6 ms·

The Palestinians pursued a 2-state solution (option 1 above) for over two decades. It failed largely because of dead-set opposition from the Israeli right (than

The Palestinians pursued a 2-state solution (option 1 above) for over two decades. It failed largely because of dead-set opposition from the Israeli right (thanks Netanyahu) and because even the Israeli center-left was unwilling to fully withdraw to Israel's internationally recognized borders and recognize a fully sovereign Palestinian state. There were always demands to keep large chunks of territory (most critically in East Jerusalem) and maintain effective control over any future Palestinian semi-state. Both options laid out above (the 2-state and 1-state solution) are vastly better for the Palestinians than living under permanent Israeli military occupation with no rights, and subjected to continuous violence from the Israelis. It would not be the Palestinians who would block these types of solutions, were they actually on offer. The Israelis have a near monopoly on force in this conflict. They are the overwhelmingly dominant party, the only one with tanks, aircraft, destroyers and nuclear weapons. They have the power to dictate solutions, and that's what they've been doing for decades, using brute force. Pretending these are two equal sides that just can't agree is a fantasy.

A_D_E_P_T 1y ago
What's happening in Gaza right now is unequivocally genocide, and it's shameful. But... > The Israelis have a near monopoly on force in this conflict. They are the overwhelmingly dominant party, the only one with tanks, aircraft, destroyers and nuclear weapons. They have the power to dictate solutions, and that's what they've been doing for decades, using brute force. Pretending these are two equal sides that just can't agree is a fantasy. Why should the losers of a conflict get to decide the terms? Has that ever happened, in all of recorded history? Say the Israelis don't want to give up East Jerusalem under any circumstances, what then? Would the Palestinian side be justified in "blocking" the resolution of the conflict? The way I see it, the fairest and best outcome was a two-state solution with Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem -- this would have represented a compromise on both sides. Today, I don't know. I don't think that there is a fair or best solution. They're probably going to just keep fighting until the Palestinian side is hollowed-out and the Israeli side is a Burma-tier pariah state.
- DiogenesKynikos 1y ago
  > Why should the losers of a conflict get to decide the terms? Because might doesn't make right. Because there's such a thing as international law. Because it's wrong to steal land and force people out of their homes. > The way I see it, the fairest and best outcome was a two-state solution with Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem -- this would have represented a compromise on both sides. The Palestinians have already given up 78% of Palestine. They only want the rump: East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza. Most big Israeli cities used to be Palestinian cities, until the Israelis conquered and ethnically cleansed them in 1948. The standard 2-state solution is already a massive concession by the Palestinians. It's not the starting point for more concessions. You're asking them to now concede the most cherished piece of Palestine that they haven't yet given up: East Jerusalem. That would be such a humiliation that the Palestinians would never accept it. The way out of this is massive international pressure on Israel. Israel is strong as long as it's beating up on almost completely defenseless Palestinians. But Israel is a small country that could be pressured by the US and EU fairly easily. Instead, they back it to the tune of billions of dollars a year and give it diplomatic support.
  - dlubarov 1y ago
    > The Palestinians have already given up 78% of Palestine. You seem to be conflating the region of Palestine, which has always included a mix of religions including Jews, with the modern Palestinian national identity.
    - DiogenesKynikos 1y ago
      Jews were only a few percent of the population before Europeans started moving in at the end of the 19th Century. The people we now call Palestinians were the native inhabitants of the whole region of Palestine. They've given up 78% of it.
      - dlubarov 1y ago
        Yes, there was a certain period when Jews were a small minority; so what? If we're using "Palestinian" to mean someone from Palestine, why wouldn't we count a family from the First Aliyah as Palestinian? The Second Aliyah? Holocaust refugees? Some who now identify as Palestinian also immigrated during the economically prosperous Mandatory Palestine period. Would you say they're not real Palestinians, because they joined too recently? How about Arafat, who doesn't have a "pure" unbroken Levantine lineage (being born in Cairo)? Should American families who have only been here for one century have fewer rights, perhaps less voting power, than families who have been here for multiple centuries?
LorenPechtel 1y ago
They never actually pursued a two state solution. Arafat was offered something very close to a two state solution. He walked away without responding. He couldn't accept (he would have been assassinated if he agreed), he couldn't make a counter-offer because there was a risk of it being accepted, leading to the same end. Look carefully at all the "peace" proposals from the Palestinians. All are non-viable due to details buried in them. Typically this is hidden references to the "right of return".
- DiogenesKynikos 1y ago
  The Palestinians were the ones who originally pushed for the two-state solution. It took them years to convince the Israelis to even come to the negotiating table, which finally happened in 1993. The offer made to Arafat was awful for many reasons that are well known, and that I won't go over here (but to give you an exanple, the proposal said that the Palestinians would have no military, and that the Israeli military would have the right to enter Palestine whenever it wanted, meaning that Palestine would not have real sovereignty). > He walked away without responding. Actually, he told the Israelis that the offer was a very bitter pill to swallow, and that he would have to show it to the Palestinian national council before he could accept it. Then, the PLO came back a few months later to negotiate further in Taba. The Israelis eventually broke off negotiations, because the ruling party was about to lose the election to a party that opposed the two-state solution. > Typically this is hidden references to the "right of return". It always amazes me how Israelis say the Palestinian right of return is so awful, absurd, outlandish, unacceptable, etc., when the entire founding ideology of the state of Israel is that the Jews have a right of return from 2000 years ago.
  - LorenPechtel 1y ago
    You're thinking of different negotiations. Right of return = total Palestinian victory in the next election, which at this point probably means genocide of the Jews. They hide it because it a known deal-killer.
    - DiogenesKynikos 1y ago
tguvot 1y ago
fyi, netanyahu signed follow up to oslo agreements, he handed over more areas of west bank to PA and he voted for disengagement from Gaza. He also expressed support for 2 state solution. Gaza disengagement was voted for and executed by Likud. The only one who pursued 2 state solution is Israel.
- DiogenesKynikos 1y ago
  There is a video from 2001 of Netanyahu explaining in private (he didn't know he was being filmed) exactly how he intentionally sabotaged the Oslo peace process during the 1990s.[0] > he handed over more areas of west bank to PA As Netanyahu explains in the video, he only handed over a small piece of territory, in exchange for a letter from the US saying that Israel could define "security zones" in the West Bank that would remain under Israeli control. That allowed Netanyahu to declare everything a security zone, blocking all future withdrawals. Netanyahu boasts in the video that he gave up a tiny piece of land to end the piece process and prevent there from ever being a Palestinian state. In the years since, Netanyahu has repeatedly boasted that he's the one who prevented the creation of a Palestinian state. The founding charter of his party literally says that everything from the river to the sea should be Israel. 0. https://youtu.be/UzA04I3klkY?si=-Lm0ey7dsJSsWzZ5 https://youtu.be/UzA04I3klkY?si=-Lm0ey7dsJSsWzZ5
  - tguvot 1y ago
    He didn't sabotage oslo peace process he found a loophole that allowed him not to withdrawal from some of the territory in west bank prior to final settlement of borders. video from 2001. Bibi is not PM for 2 years already, and in 2000 there was camp david which could give palestinians state (they refused it, and started intifada instead). there were more negotiations that palestinians refused. bibi boasting about something ? sure he does. he wants to appeal to electors. doesn't mean that he sabotaged anything. and on topic of killing oslo peace process, i'll suggest you this lovely document from just after camp david that describes how palestians worked on implementing it: http://israelvisit.co.il/BehindTheNews/WhitePaper.htm http://israelvisit.co.il/BehindTheNews/WhitePaper.htm . and in general to review second intifada

A_D_E_P_T 1y ago

What's happening in Gaza right now is unequivocally genocide, and it's shameful. But... > The Israelis have a near monopoly on force in this conflict. They are the overwhelmingly dominant party, the only one with tanks, aircraft, destroyers and nuclear weapons. They have the power to dictate solutions, and that's what they've been doing for decades, using brute force. Pretending these are two equal sides that just can't agree is a fantasy. Why should the losers of a conflict get to decide the terms? Has that ever happened, in all of recorded history? Say the Israelis don't want to give up East Jerusalem under any circumstances, what then? Would the Palestinian side be justified in "blocking" the resolution of the conflict? The way I see it, the fairest and best outcome was a two-state solution with Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem -- this would have represented a compromise on both sides. Today, I don't know. I don't think that there is a fair or best solution. They're probably going to just keep fighting until the Palestinian side is hollowed-out and the Israeli side is a Burma-tier pariah state.

DiogenesKynikos 1y ago
> Why should the losers of a conflict get to decide the terms? Because might doesn't make right. Because there's such a thing as international law. Because it's wrong to steal land and force people out of their homes. > The way I see it, the fairest and best outcome was a two-state solution with Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem -- this would have represented a compromise on both sides. The Palestinians have already given up 78% of Palestine. They only want the rump: East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza. Most big Israeli cities used to be Palestinian cities, until the Israelis conquered and ethnically cleansed them in 1948. The standard 2-state solution is already a massive concession by the Palestinians. It's not the starting point for more concessions. You're asking them to now concede the most cherished piece of Palestine that they haven't yet given up: East Jerusalem. That would be such a humiliation that the Palestinians would never accept it. The way out of this is massive international pressure on Israel. Israel is strong as long as it's beating up on almost completely defenseless Palestinians. But Israel is a small country that could be pressured by the US and EU fairly easily. Instead, they back it to the tune of billions of dollars a year and give it diplomatic support.
- dlubarov 1y ago
  > The Palestinians have already given up 78% of Palestine. You seem to be conflating the region of Palestine, which has always included a mix of religions including Jews, with the modern Palestinian national identity.
  - DiogenesKynikos 1y ago
    Jews were only a few percent of the population before Europeans started moving in at the end of the 19th Century. The people we now call Palestinians were the native inhabitants of the whole region of Palestine. They've given up 78% of it.
    - dlubarov 1y ago
      Yes, there was a certain period when Jews were a small minority; so what? If we're using "Palestinian" to mean someone from Palestine, why wouldn't we count a family from the First Aliyah as Palestinian? The Second Aliyah? Holocaust refugees? Some who now identify as Palestinian also immigrated during the economically prosperous Mandatory Palestine period. Would you say they're not real Palestinians, because they joined too recently? How about Arafat, who doesn't have a "pure" unbroken Levantine lineage (being born in Cairo)? Should American families who have only been here for one century have fewer rights, perhaps less voting power, than families who have been here for multiple centuries?

LorenPechtel 1y ago

They never actually pursued a two state solution. Arafat was offered something very close to a two state solution. He walked away without responding. He couldn't accept (he would have been assassinated if he agreed), he couldn't make a counter-offer because there was a risk of it being accepted, leading to the same end. Look carefully at all the "peace" proposals from the Palestinians. All are non-viable due to details buried in them. Typically this is hidden references to the "right of return".

DiogenesKynikos 1y ago
The Palestinians were the ones who originally pushed for the two-state solution. It took them years to convince the Israelis to even come to the negotiating table, which finally happened in 1993. The offer made to Arafat was awful for many reasons that are well known, and that I won't go over here (but to give you an exanple, the proposal said that the Palestinians would have no military, and that the Israeli military would have the right to enter Palestine whenever it wanted, meaning that Palestine would not have real sovereignty). > He walked away without responding. Actually, he told the Israelis that the offer was a very bitter pill to swallow, and that he would have to show it to the Palestinian national council before he could accept it. Then, the PLO came back a few months later to negotiate further in Taba. The Israelis eventually broke off negotiations, because the ruling party was about to lose the election to a party that opposed the two-state solution. > Typically this is hidden references to the "right of return". It always amazes me how Israelis say the Palestinian right of return is so awful, absurd, outlandish, unacceptable, etc., when the entire founding ideology of the state of Israel is that the Jews have a right of return from 2000 years ago.
- LorenPechtel 1y ago
  You're thinking of different negotiations. Right of return = total Palestinian victory in the next election, which at this point probably means genocide of the Jews. They hide it because it a known deal-killer.
  - DiogenesKynikos 1y ago

tguvot 1y ago

fyi, netanyahu signed follow up to oslo agreements, he handed over more areas of west bank to PA and he voted for disengagement from Gaza. He also expressed support for 2 state solution. Gaza disengagement was voted for and executed by Likud. The only one who pursued 2 state solution is Israel.

DiogenesKynikos 1y ago
There is a video from 2001 of Netanyahu explaining in private (he didn't know he was being filmed) exactly how he intentionally sabotaged the Oslo peace process during the 1990s.[0] > he handed over more areas of west bank to PA As Netanyahu explains in the video, he only handed over a small piece of territory, in exchange for a letter from the US saying that Israel could define "security zones" in the West Bank that would remain under Israeli control. That allowed Netanyahu to declare everything a security zone, blocking all future withdrawals. Netanyahu boasts in the video that he gave up a tiny piece of land to end the piece process and prevent there from ever being a Palestinian state. In the years since, Netanyahu has repeatedly boasted that he's the one who prevented the creation of a Palestinian state. The founding charter of his party literally says that everything from the river to the sea should be Israel. 0. https://youtu.be/UzA04I3klkY?si=-Lm0ey7dsJSsWzZ5 https://youtu.be/UzA04I3klkY?si=-Lm0ey7dsJSsWzZ5
- tguvot 1y ago
  He didn't sabotage oslo peace process he found a loophole that allowed him not to withdrawal from some of the territory in west bank prior to final settlement of borders. video from 2001. Bibi is not PM for 2 years already, and in 2000 there was camp david which could give palestinians state (they refused it, and started intifada instead). there were more negotiations that palestinians refused. bibi boasting about something ? sure he does. he wants to appeal to electors. doesn't mean that he sabotaged anything. and on topic of killing oslo peace process, i'll suggest you this lovely document from just after camp david that describes how palestians worked on implementing it: http://israelvisit.co.il/BehindTheNews/WhitePaper.htm http://israelvisit.co.il/BehindTheNews/WhitePaper.htm . and in general to review second intifada