6 ms·
I think you're framing the history of the peace accords in a way that is very unfair to Israel. Many people have opined over the years on the negotiations betw
by edanm 2y ago
I think you're framing the history of the peace accords in a way that is very unfair to Israel.
Many people have opined over the years on the negotiations between Israel and Palestine, and while it's certainly not one-sided, I think it's unfair to say that it is Israel's fault that a peace was never achieved. The Palestinian leadership multiple times turned down offers that most outside observers considered very good for the Palestinians, and didn't come up with any acceptable substitute; they walked away from the negotiations instead.
> The whole implicit promise of Oslo was that the Palestinians would get a sovereign state, but that wasn't explicitly spelled out anywhere in the text, and the Israelis never committed to it.
Here are some snippets from the beginning of the Oslo accords. I'm not sure what you mean by "not spelled out", they're fairly explicit about the Palestinian people ruling themselves:
> The aim of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations within the current Middle
East peace process is, among other things, to establish a Palestinian Interim
Self-Government Authority [...] It is understood that
the interim arrangements are an integral part of the whole peace process and
that the negotiations on the permanent status will lead to the implementation of
Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973).
> In order that the Palestinian people in the West Bank and Gaza Strip may
govern themselves according to democratic principles, direct, free and general
political elections will be held for the Council under agreed supervision and
international observation, while the Palestinian police will ensure public
order. [...] These elections will constitute a significant interim preparatory step toward the realization of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people and their just requirements.
>> E.g. pro-Palestinian protests help create a message that the Hamas sees as support to it. That means most Palestinians will fall back into the loop of bad leadership that keeps landing them to a worse positions than they were before.
> The major problem is just the opposite. The Israelis have felt for the last 20 years that they can do anything to the Palestinians and ignore the Palestinians' demands for basic rights and a state of their own. The Israelis believe there will be no consequences, because the Palestinians are weak. October 7th was a complete aberration, the first time in 20 years that Israelis have suffered at all because of the occupation. Left to their own devices, the Israelis would just continue to expand settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, would never concede to the creation of a Palestinian state, and might even try to expel the Palestinians at some future date. Without outside pressure, there will never be an end to the conflict, except perhaps for a final expulsion of the Palestinians.
So I somewhat agree with this sentiment, actually. I think some minority of Israelis would absolutely be fine with expelling the Palestinians, and obviously they've continued expanding settlements all this time. The majority of Israelis would never agree with actually expelling Palestinians, but were "fine" living in what on their side were relatively peaceful times, not doing anything to promote peace (and letting the more anti-peace side of Israel effectively call the shots).
I do take issue with your saying that "the major problem is just the opposite" though. I think they're both problems. The Israeli left and pro-peace movement has become far less powerful, exactly because of the perception of the Israeli public that there is no "partner for peace". I think that perception is actually fairly true - Hamas wants the destruction of Israel, the PA is weak and ineffectual and hated by the people, and the perception is that the majority of Palestinians don't want a peaceful two-state solution, but rather believe that they will eventually "drive out Israelis" or some such nonsense.
The failure of the peace process, which Israelis perceive as happening because of the Palestinian leadership (which is fairly true IMO), and the ramp up of terror attacks because of the peace process, really weakened the Israeli peace movement. The situation with the Gaza disengagement is only going to weaken the peace camp further.
Of course Israel isn't blameless here either - whether or not Israeli "should have" pursued peace for the last 20 years - and I think it absolutely should have, morally speaking - what Israel also did was in some ways to actively work against peace. Part of the reason for the lack of "Palestinian leadership" is because of actions taken by Israel.
- DiogenesKynikos 2y ago> most outside observers considered very good for the Palestinians That's not the case. That's the "common wisdom" in the US, but it's not the dominant view among experts, and it's just objectively false. > I'm not sure what you mean by "not spelled out", they're fairly explicit about the Palestinian people ruling themselves If you read through the passages you've quoted carefully, you'll realize that the text does not say that the Palestinians will have their own sovereign state. The Israeli government's position under Rabin was that the Palestinians would be given a semi-autonomous status in an "entity" - not a state - that would be under Israeli control. Effectively, some sort of limited ability to run their own affairs, but under ultimate Israeli control, and without the ability to vote in Israeli elections. > The failure of the peace process, which Israelis perceive as happening because of the Palestinian leadership (which is fairly true IMO) This is a view that just flies in the face of reality. Netanyahu did everything possible to torpedo the peace process in the 1990s, and no Israeli government was prepared to accept the minimal acceptable settlement, which is a sovereign Palestinian state on 1967 borders. The Palestinians have repeatedly made this offer to the Israelis, but have been rebuffed every time, because Israel wants important parts of the occupied Palestinian territories, and because Israel demands things like full Israeli military control over any future Palestinian entity.
- edanm 2y ago> That's not the case. That's the "common wisdom" in the US, but it's not the dominant view among experts, and it's just objectively false. Can you provide backup for this? > If you read through the passages you've quoted carefully, you'll realize that the text does not say that the Palestinians will have their own sovereign state. The passages don't say the word state, but they pretty explicitly say that Palestinians will govern themselves, and that this is an interim step towards full Palestinian rights. Is your only issue with it that it's missing the word "state"? Honestly trying to understand your view here. > The Israeli government's position under Rabin was that the Palestinians would be given a semi-autonomous status in an "entity" - not a state - that would be under Israeli control. I saw you referencing this earlier. I think you're making too much of this. He was probably playing politics to a country that wasn't yet ready to hear talk of a Palestinian state in full, but it seems fairly clear that that was his end goal, and the obvious end of the process he himself was most actively pursuing (and tragically gave his life for). See e.g. this article in Haaretz, which gives a lot more context on this [1], I'll quote a relevant part: "Kurzman’s claim is supported by my interviews with close associates of Rabin who told me that he had come to terms with the eventuality of a Palestinian state. He and his foreign minister, Shimon Peres, had an agreement not to discuss a Palestinian state at that stage but clearly understood that this was the end game, then-Labor Party Secretary General Nissim Zvili told me." I'll also note that we are not beholden to what Rabin believed at the time, and many people have since become far more on board with a two-state solution, as the article notes: "It is difficult to imagine that he would disagree with the vast majority of other retired Israeli generals – as well as the former heads of the Mossad and Shin Bet intelligence service – who today argue that a Palestinian state, alongside the Jewish state, is a top national security interest for Israel." > Effectively, some sort of limited ability to run their own affairs, but under ultimate Israeli control, and without the ability to vote in Israeli elections. Now I'm confused. Why would they have the ability to vote in Israeli elections? The idea is to have a separate state, with its own government. How does voting in Israeli elections figure into this? > This is a view that just flies in the face of reality. Netanyahu did everything possible to torpedo the peace process in the 1990s, and no Israeli government was prepared to accept the minimal acceptable settlement, which is a sovereign Palestinian state on 1967 borders. While you're right about Netanyahu, you're still wrong about Camp David, Taba and the 2008 offer. More importantly, while I have multiple times put the fault on Israel for not working actively for peace in the last 20 years, there is also a lot of fault on the Palestinians for exactly the same reason, and for continually choosing violence and terror instead of pushing more for peace from their side. You seem to view everything as 100% Israel's fault, giving no agency at all to the Palestinians - "Israel didn't make a good offer so that's that". It's also on them to advance peace, denounce terror, and work towards a two-state solution. [1] https://www.haaretz.com/2017-11-02/ty-article/.premium/fight-the-rightist-revisionists-rabin-wanted-a-palestinian-state/0000017f-dc29-db5a-a57f-dc6b22c90000 https://www.haaretz.com/2017-11-02/ty-article/.premium/fight...