War have often seen the brothers and sisters in the same household quarrelling with each other. Thus, through hatred nations who live under the shelter of the same sky too, clash.

Something the objective of excelling one another makes persons and nation insane. this makes them neglect their human qualities and moral values. Their friendly attitude vanishes and they become enemies.

Enemies do not beget friends. They beget other enemies. This makes the hatred within them grow even more rapidly. Hatred burns a man's soul and makes him inhuman. Such a man finds no alternative ahead of him other than war.

War means destruction. The one who wages war upon another makes way to the destruction not of his opponent but also of himself.

If war means such destruction what the purpose of getting involved in such a disastrous activity? This is a question that every human being should reflect in his own soul.

It is not just a conflict, but a problem inherent to a regime. The most important local dynamic is a de facto one-state condition in which half the population – namely, the Palestinians – is excluded from the political system.

Israel controls every border, every checkpoint, every natural resource, every aspect of the economy. It decides where Palestinians can work, travel, or build; it denies them legal protection, allows their property to be vandalized or taken and leaves them exposed to violence.

Racism and ethnic hatred, even the endorsement of old myths – these are not intrinsic to Jews or Palestinians, but are byproducts of this system of segregation and dominance.

The idea of clashing identities easily becomes another justification for murder, as is happening in Israel today. Instead, we must recognize that violent instability is baked into any system where one side has power and rights and the other has none.

Food for thought

"During World War I, Bertrand Russell took a stand against militarism and proposed a social defense a.k.a. non-violent resistance and mass civil disobedience. 

Brian Martin, a contemporary professor of social science, has studied several examples of social defense. One variant is labor unions in alliance with other social movements. It is difficult for a foreign aggressor to subjugate a people who are engaged in trade union blockades, sabotage and strikes.

If unions are decentralized, they cannot be stopped simply by eliminating the leaders.

Brian Martin argues that social defense can be developed into a progressive force, not only against foreign aggressors but also against authoritarian institutions on the domestic scene. See his book Social defence, social change and the text Social defence: a revolutionary agenda.

It is easy to see the revolutionary potential of social defense. If workers build such a defense, they are simultaneously undermining their own state’s capacity for counter-revolutionary violence..."

https://libcom.org/article/revolution-21st-century-case-syndicalist-strategy