The idea that simply empowering the PLO would have produced peace ignores the reality of what happened when they were empowered. After Oslo, Israel handed over cities in the West Bank and gave the Palestinian Authority control in Gaza. Instead of building the foundations of a peaceful state, the PLO leadership became riddled with corruption, failed to create functioning institutions, and tolerated or even encouraged waves of violence. The Second Intifada, launched under the PLO’s watch, was one of the bloodiest chapters in the conflict and shattered Israeli trust in their willingness or ability to deliver peace.

It’s true that the post-Oslo period exposed serious failures in Palestinian leadership, but the picture isn’t one-sided. The Palestinian Authority was granted limited autonomy under Oslo, not true sovereignty. Israel retained control over borders, resources, movement, and security, meaning the PLO never had the conditions to fully build a state. Corruption and mismanagement within the PA certainly damaged trust, but so did ongoing settlement expansion, restrictions on movement, and the lack of progress toward final status negotiations.

The Second Intifada was indeed devastating and eroded faith on both sides, but framing it only as a PLO decision ignores the buildup of frustration from years of unfulfilled promises and worsening conditions on the ground. Empowering the PLO in a genuine way, with real authority, accountability mechanisms, and mutual commitment to peace, might have led to a different outcome.

In other words, both leadership failures and structural limitations played roles. Reducing it to "the PLO blew it" risks oversimplifying a very complex situation.

Moderates in Israel have shrunk because for decades, every attempt at compromise seemed to end in more violence rather than peace. From the Oslo years and the Second Intifada, to the Gaza withdrawal and repeated rocket wars, many Israelis came to believe that “giving ground” only brought terror closer to their homes. The sense is that moderation was tried, failed, and cost lives.

On top of that, politics and demographics shifted rightward, and October 7th reinforced the belief that peace is not realistic in the near term. For many Israelis, moderation no longer feels like a safe or responsible option- it feels like a risk their families can’t afford.

I appreciate the response, and I essentially agree with your assessment that this has become the prevailing feeling in Israel. With that being said: surely Israelis understand that the current direction of travel leads to a dark place, not least for Israel itself? I can't imagine a reality where the crisis in Gaza continues and Israel continues to be supported by the West. And then what happens? Surely at some point peace and reconciliation prevails?

I wish that was the natural path, that seeing the damage would turn people back toward reconciliation. But for now, most Israelis don’t see a viable partner on the other side to reconcile with.

This is a very dire situation. We’ve come to realize there are millions, perhaps tens of millions, across the region whose worldview includes the elimination of the Jewish state, and they are very committed to it. We can’t and won’t wage war on whole populations as that is not in our blood. Nor can we realistically change their beliefs in the foreseeable future or find something to offer that would produce lasting peace.

So today our choices feel grim and limited. That is why many Israelis believe we must: 1. Be excellent at predicting attacks and when necessary, strike first to disrupt them 2. Impose a very heavy cost on anyone who contemplates attacking us, so others think twice 3. Remain stronger and more capable than everyone around us

It’s a terrible place to be, and it’s not the future anyone hoped for. But until there’s a credible, sustained shift in the region, a process that would likely take generations of committed leadership, many here see little alternative.

Let me turn the mirror around a bit. If numbers or incidents turn out to be false, exaggerated, or stripped of context, would you also self-reflect and consider that you might have been tricked into spreading lies - at the expense of Israelis whose lives are also on the line?

Of course, militaries make mistakes and sometimes issue wrong statements, just as governments everywhere do in the fog of war. The Rafah paramedic case you cite is tragic, and investigations matter. But a single flawed or retracted statement doesn’t prove a systematic policy of “lying” or “massacre” just as one instance of misconduct in any country’s army doesn’t automatically invalidate its overall values or procedures.

if we’re going to judge Israel by its errors, we should also weigh the context in which those errors happen (urban warfare, Hamas embedding itself in civilian areas, use of ambulances to smuggle fighters or weapons, etc.). And we should also judge Hamas by its admitted policies - deliberately targeting civilians, embedding in hospitals, rejecting coexistence.

If we’re honest, both of us need to be open to the possibility that our sources and interpretations can be incomplete or biased. Real reflection means asking hard questions in both directions - not only of Israelis, not only of Palestinians.

You're right that there are two sides to every story, things aren't black-and-white.

To your first point, I've already agreed that the numbers seem faulty. Beyond that, I'm not sure what you're asking me to consider, beyond suspending belief. 60k people did die on the low end, many of them children.

From an outsider's perspective, the killing of 60k people in a small, corralled environment, many of which are children, says everything that can be said about the actor in question. This is without the additional context of years of West Bank occupations, experiencing the crazy two-tiered apartheid like system that is Israel (I've visited and was personally quite shocked), and other things.

Is Hamas terrible? Certainly. Would they do the same to Israel if they had the capabilities? Probably. But that doesn't change the facts on the ground.

There's a gigantic difference between "mistakes" and bombing clearly marked ambulances. They have a GIGA TON of money for HYPER AWESOME weapons, but can't tell ambulances apart? They very clearly lied and intended to murder aid workers. Otherwise, why would this HIGHLY MODERN military not IMMEDIATELY admit the fault when called out? There is no way they did not know.

The idea of "both sides could be lieing" is especially laughable, considering that it's Israel that's killed or jailed journalists over and over again. It's Israel that kidnaps international helpers constantly. It's Israel that bombs hospitals.

Most importantly, it's Israel that VERY CLEARLY demonstrates it's true goal in the West Bank: Total removal of the palestinian people and colonisation of their lands for jewish Lebensraum.