3 ms·

This is simply not true, there was never any offer with acceptable terms. I am not going to repeat this here, this has been discussed countless times and you ca

This is simply not true, there was never any offer with acceptable terms. I am not going to repeat this here, this has been discussed countless times and you can easily find this if you want to.

slibhb 1y ago
All of the offers seem acceptable to me. In the first offer, the Jewish state was quite small. None of the offers were acceptable to Palestinians because they include a Jewish state. Virtually all Arabs want to fight a war against Israel and destroy it. They view that land as theirs. The only reason there haven't been more wars is due to repressive Arab governments that have been willing to compromise.
- danbruc 1y ago
  This is nonsense, the Palestinians and Palestinian organizations - even including Hamas - have to varying degrees accepted or shown willingness to accept a Palestinian state that does not encompass all of Mandatory Palestine. Israel is unwilling to have a two state solution, they always desired all of Mandatory Palestine and saw any division plan only as stepping stone for further expansion in the future.
  - wslh 1y ago
    > ...even including Hamas That is not true. Trivial to check on Wikipedia [1] and go to factual information. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#Policies_towards_Israel_and_Palestine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#Policies_towards_Israel_...
    - danbruc 1y ago
      »On 2 May 2017, Khaled Mashal, chief of the Hamas Political Bureau, presented a new Charter, in which Hamas accepted the establishment of a Palestinian state "on the basis of June 4, 1967" (West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem).«
      - wslh 1y ago
        You cut the entire paragraph.
        danbruc 1y ago
        You mean the part where it says they did still not recognize the state of Israel or relinquish claims to all of Palestine? You overlooked the part in my comment where I said to varying degrees. Also to me that seems not too different from the position Israeli politicians had and some still have, we accept the partition plan but still desire to expand into all of Mandatory Palestine eventually.
  - beepbopboopp 1y ago
    This is not true, even in their acceptance of THEIR land, they will not acknowledge or turn over their territorial claim to the rest of the land.
  - zahlman 1y ago
    > This is nonsense, the Palestinians and Palestinian organizations - even including Hamas - have to varying degrees accepted or shown willingness to accept a Palestinian state that does not encompass all of Mandatory Palestine. This cannot be reconciled with the meaning of the slogan "from the river to the sea". (Wikipedia claims that the slogan is used by both sides of the conflict, citing a JSTOR article I can't access; but I have only ever seen it used by Hamas and their supporters.) Per Wikipedia, Hamas does not recognize Israel as of their most recent 2017 charter, and "called for a Palestinian state on all of Mandatory Palestine" in 1988. While I'm sure that many Palestinians do not support Hamas and desire to co-exist with Israel, I see no good reason to suppose that this is any more common than the other way around. > Israel is unwilling to have a two state solution, they always desired all of Mandatory Palestine There is ample evidence to contradict this — enough that I can look it up on the fly. Were it true, for example, the Knesset would have had no need to pass a resolution declaring this to be their current position, barely a year ago. Netanyahu also claimed in 2015 to want a two-state solution, and of course there are other Israeli political parties with warmer attitudes towards Palestine.
    - danbruc 1y ago
      The obvious evidence that Israel is unwilling to have a two state solution is its non-existence - they could do this unilaterally and just withdraw.
      - zahlman 1y ago
        Your claim was that they have always desired all of Mandatory Palestine. This clearly does not hold up. The reason they might currently feel differently seems pretty obvious to me, even though this is a topic I rarely ever think about.
        danbruc 1y ago
        »Does the establishment of a Jewish state [in only part of Palestine] advance or retard the conversion of this country into a Jewish country? My assumption (which is why I am a fervent proponent of a state, even though it is now linked to partition) is that a Jewish state on only part of the land is not the end but the beginning.... This is because this increase in possession is of consequence not only in itself, but because through it we increase our strength, and every increase in strength helps in the possession of the land as a whole. The establishment of a state, even if only on a portion of the land, is the maximal reinforcement of our strength at the present time and a powerful boost to our historical endeavors to liberate the entire country.« David Ben-Gurion, 1937

This is simply not true, there was never any offer with acceptable terms. I am not going to repeat this here, this has been discussed countless times and you can easily find this if you want to.

slibhb 1y ago

All of the offers seem acceptable to me. In the first offer, the Jewish state was quite small. None of the offers were acceptable to Palestinians because they include a Jewish state. Virtually all Arabs want to fight a war against Israel and destroy it. They view that land as theirs. The only reason there haven't been more wars is due to repressive Arab governments that have been willing to compromise.

danbruc 1y ago
This is nonsense, the Palestinians and Palestinian organizations - even including Hamas - have to varying degrees accepted or shown willingness to accept a Palestinian state that does not encompass all of Mandatory Palestine. Israel is unwilling to have a two state solution, they always desired all of Mandatory Palestine and saw any division plan only as stepping stone for further expansion in the future.
- wslh 1y ago
  > ...even including Hamas That is not true. Trivial to check on Wikipedia [1] and go to factual information. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#Policies_towards_Israel_and_Palestine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#Policies_towards_Israel_...
  - danbruc 1y ago
    »On 2 May 2017, Khaled Mashal, chief of the Hamas Political Bureau, presented a new Charter, in which Hamas accepted the establishment of a Palestinian state "on the basis of June 4, 1967" (West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem).«
    - wslh 1y ago
      You cut the entire paragraph.
      - danbruc 1y ago
        You mean the part where it says they did still not recognize the state of Israel or relinquish claims to all of Palestine? You overlooked the part in my comment where I said to varying degrees. Also to me that seems not too different from the position Israeli politicians had and some still have, we accept the partition plan but still desire to expand into all of Mandatory Palestine eventually.
- beepbopboopp 1y ago
  This is not true, even in their acceptance of THEIR land, they will not acknowledge or turn over their territorial claim to the rest of the land.
- zahlman 1y ago
  > This is nonsense, the Palestinians and Palestinian organizations - even including Hamas - have to varying degrees accepted or shown willingness to accept a Palestinian state that does not encompass all of Mandatory Palestine. This cannot be reconciled with the meaning of the slogan "from the river to the sea". (Wikipedia claims that the slogan is used by both sides of the conflict, citing a JSTOR article I can't access; but I have only ever seen it used by Hamas and their supporters.) Per Wikipedia, Hamas does not recognize Israel as of their most recent 2017 charter, and "called for a Palestinian state on all of Mandatory Palestine" in 1988. While I'm sure that many Palestinians do not support Hamas and desire to co-exist with Israel, I see no good reason to suppose that this is any more common than the other way around. > Israel is unwilling to have a two state solution, they always desired all of Mandatory Palestine There is ample evidence to contradict this — enough that I can look it up on the fly. Were it true, for example, the Knesset would have had no need to pass a resolution declaring this to be their current position, barely a year ago. Netanyahu also claimed in 2015 to want a two-state solution, and of course there are other Israeli political parties with warmer attitudes towards Palestine.
  - danbruc 1y ago
    The obvious evidence that Israel is unwilling to have a two state solution is its non-existence - they could do this unilaterally and just withdraw.
    - zahlman 1y ago
      Your claim was that they have always desired all of Mandatory Palestine. This clearly does not hold up. The reason they might currently feel differently seems pretty obvious to me, even though this is a topic I rarely ever think about.
      - danbruc 1y ago
        »Does the establishment of a Jewish state [in only part of Palestine] advance or retard the conversion of this country into a Jewish country? My assumption (which is why I am a fervent proponent of a state, even though it is now linked to partition) is that a Jewish state on only part of the land is not the end but the beginning.... This is because this increase in possession is of consequence not only in itself, but because through it we increase our strength, and every increase in strength helps in the possession of the land as a whole. The establishment of a state, even if only on a portion of the land, is the maximal reinforcement of our strength at the present time and a powerful boost to our historical endeavors to liberate the entire country.« David Ben-Gurion, 1937