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
> One must destroy the other for peace to exist - this is the nature of war.

Wars generally don't end with genocide.

Conquered people don't cease to exist. Worst case they are subjugated, but these days they just assimilated/absorbed.

The alternative is perpetual war, or some sort of compromise.

If Hamas surrendered unconditionally tomorrow, what would Israel do?

>>jopsen+Me1
> Wars generally don't end with genocide.

I agree with you that this is not actually the nature of War. However, it's also true that it depends on the type of war being fought.

It's not uncommon to see in history that when a country/village/group of people can't/doesn't want to be subjugated or it's strategically difficult to "keep" them, it gets wiped off.

In the Ancient Rome entire Celtic tribes wiped off, while during Charlemagne's empire it was the Saxons, and more recently during the the Ottoman Empire it was the Greeks, Armenians, and today the Curds.

Unfortunately such things do happen and sadly enough will always happen. Not justifying in any way, I am just saying that we're so used to believe that this is something new, when it actually it isn't, and we also believe we are better than back then, while we actually aren't. :(