No, let us hope peace comes to the region and the endless cycle of bloodshed ends. That may include justice for the people responsible, but our main aspiration should be peace and prosperity, not retribution.
Is it? I’m not saying it’s likely, but for the sake of argument let’s say Netanyahu is voted out and a new Israeli government takes power that says, “We are tired of endless violence. We will remove all settlements, checkpoints, etc, and respect a two state solution with Palestinian sovereignty over the agreed upon Palestinian land.” Would that not be the goal, the ideal? Or would you throw that away by trying to get back at Netanyahu and all the horrible people who have committed these crimes. Maybe I’m naïve, but you can’t say that at least the aspiration should be peace. Whether that’s possible without something happening to the perpetrators of violence is another question, but the retribution shouldn’t be the end goal and aspiration, peace should be.
There can be no sustainable peace with constant retribution, I think that’s the core thing going through this conflict this last century. For example, Israel wanted “justice” for the October 7th attacks. Did that lead to a better outcome for humanity and people living in the area? No, only more war and suffering. More war, bloodshed, and retribution is not the answer, we need to break the cycle of violence.
I agree. In order to break the cycle of retribution we need to achieve justice. Otherwise people will continue to seek it. The difficulty includes that this wont work without having everyone involved face the reality of their actions. We will need extensive education and a process that will probably exceed the Nuremberg trials by a large factor. The only alternative to achieve “peace” in the long run would be to completely genocide or ethnically cleanse one side from the region. That is how the US got away with what it did to the native Americans.
I agree with this take completely. The parent comment just seemed to encourage senseless retribution without nuance, which is what I tried to voice my opposition to.
No, let us hope peace comes to the region and the endless cycle of bloodshed ends. That may include justice for the people responsible, but our main aspiration should be peace and prosperity, not retribution.
The main aspiration should be justice. Peace without justice is not peace, it’s defeat.
Is it? I’m not saying it’s likely, but for the sake of argument let’s say Netanyahu is voted out and a new Israeli government takes power that says, “We are tired of endless violence. We will remove all settlements, checkpoints, etc, and respect a two state solution with Palestinian sovereignty over the agreed upon Palestinian land.” Would that not be the goal, the ideal? Or would you throw that away by trying to get back at Netanyahu and all the horrible people who have committed these crimes. Maybe I’m naïve, but you can’t say that at least the aspiration should be peace. Whether that’s possible without something happening to the perpetrators of violence is another question, but the retribution shouldn’t be the end goal and aspiration, peace should be.
Peter Tosh’s song “Equal Rights” makes that point very eloquently.
There can be no sustainable peace without justice.
There can be no sustainable peace with constant retribution, I think that’s the core thing going through this conflict this last century. For example, Israel wanted “justice” for the October 7th attacks. Did that lead to a better outcome for humanity and people living in the area? No, only more war and suffering. More war, bloodshed, and retribution is not the answer, we need to break the cycle of violence.
I agree. In order to break the cycle of retribution we need to achieve justice. Otherwise people will continue to seek it. The difficulty includes that this wont work without having everyone involved face the reality of their actions. We will need extensive education and a process that will probably exceed the Nuremberg trials by a large factor. The only alternative to achieve “peace” in the long run would be to completely genocide or ethnically cleanse one side from the region. That is how the US got away with what it did to the native Americans.
I agree with this take completely. The parent comment just seemed to encourage senseless retribution without nuance, which is what I tried to voice my opposition to.