zlacker

>>ahmetc+(OP)
I’m not going to claim a side in this, but I do have a question to pose. When you have two ideologies which are so diametrically opposed to each other that they cannot coexist in the same space at the same time, what is the alternative outcome? One must destroy the other for peace to exist - this is the nature of war. To think that there is some world where everyone comes away from this with a handshake and an agreement is just naive.

I’ll ask again: What is the alternative?

>>IAmGra+sC
> two ideologies which are so diametrically opposed to each other that they cannot coexist

Ideologies aren't platonic solids. They must be constantly refurbished in the minds of the avowed. Every moment of every day informs them—reinforces or depletes them. Changes their character.

It's guaranteed that these minds will, eventually, change. Who survives to bare this change remains to be seen.

Keep in mind, also, that Israel vs. Gaza is in some ways just a proxy war between US/Europe and Iran/Russia who support Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. Ideological differences, frankly, are only a surface patina on the same old economic games.

Lastly, consider a third framing: that Israel/Gaza is only the hottest segment of a conflict that encircles the globe: the border between imperial powers and colonized peoples, like US/Mexico etc. Borders, passports, and citizenship are a worldwide system of privileges and protections that Westphalian Nationstates collude to maintain.

I'm not sure what ideologies you refer to. Islam and Judaism? Not really relevant to the discussion, I don't think.

>>rexpop+0H
> "surface patina"

Tell that to the victims of gleeful brutality under the guidance of fundamentalist ideology, like that engrained in Islamist governance and extremist militant groups.

Your post reads like the come-down from intellectual pill-popping. Your attempt to dilute a serious problem in the world to "patinas" and reduce the problem to imperial vs colonized peoples, sounds like a manifesto from the lawns of a university activist encampment.

Consider the framing, you ask. I considered it and reject it, The subjugation of "infidels" under expansionist oppressive religious groups with the intent to bring "peace" is an imperialism all of its own, but much worse. Peace... at the cost of freedom, autonomy, expression, equality.

>>exodus+9P
> like that engrained in Islamist governance and extremist militant groups.

Or that engrained in the joint Israeli/American coup that overthrew Iran's last democratically-elected leader. The one that installed a secret police that tortured and disappeared tens of thousands of citizens under the training of CIA and Mossad operatives: https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/legal-and-political-mag...

If you think his comment reads like revisionism, imagine how ridiculous you sound to an educated audience. C'mon now.

>>bigyab+mw1
If you need to wind back the clock before any of us were born to achieve a "gotcha", you're doing a disservice to whatever educated audience remains. Your what-aboutism opens a gaping hole where a point should be.

Ideological differences are gigantic valleys between nations in conflict, that's the point.

When one side shouts God's name as they butcher & jihad whoever's in their way who isn't a fanatic like them, the ideological differences can't be mended with "c'mon now". When one side thrives on martyrdom and human rights violations for breakfast, it's not a time to say "maybe we should look at what they're trying to say, are we just not listening?"