Former President Barack Obama said a way forward for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is only possible if people acknowledge the “complexity” of the situation.
“If there’s any chance of us being able to act constructively to do something, it will require an admission of complexity and maintaining what on the surface may seem contradictory ideas that what Hamas did was horrific, and there’s no justification for it. And … that the occupation and what’s happening to Palestinians is unbearable,” Obama said in an interview on the podcast “Pod Save America.”
The former president’s comments come as the Israeli military focuses its offensive against Hamas in Gaza City and northern parts of the enclave.
I think that’s basically what he’s saying with more words. You’re not wrong in this case, but the “everybody sucks here” line is most often used by people who don’t actually know the details of what they’re talking about, but need to have an opinion on the record. (Other recent example being the Ukraine war situation)
In my opinion, this whole situation is too drunk guys who got in a fight over something stupid. Palestine got knocked out early, and so Israel is being vilified simply for being the one still standing, but now Palestine has got up and kidney punched Israel while it was turned away, and people are rooting for the underdog since they got back up. The problem with this, and the reason that Obama is speaking the way that he is, is because people seem to be forgetting all of the other horrible things that Hamas has done too, because they’re currently the crowd favorite.
So yes, everybody sucks here, and I think people are having a hard time coming to terms with the fact that, sometimes in a fight, there isn’t actually a 100% good guy. It’s just too drunk guys getting in a fight over something stupid.
Agree or disagree with other people’s opinions, so be it. But this comment is such a unearned hand waving away of other people’s thoughtful comments/opinions made on the subject, and it’s not a true representation of what’s going on.
See, reading your comment makes me think that you didn’t actually read the rest of mine, because that’s not what I said. I’m not talking about the people here… Mostly.
I did.
Well then I’m not sure where to go from here, because you’re implying that I said things which I didn’t.
What I quoted, which is what you did say, is very explicit…
There’s truly no reason for us to continue to go back and forth on this endlessly, that text is very specific and straightforward.
Your analogy assumes some sort of equivalency between the two drunk men, but in reality there’s a huge discrepancy of power between Israel and Palestine, one so vast that your analogy comes off as reductive. It’s not just “two drunk guys in a fight”, it’s more like a drunk guy and a child, which the drunk guy has been picking fights with since the child was born, and all of the drunk guy’s friends keep helping him beat this child up.
There’s a power discrepancy now, but there wasn’t always.
By this analogy, Palestine is a drunk 17 year old, who along with a bunch of 20-something friends jumped one another kid when he just turned 18. Except the 18 year old won the fight and the older pals of the original drunk kid have backed off. Beaten to shit, the 17 year old keeps trying to swing at the 18 year old, who continues just kicking him while he’s down and everyone is looking on in horror but unwilling to jump back in the fight.
The fact they went 1 v 8 probably contributes a lot to Israel’s absolute unwillingness to not put themselves in a position where they are less powerful.
I see where your coming from, and I suppose I should clarify: in this case, the reason that I invoke the simile, is that the original reason for ALL this drama, is religion. There is more than enough physical space for them both to live in the region happily, but because this is the Land of Israel that we’re talking about, they both claim exclusive right to it, and only one can have it.
Events since this original issue obviously can’t go overlooked, but it all stems from this unreasonable unwillingness to share plenty.
It’s a tale as old as time. Just like the Hatfields and McCoys. They’ve hated each other for so long neither side remembers what started it and both sides have a list of grievances longer than they can keep track of and the score can never be settled. It’s to the point where there is no right side; both are wrong. You can make arguments that one side is more wrong than the other, but I’m not in favor of a “let the least wrong win” approach. Both sides are objectively wrong and both sides must stop.