For the US it's a domestic issue. That's the key to this "strategic alliance". And that's why Biden or anybody cannot push Netanyahu around. Heck, he'll just voice his concerns to the both parties and it's hell for the US president. — ssu

You don't think there are sides in the Islamic realm that also wants to see an apocalypse of sorts in Israel/Palestine? There is a sort of "liberation theology" in Islamist strains of politics that would like nothing more than pushing Jews to the sea... To them, Islam is Political Islam (starting with Mohammed himself) conquering lands from Arabia and then under various descendent regimes pushing into Central Asia and India (and then influencing East African and Asian routes all the way to Indonesia).

You want to see real ethnic cleansing? Talk to the Yazidis, Assyrians, Manichaeans, and especially the Zoroastrians. Don't know of many? I wonder why. They don't want territory. Sweet, precious land and resources. They don't want their OLIVE GROVES to be called "blank country here named after ethnicity". So no one cares. They get to be a minority group that's brought up every once in a while as a curiosity of cultural differences amongst a hegemony.

If the question is about “ Israel has done ANYTHING to help it's ally US”, I gave you the examples:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_rocket_attacks_on_Israel — neomac

I think I already mentioned that it was the US that deployed it's own forces to protect Israel. Not the other way around. — ssu

So what? My premise is that strategic interest of the US in the Middle East is to prevent the emergence of regional powers that challenge the American hegemony. On that occasion, as explained in the link, Israel despite being attacked by Iraq refrained from retaliating because this better served the American-led Arab coalition to counter Saddam.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_in_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War — neomac

HAH HAH!!!
Well, I cannot fathom just what that supposed to be of an example of the "strategic alliance" that Israel had covert arms deals with Iran. For the US similar weapons deliveries was the Iran-Contra scandal, that shook Reagan's administration. So Israel makes shady deals with it's neighbors that vow to destroy it.

And the Osirak strike? Well, again here (just as with similar strike in Libya) Israel had first and foremost it's own agenda in having nuclear dominance in the region. Heaven forbid any kind of parity!!! Again read just how suspicious JFK was about the Israeli nuclear weapons program, but then that was before 1967. — ssu

Again, so what? What happened is still consistent with the logic I stated above. Israel can fit into the American strategic goals in the Middle East, like preventing the emergence of a regional power hostile to the American hegemony. Ideological conflicts can be put aside if there is a more threatening incumbent common enemy: do you remember when Hillary Clinton claimed “we created Al-Qaeda”?
You can be skeptical all you want about the efficacy of such strategies, that doesn’t make them less real.

I would claim instead that the American support for Israel is solid, longstanding and bipartisan so that’s for me enough — neomac

But that's my whole point. This "solid" relationship happened only after 1967 and yes, there's bipartisan support. As I stated, the whole reason is that the US is the staunch ally of Israel is because both parties want to get votes and win elections. That's it. For the US it's a domestic issue. That's the key to this "strategic alliance". And that's why Biden or anybody cannot push Netanyahu around. Heck, he'll just voice his concerns to the both parties and it's hell for the US president. — ssu

Yes you claimed that it is a domestic issue. But what is that supposed to mean? First of all, that doesn’t exclude strategic concerns: indeed, all costly strategic foreign policies can have domestic impact in a democracy. Second, your explanation seemed to rely on the role of the Evangelical Christians supporting Zionism (which is not bipartisan as the support for Israel is). Now if your point is that Biden supports Israel because he will have greater chance to win the elections by pleasing Evangelical Christians, I countered: “Evangelicals support Trump not Biden, even if Biden decides to support Israel. If Biden wanted to compact his democratic front, assuming the anti-Israel front was significantly stronger among democrats, then it would be more convenient for Biden to not support Israel. ” (and BTW Biden is also catholic, not the ideal candidate for Evangelicals).

Yes you claimed that it is a domestic issue. But what is that supposed that to mean? First of all, that doesn’t exclude strategic concerns: indeed, all costly strategic foreign policies can have domestic impact in a democracy. Second, your explanation seemed to rely on the role of the Evangelical Christians supporting Zionism (which is not bipartisan as the support for Israel is). Now if your point is that Biden supports Israel because he will have greater chance to win the elections by pleasing Evangelical Christians, I countered: “Evangelicals support Trump not Biden, even if Biden decides to support Israel. If Biden wanted to compact his democratic front, assuming the anti-Israel front was significantly stronger among democrats, then it would be more convenient for Biden to not support Israel. ” (and BTW Biden is also catholic, nor the ideal candidate for Evangelicals). — neomac

Good point there. I was going to make that one but had some bigger issues to bring up. I thought that one was too obvious.

There is a sort of "liberation theology" in Islamist strains of politics that would like nothing more than pushing Jews to the sea... — schopenhauer1

...which is the delusional raving of lunatics, to put it mildly. But these kinds of delusions fit perfectly the minds of religious zealots like the muslim extremists. They live in their fantasy World where the true Caliphate of the Ummah is just around the corner and they are the glorious few of the vanguard of it. Or perhaps in the case of Hamas, they are just the glorious few martyrs who will cause the destruction of Israel. And Palestinians that now get killed can thank them for rising to martyrdom going straight to heaven.

But then there is reality.

Israel is the sole country with a nuclear deterrent and likely has now a nuclear triad. It dominates all of it's potential rival is in the air and has a technological advantage over even theoretical rivals. All of those neighbours that Israel hasn't gotten a peace deal are basically failed states (Lebanon and Syria) and Israel is bombing them with impunity all the time. Israel enjoys all this before it's Superpower ally comes to the picture. As we have seen now, the US will immediately come to Israel's aid.

Hence those prophesizing the destruction of Israel are simply lunatics. Hamas is a real threat to Israel as we have seen what it can do when Israel let it's guard down, yet still, it's not an existential threat meaning it could defeat the IDF on the battlefield. It surely can't.

Yet in the media absolutely crucial to uphold the image that Israel is on the verge of being destroyed with it's uncanny fiendish enemies rolling the people back to the sea. Not just the one that can indeed make large scale terrorist attacks, but truly can destroy all of Israel. Never mind the peace deals with it's largest neighbour, never mind that it's enemies don't surround it now and aren't backed up and armed by the communist Superpower. And never mind that even if Iran does get the nuclear weapon, then there are the Israeli nuclear deterrent.

You want to see real ethnic cleansing? Talk to the Yazidis, Assyrians, Manichaeans, and especially the Zoroastrians. — schopenhauer1

Look no further than the Armenians of Nagorno Karabakh, @schopenhauer1. You don't have to go to history to the fall of the Zoroastrian Persians to Islam. You can only go back to last September.

Yet this doesn't refute my point that Israeli-US relationship is a domestic issue for the US, which put's the relationship totally apart from any other country that the US has relations with.

Before I respond, how about the post before about Sykes-Picot, it’s goals, it’s failure, etc.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/851248

My premise is that strategic interest of the US in the Middle East is to prevent the emergence of regional powers that challenge the American hegemony. — neomac

Yes, but does being the most staunch ally of Israel help here?

Both Egypt and Saudi-Arabia are allies of the US. If there would be logic here, that the issue is to prevent emergence of Iran becoming a regional power, wouldn't it then to be more logical to support the Sunni Arab states? The US has already forces in Iraq.

Sorry, but what US needs is a hegemony that it has in Western Europe through NATO. Countries that want it to stay in the continent. Not countries that are just waiting for it to go away, but being friendly when Uncle Sam is around.

Before I respond, how about the post before about Sykes-Picot, it’s goals, it’s failure, etc. — schopenhauer1

Ok,

Let's remember that Sykes-Picot, just like nearly all of the imperialist border drawing competitions were drawn to please first and foremost the parties that drew the lines on the map. And some effort was also drawn with the old idea of divide et impera. It's similar to the Durand Line, which separates one people to be living in Afghanistan and Pakistan, which has caused problems even to this day.

Under no circumstances have the Europeans thought of when drawing the borders that "lets make large nation states that unify people". The Kurds are a prime example of this.

Let's remember that Sykes-Picot, just like nearly all of the imperialist border drawing competitions were drawn to please first and foremost the parties that drew the lines on the map. And some effort was also drawn with the old idea of divide et impera. It's similar to the Durand Line, which separates one people to be living in Afghanistan and Pakistan, which has caused problems even to this day.

Under no circumstances have the Europeans thought of when drawing the borders that "lets make large nation states that unify people". The Kurds are a prime example of this. — ssu

Why does it seem like Britain, France, and Western Europe etc downplay their hand in this and colonialism in general and just are content putting the onus on the US and Israel for problems they generally caused in their imperialism? I don’t see much ownership here.

Where are the mustache men with their tea and maps?
For some reason, I'm reminded of this :lol:

...which is the delusional raving of lunatics, to put it mildly. But these kinds of delusions fit perfectly the minds of religious zealots like the muslim extremists. They live in their fantasy World where the true Caliphate of the Ummah is just around the corner and they are the glorious few of the vanguard of it. Or perhaps in the case of Hamas, they are just the glorious few martyrs who will cause the destruction of Israel. And Palestinians that now get killed can thank them for rising to martyrdom going straight to heaven.

But then there is reality. — ssu

Ok so we can all agree every side has a weird fetish with apocalypticism (or at least some fetish with ancient glories). Perhaps we can put extremist right wing Israelis (even Likud) under this, along with Evangelicals and the extremist Islam. Each one thinks something about that land and its importance regarding the end of the world. Others like Netanyahu are just straight up opportunists, using these notions for power.

The nitty-gritty is tactics, policy, etc. of a more liberal government (Labor Party or something like it?). What should their tactic be when opposing forces of Islamic Jihad (that is Hamas Hezbollah Iran, and the like)?

Why does it seem like Britain, France, and Western Europe etc downplay their hand in this and colonialism in general and just are content putting the onus on the US and Israel for problems they generally caused in their imperialism? I don’t see much ownership here.

Where are the mustache men with their tea and maps?
For some reason, I'm reminded of this :lol: — schopenhauer1

But that's simple: it's about here and now!

France isn't anymore the most important ally of Isreal. The US is.
UK isn't anymore actively meddling in the Middle East. The US is.
Yes, the decisions made in the post WW1 era do reflect to this day.
Yet the present is the present.

And let's remember that in the time of Sykes-Picot and post-WW1, Turkey, not anymore the Ottoman Empire, had it's War of Independence as they simply fought back the partition of Anatolia proper. And now Turkey has been in NATO, an ally of both UK and France.

(The idea of post-WW1 Ottoman lands by the Western nations. Yeah, the Turks weren't amused and thought otherwise.)

They really liked to draw those maps, didn't they.

And you are correct: they did have moustaches. Fine moustaches.

(Mr Sykes and Mr Picot)

They really liked to draw those maps, didn't they. And you are correct: they did have moustaches. Fine moustaches.

(Mr Sykes and Mr Picot) — ssu

:rofl:

Man is it easy to hide under the US, militarily, and historically, huh? Now you can sit back and be back seat drivers.. critics on the sidelines AS IF you had nothing to do with it.

Looks like we are all powerless fools, typing letters when people die. They must be all laughing at the peace protests, toying with them.

Why do I picture a bunch of men in mustaches sipping their tea, thinking they are civilizing the world drawing arbitrary lines on maps? Why is this connection to colonialism downplayed in Britain nowadays and shoved onto Israel and the US? — schopenhauer1

Another semi-powerless enterprise, made even more powerless by the state.

https://theconversation.com/israel-hamas-war-will-the-murder-of-peace-activists-mean-the-end-of-the-peace-movement-215973

By the way, who is in control of your respective countries?

Is it you or some human/animal?

Curious.

:mask: True.

Yet I don't think the orders are for the IDF to perform genocide. However, with unrestrained bombing, a tiny area filled with over 2 million people totally dependent on outside logistics and incapable of fleeing the battle, this is very difficult. It can easily become so that nobody can refute you.

This hasn't been the policy at least. While people talk about "indiscriminate," attacks, I don't see it. Israel certainly has the munitions to do what the US did to Tokyo or Dresden. But there is still a difference between total destruction and appropriate ROE, so it's not that "everything Israel is doing is appropriate," just that these maximalist claims are unsupportable.

By way of contrast, the Strip has 37.5% more people than Mosul. When the Iraqi Army and Peshmerga retook Mosul from the Islamic State, seeking to displace a force about a third of the size of Hamas' military component, 40,000 civilians were killed. If you're trying to remove an enemy that is digging into urban areas and comfortable using them as shields, this is the sort of thing you face. This was generally not an event where there were complaints about egregiously loose ROE; I don't recall any internation controversy.

By contrast, a recent event that did have egregiously loose ROE would be the Siege of Mariupol, against a much smaller resisting force. Scaled up to the Strip's population, such action would be the equivalent of 110,000-140,000 civilian fatalities. But even then, the Russian forces weren't pounding areas of the city they controlled to kill as many civilians as possible. They were simply completely indifferent to civilians and also punitively hitting civilian targets in areas they didn't control.

By the way, who is in control of your respective countries?

Is it you or some human/animal?

Curious. — FreeEmotion

I honestly can’t figure out what you are saying. I see you quoted me though and it had something to do with the Middle East being a mess from how European colonial powers arbitrarily divided the Middle East, created and propped up rather foreign notions of “nation-states” in a region that it didn’t come from. It being reiterated in Atlantic Charter/Breton-Woods and such, and then how after WW2, was content hiding behind the US and criticizing from the sidelines as if it wasn’t a MASSIVE colonial force that created the countries of the “third world” (and first world ones in non-European lands) in the first place out of shear imperialist ambitions.

You see, you are allowed "self-determination" to make a nation-state the way we have cookie-cutter transplanted it for you is what "self-determination" means. Don't question that, but "fight amongst yourselves for the glory of that which we constructed for you to fight over". That we accept.

And then the people "determining themselves" think they are actually doing so. Every avenue they take is a Western one though, even ones they think are their own. Ah how odd. As I stated in the other thread. Once you go West, you can't go back. It's better to go FULL BLOWN West. Do what the Japanese did, not the Taliban.

Here’s a whirlwind tour of you need it:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/850939

I’m also reminded of this:


Eerily looks like Dick Cheney way before he looked like that :lol:.

deleted post, delay results in double post

Was that double post intentional? You just posted the same post again- the very post I said I did not understand what you were trying to say.

What should their tactic be when opposing forces of Islamic Jihad (that is Hamas Hezbollah Iran, and the like)? — schopenhauer1

Moderates cannot fight extremists almost by definition, because moderates tend to be reasonable human beings who aren't willing to resort to any means necessary to get what they want.

We see this everywhere, even in 'civilized' countries: John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Yitzhak Rabin, etc.

It also doesn't help when certain hegemonic unipoles go around sowing chaos and death, purposefully putting radicals in power and killing off moderates to avoid "regional rivals" from getting too prosperous (aka, US Middle-East policy).

We know what happens to moderates in places like this - they get strung up from the nearest tree. The extremists rule through terror and an iron fist. Opposing them is signing oneself up for death and torture.

But extremism is often reactionary, and in the Middle-East it is very obvious what it is reacting to - constant Western meddling, divide & conquer, etc.

Why does it seem like Britain, France, and Western Europe etc downplay their hand in this and colonialism in general and just are content putting the onus on the US and Israel for problems they generally caused in their imperialism? — schopenhauer1

The obvious answer is because after 1945 the United States became the world's most powerful nation and its 'special relationship' with Israel disallowed any other power to interfere with its foreign politics.

After 1991 the US became the global unipole and dominated the world for some 30 years.

What did it do in those 30 years? Did it seek to take away the root causes of extremism in the Middle-East?

No, to the contrary - the destabilization of the Middle-East runs like a red line through the American 'unipolar moment'.

In fact, the situation in the Middle-East has probably never been worse.

We see this everywhere, even in 'civilized' countries: John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Yitzhak Rabin, etc. — Tzeentch

How should they have handled 10-7 as prime minister? Your citizens were raped, you had babies burned, people shot in cars and their bodies paraded around and shot in real time, you had 250 people kidnapped, and you had hundreds (1400+ people) killed in a one day operation. Okay, well, we already know that you failed in terms of intelligence... What would you do? This group is also responsible for helping screw up the Oslo Accords in the 90s with suicide bombers, and has been sending rockets to Israel, trying to provoke war for years. Also, let's factor out prior politics. Let's just say this is the situation you are given. What do you do? You have a lethal Jihadist entity next to you that showed you a taste of what it would love to do to every one of the people in your country until it gets what it wants. Do you leave that entity intact? Do you sue for peace and give in?

I know your answer is going to be, hold steady and bring the case to the UN for review, right? Get world sympathy from former colonial powers in NATO so that you have enough support from the sideliners to get the bad guys?

What did it do in those 30 years? Did it seek to take away the root causes of extremism in the Middle-East? — Tzeentch

Well, around 1991 it started the Oslo Accords peace process, which failed...

No, to the contrary - the destabilization of the Middle-East runs like a red line through the American 'unipolar moment'.

In fact, the situation in the Middle-East has probably never been worse. — Tzeentch

Again, why does this always go back to the US' fault. Do you not think that Europe gladly wants the US to take on whatever it is, good or bad? Do you know why the Netherlands doesn't have to spend gross amounts of money on its military? The world we live in is US backed, but European created my friend.

What do you do? You have a lethal Jihadist entity next to you that showed you a taste of what it would love to do to every one of the people in your country until it gets what it wants. Do you leave that entity intact? Do you sue for peace and give in?

I know your answer is going to be, hold steady and bring the case to the UN for review, right? Get world sympathy from former colonial powers in NATO so that you have enough support from the sideliners to get the bad guys? — schopenhauer1

Any American or Israeli leader that has a 9/11 or 10/7 happen to them and does not plan for immediate retaliation would be removed from office. Is there any country that would tolerate a pacifistic leader after such an attack?

How should they have handled 10-7 as prime minister? Your citizens were raped, you had babies burned, people shot in cars and their bodies paraded around and shot in real time, you had 250 people kidnapped, and you had hundreds (1400+ people) killed in a one day operation. Okay, well, we already know that you failed in terms of intelligence... What would you do? This group is also responsible for helping screw up the Oslo Accords in the 90s with suicide bombers, and has been sending rockets to Israel, trying to provoke war for years. Also, let's factor out prior politics. Let's just say this is the situation you are given. What do you do? You have a lethal Jihadist entity next to you that showed you a taste of what it would love to do to every one of the people in your country until it gets what it wants. Do you leave that entity intact? Do you sue for peace and give in?

I know your answer is going to be, hold steady and bring the case to the UN for review, right? Get world sympathy from former colonial powers in NATO so that you have enough support from the sideliners to get the bad guys? — schopenhauer1

I would have secured the border and subsequently resigned. Getting the Netanyahu regime out of power is the first step to creating any sort of workable future for Israel.

Well, around 1991 it started the Oslo Accords peace process, which failed... — schopenhauer1

Where were the UN / international / US-led efforts to enforce them?

As I noted in an earlier post, neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians can be expected to drag this cart along - at least not over the initial bump. The US being the global hegemon after 1991 was in a prime position to do just that.

Did any party to the Oslo Accords show any true dedication to implementing it?

Personally, I think not. And of course all parties deserve blame for that, but it is primarily the US that was in a position to push for it.

Again, why does this always go back to the US' fault. — schopenhauer1

1. Because the US after 1991 to a large extent dominated the world, and certainly the Middle-East.
2. Because it's US 'divide & conquer' policy that has perpetuated chaos and conflict in the Middle-East.

Do you know why the Netherlands doesn't have to spend gross amounts of money on its military? — schopenhauer1

I do, and personally I am opposed to the Netherlands forfeiting its sovereignty that way.

The world we live in is US backed, but European created my friend. — schopenhauer1

In 1945 you would have a point. We are now 75 years on during all of which the US has been the most powerful nation on the planet, and during 30 years of which the US was the global unipole. Europeans on their end acted as obedient vassals.

So no. The world we live in is US-created, just like the world in 1945 was European-created.

I would have secured the border and subsequently resigned. — Tzeentch

Resigning seems like a shortcut, a way to answer the question without answering the question.

The difference is that Israel is a small state surrounded by many unstable autocratic states. If they over react they will let the genie out of the bottle.

Is there any country that would tolerate a pacifistic leader after such an attack? — RogueAI

I don't know. Is there? I hope so.

Resigning seems like a shortcut, a way to answer the question without answering the question. — flannel jesus

There is no other way to answer the question. Any solution I could propose would require the Netanyahu regime to leave first.

After that it's pretty straight-forward:
1. Renounce the idea of turning Israel into a Jewish nation state.
2. Immediately stop settling the West Bank.
3. Give Palestinians equal rights and stop mass human rights abuses in the occupied territories.
4. Garner help and support from the international community (including Arab states) to integrate Israel and Palestine into a state where Jews and Muslims can live together peacefully.
5. If successful steps are taken towards these goals, start removal of the West Bank barrier and lift the siege/embargo on Gaza.

Of course, this could take a long time and appropriate caution must be applied. If Hamas continues terrorist strikes, retaliate accurately and proportionately. Hamas will completely isolate itself over time, since everyone will recognize that it is standing in the way of a genuine solution.

Further, no longer committing mass human rights abuses on the Palestinian people will drastically reduce if not outright remove the motivation to join terrorist organisations.


Any of this would be anathema to the Netanyahu regime, who will not be able to get past the first point. They are essentially ultranationalists, and no real solution exists within that paradigm.

the detail you call "straight forward" is worth saying explicitly. Thank you for doing that now.

Solutions abound, it may just no be the solutions we want. The following article seems to be the most likely, objectively, as to the likely course of the 'war', let's see if it is accurate. Everything points to the continued attacks by Israel until they have had enough, then pick up the pieces and move on. Eliminate Hamas? Notice The "Arab world" have issued empty threats and if they have stood by while 10,000 people were bombed to death they have solidified their cowardice or indifference or complicity. What have they done in the past 10 years except normalize the situation?

Analysts say the language being used by Israeli authorities indicates that there will no return to the status quo of sporadic violence, rocket attacks, skirmishes and short-lived but intense fighting between Israel and Hamas that have characterized the last 18 years. Hamas took full control of Gaza in 2007 following Israel’s withdrawal from the territory in 2005.

“The Israeli military response will reflect that reality, with ground operations accompanying air strikes. The likely result will be a significantly degraded Hamas and substantial destruction within Gaza,” he noted

“Jerusalem is unlikely to accede to that request unless it views that it has achieved at least some of its objectives,” he noted.

He noted that while Saudi Arabia may be “privately supportive” of Israel’s efforts to quash Hamas, the Arab world is unlikely to be, “especially as images from television, print, and X (formerly Twitter) highlight death and destruction in Gaza and potentially Lebanon.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/10/12/how-will-the-israel-hamas-war-end-here-are-several-possible-outcomes.html

This time the Arab winter that followed the mess created in the middle east may engulf Israel as well.

Let's come back to this October 7, 2024

Costa Rica hasn't had an army since 1949

1. Renounce the idea of turning Israel into a Jewish nation state. — Tzeentch

Ok so that's unrealistic. Israel's whole existence is to have a place in the world where there can't be more pogroms and holocausts (which makes this of course all the more traumatic).

Immediately stop settling the West Bank. — Tzeentch

More reasonable for sure, but that was long term policy, not immediate. And arguably, Hamas doesn't care about this. But as you point out, it does tie in in regards to getting buy in from moderates, so is absolutely necessary for a long-term strategy. Who knows where we would be if there was not a Netanyahu. Agreed there.

3. Give Palestinians equal rights and stop mass human rights abuses in the occupied territories. — Tzeentch

Trickier in Gaza where there is an organization that wants to destroy you but for sure in the West Bank there should be some sort of brokerage with the PA to ensure the PA is trained, secure, and won't turn on the PA itself and become another Hamas. The embargo in Gaza is arguably to not allow weapons and munitions into Gaza (before this war, it did allow various water, food, and electrical supplies). Basically, the "idea" was to make it so that Hamas could not sustain military operations, and the long shot hope that the people would simply get sick of Hamas and put someone else in. That last part is unrealistic for sure though. Also, other countries don't want to take in Palestinians for various historical reasons. Jordan took in Palestinians and then in 1970 the PLO started a coup against the Jordanian government and assassinated the prime minister. They were kicked out and moved to Lebanon. They disrupted the political situation there and formed the Hezbollah and the ongoing wars in the 80s with Israel. So, this is more complicated than just Israel.

Garner help and support from the international community (including Arab states) to integrate Israel and Palestine into a state where Jews and Muslims can live together peacefully. — Tzeentch

Yes, and arguably Saudi Arabia also being included would help with this. Get the "moderate" Arab nations (aka more stable regimes) help out and moderate. Certainly getting Arab support is possible. You need consensus about end goals first. That is the harder part, and certainly a non Netanyahu would help with that as well.

If successful steps are taken towards these goals, start removal of the West Bank barrier and lift the siege/embargo on Gaza. — Tzeentch

Well, if Hamas is completely removed that makes sense. The West Bank wall might be a harder sell for Israelis. All they see is a 90% reduction in suicide bombings and terrorist attacks. Of course all of it takes good will and commitments on both sides.