3 ms·
It looks like israel is the one rejecting 2-state solutions* * - 2-state means 2 co-equal states, with equal people, and equal rights (including the equal righ
by ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
It looks like israel is the one rejecting 2-state solutions*
* - 2-state means 2 co-equal states, with equal people, and equal rights (including the equal right to be safe from the other)
- hn_go_brrrrr 1y agoNeither Hamas nor Israel's current right-wing government wants the kind of solution you're proposing.
- HDThoreaun 1y agoHamas has quite literally never been open to anything like this. Israel no longer is, but they definitely were before the second intafada.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- peterfirefly 1y ago> but they definitely were before the second intafada. No. But some of the important people in Israel were smart enough to pretend they were.
- HDThoreaun 1y agoThe palestinains shouldve called their bluff instead of refusing every deal offered then.
- chimineycricket 1y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Hamas_charter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Hamas_charter Hamas is willing to accept the 1967 borders as Palestine.
- OutOfHere 1y agoIt is essential to pay attention to the timeline of events, to not distort the sequence and progression of events. First Hamas rejected the two-state solution. Israel has later, in effect, accepted their rejection.
- Mordisquitos 1y agoYour argument is subtly biased in that you equivocating two different levels of entities: one of them is a political/militant/terrorist organisation and another is a state. If we're dealing with the first level we should compare Hamas and Likud (+coalition); if we're dealing with the second level, we should compare Palestine and Israel. Elevating Hamas to represent the entirety of Palestine in the conflict is twisting the logic.
- OutOfHere 1y agoThose with the guns (Hamas) are those that matter. The powerless puppet Palestinian government is irrelevant. The Arab countries just called for Hamas to lay down their weapons, thereby proving my point.