Hacker News Reader

Comment by peterashford | Hacker News Reader

People said Apartheid South Africa couldn't end without a bloodbath. People said peace in Northern Ireland was impossible. People thought the Cold War would never end. Impossible things are impossible until they aren't. I'm not saying that any of these things are easy - they clearly are not. But history shows us again and again that change is possible when people work towards it in good faith. From a practical point of view, I think that the international community needs to be allowed to help - both to maintain the peace and broker a way forward. The status quo will not reach peace. Israel will never have peace and security until Palestine has peace and security.

View on HN

The Palestine/Israel conflict is significantly longer than any of the examples you gave.

Which is not to say that its impossible. But the older I get, the less hope I have.

Ethic conflicts all end eventually. A historian: https://archive.is/zADeF

TLDR: the ways they end are:

- partition

- equal representation

- one side driving out/murdering the other

It does seem like a lot of people have given up on the first two, but if it's not one of those then it's the third one. So we have to work towards making it one of the first two.

I think that's the head of the nail firmly hit. Succinct summary :o)

The ethno-religious conflict in Northern Ireland dates back to the seventeenth century and the question of Irish sovereignty dates all the way back to the twelfth century!

Apartheid started in 1948. It was around for quite a long time. And the roots of the division in Northern Ireland went back centuries. But yes, long running divisions are harder to solve. Harder != impossible. And look at history - stuff changes.

Peace could be achieved fairly easily if both sides said they want to live in peace. However only one does. I think that will change eventually.

“Peace while continuing to seize land” is a peculiar-enough type of peace to not really qualify for simply “wants to live in peace” by many people’s definition.

It's tricky but there have been attempts at a normal peace deal like the Camp David Summit. But then the Palestinians say no. So instead you get the other stuff you mention.

Yeah, the “but first X did Y! But before that P did Q!” goes back thousands of years. All that to say it’s not as simple as “one side wants peace and the other doesn’t.” It’s very messy.

Yeah but ignoring history a bit if A and B say ok lets sign an agreement, do our own thing and not attack each other you get a kind of peace. If B says no A must be destroyed then you don't. It's not really a moral question of who's right and wrong so much as a practical agreement to move on.

The recent Camp David Summit didn’t come to any agreement? And the Camp David Accords before then weren’t signed by the principals in this conflict.

That is an unhelpful and incorrect view

Reply on news.ycombinator.com