Chill, dude. Stop chosing and posting hate. There's enough of that in the world. Are you really going to blame a random person on the internet for not magically creating peace in a bloody century-old conflict?

A war has been going on for decades now. I know it's convenient to assume that the "WAR" has only started now because Israel said so and you seem to live only by your bureaucratic process, but the hostilities have started much earlier than four weeks ago.

You wanted me to give you a list of things I'd do, yet you simply ignore them, yet again.

De facto, a war has been going on for decades. The military blockade of Gaza can be considered an open act of war. The illegal occupation of palestinian territories can be considered an act of war. The military incursion in palestinian territories can be considered an act of war, and would be by any other country on this planet that has had foreign militaries suddenly spawn in their territories.

It's extremely rich of you to claim that a war has now suddenly popped out of nowhere in vacuum without taking a look at the long history of conflict and acts of war and hostility in the area just because it suits your narrative. This sudden, out-of-nowhere "WAR" is a farce. It's been going on for much longer than you'd like to admit.

And all of this time, I have never claimed that palestinian militants were right to kill civillians even though they have been submitted to acts of war many times before. Yet you seem to argue that it is okay for Israel to kill civillians in Gaza because a war is now suddenly going on since the terrorist attacks of October 7th are considered an open act of war.

That's an extremely cherry picked narrative. I think we should all agree that killing civillians is never right. Sadly I believe that disagreeing with that just shows your true colours, in that you consider one life more valuable than the other. Picking when the killing of innocents is right and when it isn't means that it has never been about protecting life and innocents, but about weighing whose life is worth more and whose less.

At the same time I think we should agree that the acts of war have been going on for much longer than four weeks now.

Israel has been comitting open acts of war for a long time now. They were never right in doing so. Palestinian militants were never justified in killing civillians, and still aren't.

Palestinian militants have likewise committed acts of war for a long time now. They, likewise, were never right in doing so. Israeli forces weren't justified in killing civillians either, and still aren't.

It's extremely convenient to be the one who picks when a war officially starts and who starts it by what act of war. But as is the case with international politics, that too is corrupted by biases and political alliances. If you ask 193 countries of the UN when the war has started, you'll probably get 193 different answers. But again, the acts of war have been going on for much longer than just the last month.

Now all of a sudden solutions are no longer convenient. Now the killing of civillians is justifiable. This just sickens me. We should all condemn the atrocities committed by hamas islamists on october 7th and many times before by many terrorist organizations. We should all condemn the atrocities commited by Israel over the same timespan.

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

Harari Yuval Noah - English - with German Subtitles

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

I am sorry to tell you this, but you definitely ought look deeper into the peace accords as they were discussed at the time. Especially the ones at Camp David which were supposed to be the most fruitious and the ones Palestinians "threw out the door". The Oslo accords were more of a guideline than a clear set of instructions.

Palestinians were supposed to:

• be completely demilitarized
• give Israel the right to send troops to Palestine in case of any emergency (what constitutes as an emergency was never defined)
• ask Israel for approval for every diplomatic alliance Palestine would ever make
• have military bases installed in Palestinian territory
• give the Israeli military complete control of their airspace
• have israeli military outposts be installed on the border between Palestine and Jordan
• give Israel temporary control over Palestinian border crossings
• give up 10% of the West Bank, the most fertile land in the West Bank, for 1% territorial gains of desert land near the Gaza strip (the land that would be conceded included symbolic and cultural territories such as the Al-Aqsa Mosque, whereas the Israeli land conceded was unspecified)
• Israel would keep parts of the West Bank under temporary occupation, without a timespan being given
• What constitutes the West Bank was to be defined by Israel and not by international law. Israel defined West Bank as being the internationally recognized West Bank minus all the settlements.

As you can see, all of these concessions would never amount to a completely sovereign Palestinian state, and as a result of that these talks failed in the end. Nonetheless, they did spawn new discussions and as a result of said discussion the Taba negotiations were born. With that being said, these concessions were in no way, shape, or form popular in Israel (only 25% of the Israeli public thought his positions on Camp David were just right as opposed to 58% of the public that thought Barak compromised too much). The Israeli prime minister at the time, Barak, facing elections, suspended the talks since it greatly affected his popularity in Israel. As a result of trying to broker a peace deal with Palestine, even a very bad one that was meant to fail as it was, he failed to get re-elected. The highly unbalanced concessions were already considered to be too much by Israelis.

Trying to paint Israel here as the ones willing to make concessions and the Palestinians as the ones throwing everything out the door is a highly cherry picked narrative that doesn't represent the reality at all.

I fully support a two-state solution, if and only if both states are treated as equals. The conditions listed above clearly do not create two equal states that both have full rights to self determination.

The discussions were doomed to fail from the get-go. You can read more on that on Wikipedia if you're interested in all the details. If wikipedia isn't a good enough source, there is a great book on this subject by a german professor specializing on the conflict between Israel and Palestine.