(Edit: Lest this seem like an expression of bias: I've been in touch with HNers on the other side of the conflict as well and can say similar things about them.)
This thinking kind of reinforces what you're trying to stay away from. There are not just 'two sides' to this. And I'm not sure what you would envision as an HNer from the "other side": someone in support of Hamas? In support of the Palestinian people?
I'm only commenting here because I think the bias you fear expressing can still kind of appear in different ways.
I really do appreciate the approach you're taking here with attempting to allow for curious and thoughtful discussion about contemporary topics while being cognizant of the dangers.
Take a look at how CNN vs BBC vs The Guardian categorize the conflict. CNN and NBC News describes it as the "Israel-Hamas War" (Reuters similarly uses "Israel and Hamas at war") while the BBC and Guardian list it as the "Israel-Gaza war" (and I'm pretty sure the Guardian previously used the same terminology as CNN).
https://www.theguardian.com/world/israel-hamas-war
https://www.cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/israel-hamas-war-ga...
https://www.reuters.com/world/israel-hamas/
https://www.bbc.com/news/topics/c2vdnvdg6xxt
https://www.nbcnews.com/Israel-Hamas-war-Gaza-Strip-conflict
The ordinary people have far more in common with each other than they do with the leaders who are keeping this war running.
There is a lot of hopeful thinking about humanity being conjured out of thin air, evidence on the ground is to the contrary. Many people on the ground support the conflict and expect to win. A great majority of Palestinians supported the attacks in January. A great majority of Israelis insist on a military response taken to its conclusion.
This is not the case of peoples being held hostage by their leaders. They might not like their leaders but they would put new ones in power who were substantially the same.
https://news.stanford.edu/report/2023/12/05/palestinians-vie...
https://www.awrad.org/files/server/polls/polls2023/Public%20...
https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/polls-sh...
Consider that asking about support for Hamas attacks once the retaliation has stoked up hate is inherently going to be strongly affected by views shaped by the large-scale invasion and bombing, especially when a portion of those polled were in the war zone.
Now consider the extent to which provoking this kind of reaction was Hamas' goal in light of polls showing people wanting them out in a situation where their legitimacy as a political leadership kept dropping with each year without another election.
> This is not the case of peoples being held hostage by their leaders. They might not like their leaders but they would put new ones in power who were substantially the same.
After this? Maybe. Before this, the poll above shows people wanted them out, per above. Which might make one want to ask why the Israeli leadership is so easy to goad into over-reaction and what that says about the extent to which they want peace, because given the sharp but predictable changes in polling this reaction is clearly entirely counter-productive.
In September 2022 armed struggle was the most popular option for resolving the situation, support for that went up in Sept 2023. [1]
"32% support and 67% oppose the idea of a two-state solution"
Palestinians don't like their governments, this does not mean they would have governments that acted substantially differently. Support for violence is widespread and predates the Oct 7 attacks and Israeli response.
> Before this, the poll above shows people wanted them out, per above.
The older survey above did not address violence. Not liking your government does not imply that you oppose all of their general positions.
The change is well within the margin of error given the poll size. It is also a question that does not in any way tease out how many of those support atrocities like the Hamas attacks vs. legal and legitimate armed resistance of an occupied population against the occupier (Israel is still considered an occupier by both the UN and EU due to the extent of their control). As such it's not relevant in response to the sentence of mine you quoted.
The other survey asked a very different question, specifically on views on the cease-fire specifically in Gaza. If we're going to compare polls that ask entirely different questions, it's far more reasonable to interpret that as directly contradictory to support for those kinds of attacks prior to the Israeli retaliation than it is to assume abstract support for armed struggle as a long-term means to solve the conflict as a whole implies support for a specific kind of action.
As it is, I stand by my claim that you can't meaningfully say anything about the pre-Israeli retaliation views on attacks of the type Hamas carried out when interviewing a population that at that point had been subject to a full-scale invasion, extensive bombing, and many thousands dead.
What we can say something about is about the specific questions people were asked in surveys, none of which to my knowledge included questions about large terror attacks on civilians.
> "32% support and 67% oppose the idea of a two-state solution"
"which was presented to the public without providing details of the solution" is key here. The poll I linked got 50% for “Hamas should stop calling for Israel’s destruction, and instead accept a permanent two-state solution based on the 1967 borders.” A key part of the problem with asking open-ended about a two-state solution is that it forces people to impose their own idea of what that would mean in terms of borders and concessions from each side. E.g. if you were to ask about a two-state solution that involves Israel maintaining control over their illegal settlements in the West Bank, you're certainly likely to get far more opposition than the poll I linked.
As such what the difference in numbers tells us is just that the exact form of a two-state solution would have a significant impact on the potential for it to lead to peace.
> The older survey above did not address violence. Not liking your government does not imply that you oppose all of their general positions.
I did not suggest they did. It showed people wanted Hamas out, and replaced by the PA, and wanted them to give up their independent armed units, as I stated. The statement people were asked to agree or disagree with was "The PA should send officials and security officers to Gaza, to take over the administration there, with Hamas giving up its separate armed units"
Not wanting to give up all violence for an occupied population is unsurprising - it'd be far more surprising if most of a population of which the vast majority was born after the Oslo accords were signed yet has seen no signs of progress would believe in negotiation. It'd also be entirely unreasonable to demand of an occupied population to want to give up their legal right to armed resistance.
There is, however, a vast chasm between legitimate armed struggle and indiscriminate attacks on civilians.
At the same time, it is a demonstration of exactly why this reaction is counter-productive, because you can expect that exact same anger to grow in a Palestinian population where the vast majority had nothing to do with the attacks, nor have ever voted for - or even had a chance to vote for - Hamas (~80% of the current population of Gaza were either not born or not of voting age when Hamas won a minority of the vote), and who before this wanted Hamas out. Expect to see a massive resurgence in support for Hamas and even more extreme groups, and the net outcome being to have made Israel's security situation significantly worse.
It has also massively damaged support and sympathy for Israel internationally. E.g. many political forums I'm in used to see it as distasteful or too extreme to describe Israel as an apartheid state just a couple of years ago, while it is a widely supported view today, and the Israeli reaction is regularly described as ethnic cleansing with little opposition to the use of that term.
Put another way: Hamas has gotten exactly what it wanted out of this, and Israel has harmed its case and harmed its security massively.
If I were to make a prediction, it would be that unless Israel massively changes direction very quickly, the Israeli response to the Hamas attacks will contribute to making resistance to the boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement start to crumble.
So > the Israeli leadership is so easy to goad into over-reaction
From Israely leadership perspective it's NOT an overreaction, so it IS easy.
And in general "overreaction" is too emotionally charged. What would be an adequate reaction? Send us your X women we'll rape them? How do you measure "over"ness of a response to mass rape and torture?
And as I point out "overreaction" was the mildest term I'd consider using. Emotionally charged would be to call it mass murder and ethnic cleansing, and war crimes. An adequate reaction would be not to brutally murder civilians and carry out extensive war crimes.
> How do you measure "over"ness of a response to mass rape and torture?
By lack of adherence to international law. By any willingness to cause mass murder and engage in ethnic cleansing.
At the very least, by the time the IDF response had led to the murder of more civilians than the attack of terrorists they are hunting, they ought to consider that it is no more morally acceptable for them to murder civilians than the other side, and they've become what they claim to want to destroy.
Consider that if it was reasonable for Israel to murder many times more civilians in response to a Hamas attack on civilians, it would be equally reasonable for Palestinians to murder many times more Israeli civilians than that again in response to the IDF attack on Palestinian civilians.
But nobody have an inherent right to a reaction they consider fair, if that reaction involves brutally violating the rights of innocent third parties.
It's no less terror when the IDF kills innocent civilians than when Hamas does, and seeking to legitimise it is no less immoral.
Also, I'm not sure who you mean by "they". Let's talk about specific people: past governments are mostly dead, current generation was born into this situation the same as Palestinians were born into theirs. "They" (current Israeli population) can't end the occupation; there are no feasible options. So what "they" should do in case a neighboring nation kills a thousand of "them"? Again, these people have nothing to do with occupation. The kids at that rave party most likely considered themselves as far left (just given the demographics). I myself am far left; I'm a part of "them", and I'm against the occupation, but no one is able to come up with a solution that would satisfy both sides.
So when you talk about "them", whom do you mean? Who'd you expect would find a solution if you can't even solve this smaller moral dilemma of what your country's response should be in case of Oct. 7?
edit: like, how can you overreact if no one can say what "non-over" reaction should be?
[1] https://www.awrad.org/en/article/10719/Wartime-Poll-Results-...
In regards to the 60% you quote, the question was framed as "How much do you support the military operation carried out by the Palestinian resistance led by Hamas on October 7th?"
Given the majority of Gaza has trouble accessing the news/electricity, 95% don't trust Israel's news (in the same survey), what they know about Oct 7 is not what we know about Oct 7. Whether you and I believe it or not, there are plenty who think all the targets on Oct 7 were military, any atrocities are fake news, etc. And for a people suffering under blockade for 16 years, including a year of weekly peaceful protests in 2018-2019 that were repeatedly met with violence by the IDF (~200 killed, thousands maimed/disabled), living in slums with little to no electricity [1], seeing their lives deteriorate year after year as the world has forgotten them - it would not be surprising at all for them to support a "military operation carried out by the Palestinian resistance."
Furthermore, we're talking about a survey taken in the midst of war where 46% have lost their homes (same survey you shared), 80% of Gaza is displaced, and all the thousands of civilian and children deaths and tens of thousands of maiming and mutilations etc. Hospitals destroyed. Bakeries and water towers bombed. Journalists and health care workers murdered. ... Unclear how many, but probably all of the population has PTSD; 90% of the children had PTSD back in 2021 [2]. So in that context, in the midst of such immense suffering, the answer to this question should not be surprising at all. It is completely rational.
However, it would not be accurate for us to conflate their answer with supporting atrocities committed by Hamas on Oct 7 (which is not something it seems the survey asked about).
>> Many people on the ground support the conflict Re: Gaza, the survey you link says 90% "support a ceasefire that includes a mutual cessation of hostilities." So I don't think it's accurate to say the civilians of Gaza support this conflict.
[1] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/harsh-living-conditions-in... [2] https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/4497/New-Report:-91%25...
>>>> post-edit I had missed that the survey parent comment linked was completed before Oct 7. My bad.
Remember poster: Despite the Romulan's insistence, There...are...four...lights!
But joke about it. Who cares? Just a bunch of people out of sight, out of mind, getting blown to bits day in day out.
Hilarious isn't it.
I think the majority do not have any "territorial ambition" and would usually happily agree to a two state solution peace agreement, including giving up the WB, as long as security to Israel was guaranteed.
We are very far from this being realistic because of a lack of leaders on both sides, and because the security guarantees are incredibly hard.
That idea which seems so reasonable can encompass a lot of very unreasonable positions.
Total security is never guaranteed, and many evils have been committed in pursuit of it.
It is just a true fact of the world that if Israel were to let down its guard even a little, many Israelis would be killed. We saw the proof of that on October 7th.
It is a true fact of life that many Israelis are killed, as a direct result of the Israeli government's long-term policy of actively assuring that the most violent and extreme Palestinian faction possible is reinforced and strengthened at every turn (starting with its original creation) to maintain internal Palestinian divisions and provide a pretext to deflect domestic and international pressure to make peace.
That said, what would've been your alternative? For Israel to refuse to cooperate at all with Hamas the last fifteen years? To prevent them receiving any outside money from Qatar? To not allow any Gazans to work in Israel?
That's what would've needed to happen to "not reinforce Hamas", and I have a feeling that had Israel done that, it would've received more condemnation.
While Netanyahu has taken it run with it for quite a while, it actually predates Netanyahu having a significant role related to it, back to the original formation of Hamas, which Israel fostered in Gaza for much the same reason as Netanyahu has repeatedly actively fostered since.
> That said, what would've been your alternative?
Not actively working to antagonize the Palestinian population, disrupt the election campaigns, and make the Fatah-led administration look weak and complicit (by blocking campaigns directly, carrying out a targeted campaign of detention of Palestinian politicians, and directly interfering with ballot distribution and other administration preparations for the vote) as a deliberate strategy to secure a victory by the primary opposition -- Hamas -- in the 2006 Palestinian elections.
Not refusing to cooperate in subsequent PA-Hamas agreed Palestinian elections (where Israeli cooperation is required because numerous voters still live under Israeli administration) to freeze the divided status quo in place, and not cutting off peace talks because of an agreement between the PA and Hamas to form a unity government, hold elections, and participate together in peace negotiations, for the same purpose.
Among other things.
October 7th happened under the current approach, to assume it would be at least as bad under a 'guard let down' scenario begs the question. There are two competing factors here - hatred and control. The current regime maintains a fairly high level of control, but doing so engenders more hatred. If anything, I think high control-high hatred may be an attractor in policy space, but probably not a long term good one.
Look, I'm sorry, but that's wishful thinking.
Israel left Gaza in 2005. Gaza elected Hamas who have been bombing Israel ever since. The current justification is "because of the blockade". What should Israel do? Not do a blockade and hope that Hamas decides to give up violence after 30 years, despite it promising to do so?
There is just nothing that Israel can reasonably do given that its neighbor insists, rightly or wrongly, that it needs to invade Israel and kill all Israelis. Even if they are 100% right about all the historical injustices they've endured, and everything was 100% Israel's fault - it would still make no sense to "let down our guard", cause the direct result will be the death of multiple thousands of Israelis.
Israel did not leave Gaza, though it made a show of doing so.
> Gaza elected Hamas who have been bombing Israel ever since.
Israel carried out a campaign directly aimed at discrediting Fatah and radicalizing the Palestinian population around the elections, and it paid off exactly as intended, with Hamas not only winning locally in Gaza, but an overall legislative majority.
Israel has also acted to preserve the status quo they acheived in that election by obstructing subsequent planned all-Palestine elections.
Just to be clear, what do you mean by this?
So what is your plan then? Keep millions of people in perpetual prison for all eternity? Because that's more or less what "blockade of Gaza" entails.
It's important to emphasise just how small the Gaza strip is: roughly the size of Dublin (smaller if you exclude fairly large "forbidden zones" near the wall). No city that size can be self-sufficient, it's physically impossible. Gaza is set up to fail. Not intentionally as part of some plan, but that doesn't change the fact of it.
Hamas has hinted at some moderation over the years such as recognising Israel's right to exist, and they have basically been ignored or rebuffed at every turn. Israel hasn't even tried with Hamas. They just said "fuck these elections" in 2005 and that was that.
I intently dislike Hamas, but Hamas is the reality that exists, so it's what you'll have to deal with. Simply giving up and saying "well, Hamas are a bunch of religious nutjobs, so we're not even going to try" is a huge part of why things have escalated in the first place. Note how Hamas-levels of extremism doesn't have wide-spread support among the Palestinians on the west bank.
If you grew up in Gaza and are in your 20s now then you hardly remember a time before the blockade. What do you expect from the people of Gaza? After a life-time of desperation for them to come to an epiphany and lay down all protest and adopt carefully nuanced language in the hope that Israeli politicians will give them more freedom? All of that in spite of religious nutjobs currently in government who support Jewish mass-murderers and have expressed views that are just as extreme as Hamas and are nothing short of genocidal? That is just as naïve, if not more so, than expecting Hamas to immediately come to their senses after lifting the blockage.
Hamas has blood on its hands, absolutely, but the idea that Israeli are poor victims who have never done anything wrong is just dead wrong.
First of all, I don't think that's an accurate characterization of life in Gaza. They're not literally in prison, their conditions aren't great (at all!) but definitely not the terrible conditions that that image conjures up.
> Hamas has blood on its hands, absolutely, but the idea that Israeli are poor victims who have never done anything wrong is just dead wrong.
I absolutely agree, Israel has not done anywhere near enough to improve conditions in Gaza and seek peace, especially in the last 15 or so years.
But you asked my plan - I'm far from being knowledgeable enough to answer that, but here's what I think the general outline should be:
1. Destroy Hamas. At this point, given the damage they've done, to Israelis, to their own citizens, and to the peace process - this is a must-do. Not sure what this means in practice, but probably need to capture or kill enough of their leaders to make them unable to continue operating as an organization.
2. Someone else needs to step in and help manage Gaza. The US thinks a bolstered PA can do this - Netanyahu claims this won't work, and Palestinians mostly dislike the PA. So I'm not sure who can fill this role in practice, but someone needs to do it. (I trust Biden a lot more than Netanyahu, btw).
As an aside, I think Israel should help rebuild Gaza, somehow, and help the people now stranded without a home. No idea how to do this in practice (I doubt anyone will be happy with Israeli contractors literally building buildings in Gaza, and don't think that'll be safe), but it's the moral thing to do.
3. Start making concrete steps towards peace. Start dismantling settlements, and find ways to bolster Palestinian voices for peace (instead of the reverse, which is what has happened over the last 15 years). Find other ways that improve the lives of Palestinians while maintaining Israeli security, I'm sure there are lots of ways that can be done.
4. Start a peace process. Any peace process, with anyone credible enough to do it. Israel cannot morally "give up" on peace, even if the Palestinians are currently unwilling to seek peace.
That's what I think should happen. I have very little faith this will actually happen though, except for part 1 of that.
> If you grew up in Gaza and are in your 20s now then you hardly remember a time before the blockade. What do you expect from the people of Gaza? After a life-time of desperation for them to come to an epiphany and lay down all protest and adopt carefully nuanced language in the hope that Israeli politicians will give them more freedom?
I expect that, once Hamas is destroyed, many people in Gaza will start speaking up against Hamas and the destruction they brought on their own people. Some Gazans are already saying as much.
Many countries have suffered defeat in war - Germany and Japan are good examples. They didn't all grow up wanting nothing more than violence because of the Allies bombing their countries. They became great allies of the US etc. I don't know why we think that Palestinians can't be the same, given that Israel actually takes concrete steps to repair the terrible damage wrought by this war.
The only way of destroying what Hamas is, is to start treating Palestinians humanely, and address their grievances so they actually see an alternative might work.
Neither Germany or Japan was subjected to an occupation this lengthy and brutal and expected not to lash out.
The situation on the west bank shows that stopping the rockets is an achievable goal. Extreme ... fine. The west is full of extreme organisations of all kinds that almost never hurt anyone because they're well-policed. That is a situation that would be a LOT more acceptable than the current situation.
> The only way of destroying what Hamas is, is to start treating Palestinians humanely, and address their grievances so they actually see an alternative might work.
The same was said about Daesh/IS/PIJ and this has turned out to be false.
The west have had plenty of organizations that did regularly hurt people despite being extensively policed until the conditions that created them were addressed, despite those conditions being far less extreme than full-on apartheid. E.g. take the IRA.
The situation in the West Bank shows it can be contained for some time, and while doing so you'll see the moderate groups' lose support as the situation drags on in favour of more extreme movements unless you actually address the underlying issue. E.g. consider how the support for Fatah has steadily declined on the West Bank, while support for Palestinian Islamic Jihad has massively increased, along with Lion's Den - a group that is only a year old, yet outpolled Fatah in Washington Institute polls earlier this year, and that was formed largely out of disaffection by Fatah's lack of action.
Any belief you'll be able to maintain a state of relative calm without addressing the oppression is a belief that a population of millions will just give up and resign themselves to living under an apartheid regime forever, and that's boundlessly naive.
> The same was said about Daesh/IS/PIJ and this has turned out to be false.
The populations under their control were not subjected to decades of occupation by an apartheid state, and they imposed themselves from the outside and were the ones to oppress the populations that lived under them. The notion they are comparable is bizarre, and I've never heard anyone say that about them.
And what you're trying to hide is that you're suggesting as an alternative: a single -muslim- state. In other words, you're trying to hide that you're pushing repression of everyone. Including muslims btw, just ask Iranians or let a Saudi pour you a few (excellent, but WTF strong) coffees, then talk to them about how happy they are with their state. And I think you'll find Saudi are a lot less extreme than Hamas (for one thing they'd never do something as "low" as picking up a gun. That's for peasants)
In other words: the only alternative you're giving for oppressing 2 million people is oppressing 15 million people (15 because Palestinians would also be oppressed under such a system).
And then there's the trap: you perpetuate the leftist "vision" that people start acting more extreme when they don't get 100% what they want. Of course, this only ever applies to leftists and whoever leftists consider victims. It doesn't apply to Israeli, for example. Giving THEM 100% what they want (Palestinians stay on their land, 2 state solution, no more rockets or attacks, cooperation) is not under consideration. They're not victims. It's also trivial to give unending examples of this not being true. But that's not the trap. This is just the one-sidedness of the argument. Of course if you get your one-state solution you don't want to admit you're calling for, it will immediately make 10 million people a LOT more extremist (never mind what will happen when the inevitable happens and Palestinians massacre in Israel again, and I don't mean since Oct 7, I mean like they've always done. Most Israeli ALSO can't leave, so they will do the one thing they can: fight)
But the trap is: Hamas are racial supremacists. They believe they are better, they will win, because they are extremist muslims. That's how their value system works. If they get what they want, your argument is that they will immediately stop extremism. Does this actually happen? Talk to an Iranian, a Sudanese, an Indonesian, a Kashmiri ... did this actually happen? No. When they got what they wanted, they immediately became 10x MORE extremist and attacked.
The one state solution that you hide you're calling for is not a solution to end apartheid. It will make a population of 10 million start an open civil war with a population of 5 million people. It will be a bloodbath, for entirely obvious reasons.
This is the trap: you say the one-state "solution" will solve the problem. Reality is that that solution will make things 100x worse, for everyone, since it will do what it did everywhere else this was tried: unending civil war with incredible amounts of casualties.
You're suggestion is putting out a fire by pouring gasoline on it.
So: no thanks. Go fuck yourself.
Of course I accept that some actions are legitimate in some places to achieve a higher level of security for the people, but it always requires careful consideration and is not something for which just any sacrifice can be made without further thought.
https://news.ycombinator.com/posts?id=daliaawad, My experience as a Gazan girl getting into Silicon Valley companies - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26251143 - Feb 2021 (460 comments).
Someone who knows Dalia has been in touch with us, but at least at that time, they unfortunately had lost contact with her and don't know if she's still alive.
Also this YC startup:
Launch HN: Manara (YC W21) – Connect Middle East engineers with global companies - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25849054 - Jan 2021 (104 comments)
---
Some other threads over the years (I just looked up Gaza, of course there are also many Palestinians on HN from the West Bank and other places):
Lifehacker: Tarek Loubani on 3D-Printing in Gaza - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20623545 - Aug 2019 (68 comments)
Gaza: Coding in a conflict zone - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18128432 - Oct 2018 (88 comments)
Marc Benioff joins Valley notables backing Gaza’s first coding academy - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13374027 - Jan 2017 (137 comments)
How to Get More Women in Tech: Lessons from a Hackathon in Gaza - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13240777 - Dec 2016 (12 comments)
Mentoring in Gaza's first hackathon - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11858963 - June 2016 (152 comments)
Mentor startups in Gaza - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9267716 - March 2015 (63 comments)
Wireless in Gaza: the young entrepreneurs beating the blockades - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8715085 - Dec 2014 (54 comments)
What It's Like to Build a Startup in Gaza - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8404414 - Oct 2014 (80 comments)
(It is heartbreaking that you have to add "we don't know if Dalia is alive" when talking about her.)
"Internet Access High-speed Wi-Fi is available throughout the country in homes and in cafes and restaurants throughout the city. Additionally, local banks have publicly available WIFI that can be accessed 24/7 from outside the building. The Wi-Fi is stable and reliable and 3G is also available in the West Bank, Palestine."
I took a few suitcases of clothes to Egypt last week to try to get to the kids of our employees in Gaza, the ones whose existing coats and stuff are in rubble with any toys memories and belongings they had. Getting them through Raffa is not easy.
From the article:
> The Wi-Fi is stable and reliable and 3G is also available in the West Bank, Palestine.
> There are shops all around Hebron, including many that are within walking distance from the Excellence Center where travelers can purchase a SIM card and add more minutes to their phone plan.
Edit: suspiciously this is downvoted suddenly as well as lots of other unrelated posts of mine. Looks like you can't have a responsible discussion on the internet these days...
Of course that doesn't much diminish their grievances which is based on lost land and and lack of freedom of movement.
So no, people in Gaza are not better off than people in Egypt. Though they are closer than I would have guessed.
What is really interesting is that unemployment rate for PL is 25.7pc vs Egypt's 7pc. So the average income for PL is higher! 4610 v 4100
Also interesting is that PL has a higher life expectancy.
Sadly, both are very corrupt.
IMO this would require that both Putin and Zelensky do not stay in power.
Young men there do have trouble working internationally. And they do have legitimate fears. But the fears are more along the line of being conscripted and sent to the front lines, and not the rather insignificant risk of drones.
I am willing to entertain the idea that there is some relationship between them but it is very hard to do this when you cannot be bothered to explain in plain English why you think these two conflicts are related and in what manner? What aspects are you referring to?
It can be frustrating when someone tries to make a strong point, but focuses mainly on the flourish and does not actually explain any reasoning -- this doesn't contribute to intellectual exploration since without explaining your reasoning, there is zero chance you can convince any thoughtful person to change their mind.
Minsk agreements were impossible to uphold and Russia never attempted to do so from the beginning, it was showed upon then much weaker Ukraine as Ukraine was in no position to defend itself then, it is different now.