> They have a fantasy of a demilitarized autonomy, I honestly don't have a good answer here.

If I am being Machiavellian, I can see why ethnic cleansing might be an eventual option when push comes to shove, while morphing the well-meaning Oslo Accords into apartheid (some object to use of this term, I am none the wiser) is the ongoing preference.

> I don't think there's a preference for millitia ... There's also execution of a solution which is MUCH harder, e.g. clearing settlements, etc.

This then seems like a federated government with two sets of laws and two power centers (like the one proposed to prevent the partition of British India) might be probable after a sustained period of peace, with free movement of goods and people; especially since going back to 1967 borders is non-workable to make way for a 2-state solution, on top of the already non-negotiable (from Israel's pov) Right to Return for the Arab refugees in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan.

> The problem is that it's really hard to root out extremists.

Such tragic events are as much a chance for the centre / left to root out far-right and far-left as they're for them to cement their political ideology. I genuinely hope the US and the UK push the Israeli Government to abandon this concept of "security state" (as some put it) and work towards equal rights of the Palestine people (ie, make it part of the constitution). Some might say that it is an unfair outcome for Israel, but frankly, there's nothing that's been fair in this overwhelmingly one-sided conflict. Hopefully, the Arab League can offer wholesale normalization in exchange (not sure about Syria re: Golan Heights and other proxies of Iran). It'll be nice to see what peaceful Middle East looks like, for once.

> The vetos in the UN are related to resolutions brought about by Arab countries who have more influence in the UN due to their numbers.

Geo-politics is one way to look at it; another way is the human rights violations as reported by independent bodies (Amnesty, HRW, and even B'Tselem) which can't be merely dismissed as agenda of the Arab states? As one example: The 2006 Lebanon War, in particular, had heavy Lebanese civilian casualties (2 town centers leveled, for all intents and purposes, which still don't show much signs of infrastructure recovery), and another report claiming that Israel launched 5million mortars into Southern Lebanon after a cease fire was agreed (and 1 million of it remained unexploded). I am in the camp that believes that this recklessness is due to the impunity US affords Israel, which invariably, makes me very apprehensive of the US policing the region in general, even though, I genuinely think the US has much better ideals than most other Arab countries (not a high bar).

> They wrote that Israel is 100% to blame for everything even the attack on its own people. That is delusional and scary.

The critics (not me) come from a place where they say though Hamas violently lashes out for the sole purpose of spreading terror, their previous offers for a long truce (hudna; apparently accepted by the IDF but denied by the Israeli Government) and attempt at non-violent protests (The Great March of 2018) against the siege hasn't worked, as reportedly IDF maimed and killed 200+ Gazans.

Norman Finkelstein says that as the reports of 7 Oct were coming out, it wasn't clear just what had happened, and that the left were wrong to put out statements in support of them.

Then, he posits the notorious Mandela quip ("One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"; I don't ascribe to it, because I haven't personally been subject to apartheid, but my community, not too dissimilar to the Druze, has been in 12th to 17th centuries in Iraq, Iran, Egypt, and Yemen; and thereafter across most of the British Empire) applies to Hamas (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m36CUGA1Ucw&t=2700); and that while their terrorist acts are reprehensible as a matter of fact (innocent lives lost), the moral judgement is however harder to pass (ex: Nat Turner's rebellion against slavery in the US), given Israel's role in inciting / incentivizing such a response (again, not my view).

> There's concern that Israel will find itself isolated again if it lets such rhetoric slide.

Understandable, but their response has been, from what I can tell, to incite Islamophobia. Remind the West that this is "a clash of civilizations". I'd rather relinquish all of Levant to Israel to have it stopped, because the previous wave wasn't at all easy.

> It's about as triggering as can be.

Sigh. Not to downplay or compare, but such triggers (Shoah v Nakba) exist on both sides, and it seems limitless, this cycle of anguish.

> Biden is actually pushing to something that would resemble a Marshal plan for Gaza with UN rule.

I predict a month or two from now, there will come a point when other (uninvolved) populace (in the West, even if not in the Arab world) will simply exhaust their emotional capacity to follow the conflict. It'll be interesting to see how things proceed then. I instead hope for war/crime trials (of those responsible on both sides), long-term truce, and expediting a 2-state plan (either Palestine as a protectorate / federate (without 1967 borders) enshrined in the Israeli constitution, or a sovereign republic (w/ 1967).

> They don't have the capability of nuance or diplomacy that the US has.

Don't think the Arab states trust the US... and I'd argue that indulging the nuances has what's led us to a complicated situation. I am not an expert, but in my own naive way, I think some hefty compromises are a way forward unless Israel believes it can remain a "security state" forever, and wait out a total Palestine defeat (as in Arabs leaving voluntarily).

(ps sincere apologies if any of my replies have been inconsiderate / tone-deaf)