them psycho (although they were plenty psycho to begin with,).
Yes. But the acceptance of any state solution depends on the political sentiment their patron state which is the US if there are no will from Washington to do anything we are going back to pre October 7th
The two state solution was always a compromise because Oslo set a precedent on how the world perceived the conflict needs to be resolved. However, it was a poisonous gift since the beginning and we are seeing the consequences.
this feels like a very existential war. Israel has to fundamentally change if not cease to exist for there to be any peace agreement in Gaza, let alone the northern front and the red sea. There isn’t a real movement for peace beyond the sporadic protests in Jaffa that aren’t a threat to the state.
Much like Ukraine, the powers that be decided to play all their cards, and whether it works out is hard to tell.
Israel has to fundamentally change if not cease to exist for there to be any peace agreement in Gaza,
Yes, this is basically the “zionist entity must end” solution. But what I want to know is, what does this practically entail?
Like does it mean the whole area comes under a single state controlled by Hamas/PLO? Is it some kind of power-sharing agreement? How does it handle the Sampson option etc?
what does this practically entail?
South Africa is the only model for this. As for questions unique to israel I’m not sure anyone has an answer.
I think your point on the nukes is a valid area to question, slightly offtopic but I have not seen anyone discuss the future ramifications either - if a state with nukes can successfully be ended without the use of those nukes then this has serious ramifications for the future of nuclear weapons as a deterrent. Such a thing will completely change aggression calculations and strategy against nuclear armed countries.
South Africa had nukes (which they developed in cooperation with israel incidentally, see the Vela incident) before they gave them up so black people wouldn’t control a nuclear-armed country, making South Africa the only country in history to voluntarily undergo nuclear disarmament.
I agree South Africa is the best model we have but there are also important differences, like how israel & Palestine have an approximately even split in population whereas it was like 90% black/10% white in South Africa. Black people were also much, much more integrated into the South African economy as they worked for the benefit of white people. At this point israel does not make very much use of Palestinian labor.
Yes but it hadn’t matured and they had like… 3 bombs? 6 bombs? I can’t remember which off the top of my head.
Israel is fully realized fascist state, it’s gonna keep pursuing genocide until it ends up like Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan, which may include nuclear war…either way a mass exodus of settlers is inevitable
The US may decide to send ground troops or they could cut their losses
Has always if shit hits the fan, what really swings the long-term conflict is what Egypt decides to do
Has always if shit hits the fan, what really swings the long-term conflict is what Egypt decides to do
Not necessarily, economic warfare is brutal and attrition is not feasible for the entity. It might just be that a slow burn attritional war that breaks the entity from within. No one wants that nuclear settler project (or the other nuclear settler project that backs the former) to actually use their WMD. So external destruction of the entity (which is what I assume you believe Egypt might contribute towards) isn’t necessary to dismantle the project.
You can kinda see this with Ukraine and NATO. NATO and Ukraine want to escalate, but Ukraine wants permission to escalate past Russia’s red lines. So obviously this isn’t in NATO’s interests, which is why Ukraine keeps asking for fancy weapons and permission to do deep strikes into Russia but will never receive either. No one wants nuke war with Russia and Russia doesn’t want that either, hence attrition and the hope that the other side will break.
Probably start having elections (likely) preferably having a neutral observer to the process for legalistic reason.
Or form a united front coalition with all the faction in (ideally but very unlikely)
And go from there
