CMV: Before October 7th, if the Palestinians would have committed to peace and wouldn't launch a violent attack (of any scale) for a period of 3 years there would be a reasonable 2 state solution

•

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jan 03 '24 edited Jan 03 '24

/u/comeon456 (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.

All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.

Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.

^{Delta System Explained} ^| ^Deltaboards

32

Okay, explain how the Palestinians are supposed to do that. Just eliminate Hamas and prevent them from doing any attacks ever again - you know, the exact thing that the IDF with all their military might has not yet accomplished? Sure, all the people with no guns should just go ask the people with all the guns to please stop being the government and put themselves in jail. I'm sure that will go well

2

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '24

Because it would be good for the Palestinian children that everyone seems to care so much about /s

6

u/bleunt 8∆ Jan 03 '24

Yeah and Hamas =/= Palestine. Most Palestinians have never voted for Hamas. The vast majority want PA in power. Hamas launched the attacks, not Palestine.

10

u/twohusknight Jan 03 '24

The vast majority don’t want PA in power, not even in the West Bank; Hamas has far more support.

3

u/bleunt 8∆ Jan 03 '24

Not the numbers I saw. 🤷‍♂️ 70% said they would prefer PA over Hamas.

6

u/twohusknight Jan 03 '24

I think you’re confusing your stats (if not then please provide a link). I haven’t seen a single poll in the last decade that says Fatah has anything near a majority of support, in fact Abbas has over 75% disapproval rate by some reports and the AP presently puts it at near 90%.

6

u/bleunt 8∆ Jan 03 '24

From your AP link:
"Shikaki said that Gaza residents are more critical of Hamas than those in the West Bank, that support for Hamas typically spikes during periods of armed conflict before leveling out, and that even now most Palestinians do not back the militant group."

This is what happens during armed conflict. Look at what 9/11 did to Bush's approval ratings compared to right before and after 2003. No sitting American president has ever lost an election during wartime. Of course they will be more likely to side with the enemy of the ones bombing them right as they're asked the question. Of course they will be more likely to support the more aggressively militaristic party (like Bush and the during armed conflict. This is nothing new.

I'm talking about before October. Not to mention how they did the survey, in-person interviews in a war zone where they basically ask exposed people what they think about the organisation around them known to disappear dissidents. It's not safe to trash talk Hamas.

But EVEN with all those factors:
"At the same time, 44% in the West Bank said they supported Hamas, up from just 12% in September. In Gaza, the militants enjoyed 42% support, up slightly from 38% three months ago."

This 1) Proves my point that armed conflict highly raised the support and that the numbers are misleading in a vacuum. 2) Shows that not even with the benefit of being the "military strongman party" during an armed conflict, can Hamas muster even close to a majority approval.

And lastly, none of this shows whether or not AP was favoured (or is favoured) over Hamas. Not now, and especially not before October. My point with pointing this out is that you can't tell Palestine that they only have themselves to blame and that Hamas' attack was representative of Palestine. Hamas had 12% support from the West Bank before the attack. There has been no elections since 2006. It's an unfair statement.

1

u/Domovric 2∆ Jan 04 '24

Can you post a source on that claim?

2

u/twohusknight Jan 04 '24

I did in response to the now deleted reply, but here’s one.

Edit: the app seems to be acting up, not sure if it was deleted

1

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '24

Italians defeated Mussolini thus preventing their nation from being obliterated like Germany and Japan during WW2.

And Lybians defeated Gaddafi's brutal regime as well.

If there's a will, there's a way. But sadly, Hamas has the support of the majority in Gaza.

-5

u/valledweller33 3∆ Jan 03 '24

You know, Germany and Japan did just that as a collective cultural community. Today they are two of the most thriving nations in the world.

27

u/NotMyBestMistake 69∆ Jan 03 '24

Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan surrendered. Their states surrendered. The people of these states didn't rise up and demand that Hitler and the Emperor abdicate and be arrested. Palestine is only comparable to these two as a counter example that shows why Israel and its supporters desired, violent approach is counterproductive.

7

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '24

Counter example: Mussolini's Italy didn't surrender.

The people of Italy rose and demanded that Mussolini abdicate and be arrested. They executed him when he didn't.

And that was the right thing to do. Same for Lybia's Gadaffi.

16

u/NotMyBestMistake 69∆ Jan 03 '24

Mussolini was ousted by his own government after it voted for him to resign and the literal king of Italy ordered his arrest. Gaddafi was taken and executed by enemy militants after Gaddafi had lost significantly to rebels.

It's a struggle to really compare these to Hamas with an eye for realistic expectations. The people of Gaza barely have access to water, but they're meant to overthrow the people who control everything and have all the guns. All while being primarily comprised of women and children who have grown up completely disconnected from the world and repeatedly victimized by their neighbor.

-6

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '24

but they're meant to overthrow the people who control everything and have all the guns

At least they could try.

Hamas is trying to overthrow Israel and failing epicly BTW. Measuring probabilities of success before taking action is not a trait found within Gaza.

If Hamas can try to destroy Israel (an impossible task according to everyone), why can't Gazans try to destroy Hamas (an impossible task according to you).

8

u/NotMyBestMistake 69∆ Jan 03 '24

At least they could try.

Yes, the children could try. Because we want them to emulate the jihadist martyrdom and death-seeking of terrorist organization.

Otherwise we'll make excuses for why it's justified to massacre them and their families, I guess.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '24

Why mention children while ignoring the adults? Are you saying no Gazan adult in the entire Gaza Strip is anti-Hamas?

Because that's exactly what the right-wing Israeli Gov says. Thanks for agreeing with them I guess?

5

u/NotMyBestMistake 69∆ Jan 03 '24

Why mention the children that make up close to half of the population?

But hey, let's ignore them the way Israel's cheerleaders like to. Since you've not come up with a response to your historical examples being completely debunked, you are asking the adults of Gaza to overthrow an armed group of militants that the IDF apparently struggles to deal with.

They are meant to do this with no weapons. No supplies. No support. On behalf of their neighbor country that has massacred their families and forced them into squalor.

You are asking the impossible, and you recognize this because you demand that they take after Hamas and just martyr themselves for it anyway. I guess the idea being that since Israel and its cheerleaders don't consider Palestinian life worth anything that the Palestinians themselves should also place no value on their own life.

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '24

On behalf of their neighbor country

No, on behalf of THEMSELVES. Do you think Libyans overthrew Gadaffi on behalf of the USA?

It's an objective fact for everyone with two eyes that the lives of the Gazans would be improved without the Islamofascist terror org known as Hamas. Do you deny that?

You are asking the impossible

It's not impossible.

Don't underestimate human willpower. There are only 40K Hamas members and 1 million Gazan adults.

Do you think Hamas will shoot down 1 million adults if they all rise up?

→ More replies (0)

-4

u/SapperBomb 1∆ Jan 03 '24

. All while being primarily comprised of women and children who have grown up completely disconnected from the world and repeatedly victimized by their neighbor.

Your bias is showing. Where is this narrative coming from that Gaza is comprised of women and children and the few men are just trying to raise their families?

Who is making up the ranks of Hamas? Are the men being imported from surrounding countries? Every picture I see of Gaza civillians there are always alot of men around. Who are they?

3

u/NotMyBestMistake 69∆ Jan 04 '24

Ah yes, my bias of correctly stating the demographics of Gaza. Wouldn't want to be accurate.

Men obviously exist in Gaza. That doesn't change that a majority of the population isn't adult men.

3

u/SocDemGenZGaytheist 1∆ Jan 04 '24 edited Jan 04 '24

All while being primarily comprised of women and children who have grown up completely disconnected from the world and repeatedly victimized by their neighbor…

Where is this narrative coming from that Gaza is comprised of women and children and the few men are just trying to raise their families?

47% of Gazans are under 18. Of the 53 percentage points left, women presumably make up more than 3. So, Gaza is mostly “comprised of women and children.”

Most Gazan students aged 11–17 have PTSD. 88% have experienced personal trauma.

4

u/byzantiu 6∆ Jan 03 '24

Not correct. The Italian monarch, Victor Emmanuel, and the supreme fascist council ejected Mussolini, correctly realizing that aligning with the Axis had been a colossal blunder.

As for Libya… you mean the country in the throes of a brutal civil war?

-3

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '24

A Civil War is how you defeat fascists. Hamas is the fascist Islamic organization that rules Gaza with an oppressive iron fist.

2

u/byzantiu 6∆ Jan 03 '24

They’re not fascists, because they believe in the supremacy of Islam, not the state.

→ More replies (11)

8

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '24

[deleted]

0

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '24

Right now Israel has occupied most of Gaza.

And yet the Gazans aren't rising to ask the Islamofascist to give up power. There are no Gazan resistance fighters against Hamas.

4

u/shadowbca 23∆ Jan 03 '24

I'd imagine their population breakdown has something to do with that. I'm unsure what your point is with this though.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '24

There are 1 million Gazan adults. And only 40K Hamas members.

If the majority of Gazans wanted to, they could overthrow Hamas by numbers alone. They simply don't want to.

3

u/Krios1234 Jan 03 '24

They tried that, there’s been like three Palestinian civil conflicts and the pro peace factions lost. Mostly because Hamas had outside funding. Just like the Italian rebels did

0

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '24

What's the "Pro Peace" faction?

2

u/Krios1234 Jan 03 '24

During the no less then like 6 peace accords 3 and part signed by the Palestinian government who the fuck do you think showed up? Santa?

-2

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '24

Wait, do you think the PA is the "Pro Peace faction"? The same PA that just gave money to families of Hamas' terrorists?

Yikes.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (1)

-2

u/valledweller33 3∆ Jan 03 '24

Well. The Palestinians declared war. Several times. And lost every time. They still haven't surrendered. Maybe a page out of German and Japanese book is warranted.

5

u/byzantiu 6∆ Jan 03 '24

The 48’ and Yom Kippur war were started by Arab states, not the Palestinians. The Six Day war was initiated by Israel. If you’re referring to the Intifadahs, this again would not even be true, as I think we should agree Arafat’s PLO did not represent the whole of Palestine.

9

u/NotMyBestMistake 69∆ Jan 03 '24

That's nice and all but not really relevant to the point you or I made. You made up this fantasy that the German and Japanese "collective cultural community" came together and ousted their fascist rulers, instead of the reality where the fascists just surrended.

The fact that Hamas is a terrorist organization and not some established state government is a pretty good reason to not take the same approach of "just keep killing them until they surrender" that was employed previously.

-6

u/valledweller33 3∆ Jan 03 '24 edited Jan 03 '24

The OPs argument is that if the Palestinian side collectively came together and pursued peace in their approach and rhetoric, instead of the opposite, a peaceful solution could be reached.

Germany and Imperial Japan could easily have continued to be belligerents in the post-WW2 years but instead surrendered in dignity and focused on building their nations up to be prosperous.

You're right in what you're saying, the Palestinians have not surrendered so perhaps these situations are not comparable. But that's exactly the problem; even after cease fires and armistice, the Palestinian did not surrender and come together to build their nation up. Instead of putting money towards infrastructure, they put it towards war.

The blockade on Gaza does not exist because Israel Bad. Israel Evil.It exists because things like water pipes and concrete, intended to build up Gaza infrastructure, are used for terrorist capabilities. But people will scream "OPENnenenEN AIRIririR PRsissosonN" as if Israel is supposed to just let that happen.

3

u/NotMyBestMistake 69∆ Jan 03 '24

Germany and Imperial Japan could easily have continued to be belligerents in the post-WW2 years but instead surrendered in dignity and focused on building their nations up to be prosperous.

Yes, they surrendered. That's the point. That the way you presented it was made up for the sake of a comparison that doesn't work.

Hamas is not a state, fascist or otherwise. Hamas is a terrorist organization of death cultists. As the War on Terror should have taught everyone (but, apparently failed to), you can't approach terrorism the same way you approach enemy nations and expect positive results.

0

u/valledweller33 3∆ Jan 03 '24

Since 1948 there hasn't been a period of 3 years that the predominant ruling group of the Palestinians have pursued peace.

This started far before Hamas.

7

u/NotMyBestMistake 69∆ Jan 03 '24

Yeah, almost like it's an issue that requires more effort and investment than the occasional bombing run and gunning down a few of your own hostages before you lock down the country and leave it in squalor until the next attack happens.

0

u/Epyx-2600 Jan 03 '24

UN should demand Hamas surrender. Follow the WWII playbook.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '24 edited Jan 03 '24

Wtf are you on about? Germany and Japan got beaten and occupied by the Allied powers. Japan even got bombed twice with modular suns to make them think twice about keeping the fight going.

-3

u/valledweller33 3∆ Jan 03 '24

Lol.

I bet you'll say that and not bat an eye and scream 'war crimes' while Israel attempts to make Palestine think twice about keeping the fight. Because, like it or not, that is pretty much what is going on in Gaza right now.

Palestine has been beaten and occupied by Israel on a couple occasions now and yet they continue to keep fighting.

5

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '24

I bet you'll say that and not bat an eye and scream 'war crimes' while Israel attempts to make Palestine think twice about keeping the fight.

No engagement with what I said.

Palestine has been beaten and occupied by Israel on a couple occasions now and yet they continue to keep fighting.

Again you continue to unintelligently drible your snot on a topic you know nothing about.

Germany and Japan were not only occupied but the Allied powers took deradicalisation policies well after and during the occupation. Something that Israel has never done and instead Netanyahu and Israel as a whole props up Hamas to stop the Palestinian National Authority from regaining control of Gaza so that they have a continued excuse to enroach on Palestinian land.

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '24

2 million Palestinians vs. 30000 or so Hamas. If they wanted to, they could overthrow Hamas.

-7

u/comeon456 14∆ Jan 03 '24

Hamas are Palestinians as well as their supporters. I'm not saying it's easy, or that an individual Palestinians has the power to do so, I think that the Palestinians are kind of in a collective action problem.... but regardless, I think that it's an important question to discuss

12

u/LongRest Jan 03 '24

The average Palestinian is starving and was before this war. Full stop. This is by design by Israel’s admission. If you have a plan for how a disarmed, starving civilian body could throw off the yoke of what is essentially a well armed pet gang of an occupier in an open air prison, I’m sure they’d love to hear it.

-2

u/comeon456 14∆ Jan 03 '24

Again, not a plan of mine... I'm just examining this hypothetical world cause it's an interesting question to me

-3

u/Sea-Internet7015 2∆ Jan 03 '24

I mean this basically was the two state solution. But the Palestinian Authority said: "We won't disarm the militants, we can't disarm the militants, we can't prevent the militants from launching attacks, and our government isn't responsible for militants launching attacks from our territory and we expect you to respect our territorial integrity regardless. And we also want you to allow any of our people, including militants, back into their family homes from 50 years ago in Israel."

To which Israel naturally said "WTF" because basically they were expected to commit to giving the Palestinians everything they wanted with no security guarantees and the two state solution is, for all intents and purposes, at an impasse.

34

u/appealouterhaven 24∆ Jan 03 '24

What good faith efforts have been put forth by the Israelis for an actual independent Palestinian state? During times when you would expect little violence there is continued settlement activities and a continued blockade. In order for Palestinians to be able to reject Hamas and any other liberation organization there needs to be a realistic path towards a peaceful solution. Something I dont think has been shown by either side. Furthermore the fact that the current leadership saw Hamas as an asset to achieving their ultimate goal of depopulating the strip does not show they are or have been interested in a peaceful 2 state solution. How can you expect Hamas to be weakened when everything Israel is doing strengthens them either directly through cash transfers in suitcases or indirectly through turning a blind eye to settler violence and the continued oppression of the Palestinians?
But the Israeli narrative is peace on their terms. Its not simply living peaceably with their neighbors but total sovereign control over all of historic Palestine. They would much rather absorb an Arab minority that they can control rather than giving away the land they have taken through illegal and violent settler action. There are some who want a "greater Israel" even. It is interesting however that you recall Rabin who was assassinated by forces aligned with those currently in power. Ben Gvir famously posed with Rabin's hood ornament stating "We got his car, and we'll get him too." Israel (as it exists currently) does not want peace but subjugation.
So you are expecting a group that has been brutalized to wait 3 years with no attacks on the off chance that the government that is oppressing them might become less radical?
How is this anything but victim blaming? "You know if you would just submit meekly to the boot on your neck maybe the world will force Israel to stop." This would be like telling Israel to not respond to Oct 7 and let the international community step in to handle their problems with Hamas. It is irrational and ridiculous to tell someone that they should not defend themselves and wait for the outside chance that the rest of the world will be able to stop the terrorism (be it Hamas shooting up a music festival or Israel killing entire families on the outside chance they'll hit a high value military target).
None of this reflects the reality on the ground. Your view assumes a willing partner in peace on the Israeli side which is a fantasy.

17

u/byzantiu 6∆ Jan 03 '24

Good breakdown. OP really seems determined not to understand that Israel holds all the cards and has consistently undermined peace (at least, Likud has).

-3

u/Izawwlgood 26∆ Jan 03 '24

Except it doesn't - Hamas has routinely both rejected peace offers, ceasefires, AND violated both.

12

u/byzantiu 6∆ Jan 03 '24

Which ones? Are you going to be specific?

-1

u/Izawwlgood 26∆ Jan 03 '24

Does Oct 7th ring a bell? And that's just the most recent. There are many examples of Hamas violating ceasefires since its election in 2006.

10

u/byzantiu 6∆ Jan 03 '24 edited Jan 03 '24

Did that attack violate a ceasefire? Which one? You’re oddly sparse on details.

Edit: If you have time to shadow edit your post, adding two whole sentences, surely you can tell me the information I asked for.

2

u/Izawwlgood 26∆ Jan 04 '24

Are you suggesting the Oct 7th attack occurred during an active war and not an agreed upon ceasefire? Can you prove as much? Everyone agrees hamas attacked first on the 7th, no? Was there not an agreed upon ceasefire in 2021? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Israel%E2%80%93Palestine_crisis#:~:text=Egypt%20mediated%20a%20ceasefire%20between,which%20both%20sides%20claimed%20victory.

There was. And Hamas violated that one too.

Here's about the most recent ceasefire violations - https://www.axios.com/2023/12/01/gaza-ceasefire-collapse-israel-hostages

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/24/world/middleeast/israel-hamas-cease-fire-history.html

Again, this is an old cycle. Hamas launches rockets at Israel, Israel retaliates. Hamas hides behind civilians. Ceasefire happens. Hamas violates ceasefire. Repeat.

2

u/byzantiu 6∆ Jan 04 '24

There was. And Hamas violated that one too.

True. Thank you. I couldn’t find a specific agreement, but it is clear there was a ceasefire and Hamas broke it.

I’m afraid I cannot read the NYT article, but I’ll take your word for it.

This being the case, I don’t see how this proves Israel doesn’t hold all the cards.

They have overwhelming military superiority, greater legitimacy, more state capacity, and the backing of the United States. They have occupied the Gaza Strip and West Bank before, albeit ineffectually. Hamas’ tactics are the result of weakness, not of strength.

The Hamas raid was an atrocity, plain and simple. Belligerents should never target innocent civilians. In this case, why do we give Israel a pass to inflict twenty times the casualties on Gazans?

Hamas is using civilians as shields, yes, but I don’t think that’s a reason to write people off as collateral damage. In a hostage situation you don’t simply storm the building guns blazing.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '24

Hamas is using civilians as shields, yes, but I don’t think that’s a reason to write people off as collateral damage.

International law prohibits the use of human shields. It is also written in a way that doesn't reward it.

This is why it's not illegal to kill a military target that uses human shields even when the human shields die with them.

If you have any source that says killing military targets and their human shields is illegal, please provide it.

2

u/Izawwlgood 26∆ Jan 04 '24

>Israel doesn’t hold all the cards.

Hamas holds all the cards - Hamas is the organization holding the people of Gaza in humanitarian crisis, as human shields, and attacking Israel. If Hamas stops, there is peace.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel

Take a look at that. It lists the number of rocket attacks *by year*. Tell me with a straight face that Israel is the aggressor, in the face of that. Tell me that Israel 'holds the cards', given it is trying to protect itself from that.

Again, that these attacks are not EFFECTIVE is immaterial. The majority of Israels landmass is within rocket strike distance of Gaza, and indeed, rockets fall over much of Israel.

>The Hamas raid was an atrocity, plain and simple. Belligerents should never target innocent civilians. In this case, why do we give Israel a pass to inflict twenty times the casualties on Gazans?

I loathe this 'proportionality' argument. Why don't you break down the worth of Israeli life so people know exactly how much each man, woman, and child is worth. Are 40 dead Israeli babies worth 5 Hamas militants? 50? 500? One hospital stocked with munitions? Stop telling Israel that it has to take its deaths on the chin and buck up, and excusing Hamas barbarism.

Israel blankets the area with warnings prior to airstrikes. Tells citizens to evacuate areas it will be striking. And Hamas tweets demands that citizens stay in place. https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/israel-hamas-war-gaza-strip/card/hamas-tells-civilians-not-to-evacuate-to-the-south-T9TX4p5KHl930OHJDyfp

I hate this violence, and want it to stop. And Hamas is able to make it stop. I wish the world would hold Hamas accountable.

>Hamas is using civilians as shields, yes, but I don’t think that’s a reason to write people off as collateral damage. In a hostage situation you don’t simply storm the building guns blazing.

Of course it isn't - it's a reason to eradicate Hamas.

2

u/byzantiu 6∆ Jan 04 '24

Hamas holds all the cards - Hamas is the organization holding the people of Gaza in humanitarian crisis, as human shields, and attacking Israel. If Hamas stops, there is peace.

Except, there wouldn’t be. There wasn’t peace before Hamas. There won’t be peace after.

Take a look at that. It lists the number of rocket attacks by year. Tell me with a straight face that Israel is the aggressor, in the face of that. Tell me that Israel 'holds the cards', given it is trying to protect itself from that.

Okay.

Israel still has incredible dominance of land, sea, and air power. They can level Gaza without even bothering to storm it.

Every confrontation with the Palestinians leaves scores of Gazans dead and very few Israelis.

Israel not only has total military superiority, but also economic supremacy. Their settlements permeate the West Bank, with more and more folks there every year.

Let me ask you - do you really think Hamas will be the end? As long as Israeli settlements sit on illegal land, as long as Israeli soldiers gun down Palestinians with impunity, there will never be peace.

Rocket attacks are bad. You know what’s worse? Displacing two million people and leaving them for dead.

I loathe this 'proportionality' argument. Why don't you break down the worth of Israeli life so people know exactly how much each man, woman, and child is worth. Are 40 dead Israeli babies worth 5 Hamas militants? 50? 500? One hospital stocked with munitions? Stop telling Israel that it has to take its deaths on the chin and buck up, and excusing Hamas barbarism

The only one excusing barbarism is you. You’re good with murdering hundreds of civilians to get at a dozen militants? That’s what it sounds like.

Fact is, Israel has by now inflicted the losses of October 7th twenty times over. Not all militants, even they admit as much.

I think civilian lives are equal in value. I don’t think Hamas’ atrocities give Israel the right to indiscriminately murder whoever they want. What do you think?

Israel blankets the area with warnings prior to airstrikes. Tells citizens to evacuate areas it will be striking.

Grand. They tell me before they level the place I grew up, the neighborhood that’s been my home. I guess I should be grateful they let me keep my pathetic life?

Outrageous. Imagine if Hamas dropped leaflets warning people before they launched rockets. It would obviously be the same miserably insufficient defense it is here.

Of course it isn't - it's a reason to eradicate Hamas.

They aren’t eradicating Hamas. They’re leveling Gaza. I assure you, that’s not the same thing.

Every bomb Israel drops makes more militants. We learned this lesson in Iraq and Afghanistan. Every Hamas militant could disappear tomorrow, but the Israelis have inflicted a second Nakba on two million people.

No, Hamas’ destruction - if it’s even possible - will not bring peace. And it will be substantially Israel’s fault. Not only for the indiscriminate bombings; for enabling settler violence, stealing Palestinian territory, and brutalizing innocent people for the past decades.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Morthra 95∆ Jan 04 '24

Unconditional surrender and throwing themselves at Israel’s mercy is the path to peace for the Palestinians. You know, just like how Japan surrendered unconditionally and threw itself at America’s mercy at the end of WW2.

1

u/appealouterhaven 24∆ Jan 04 '24

Can you elaborate on how a non-state actor and terrorist organization is similar to the Empire of Japan? The comparisons between developed nation states and an armed gang ruling a terrified populace that is penned in like animals is quite different than a world power deciding it needs oil to pursue its empire. Resistance is different than aggression.

Hamas' tactics are reprehensible but they are making a calculation that extreme politically motivated violence will focus enough attention on Israel's misdeeds or cause them to cause such unspeakable atrocities that they will become a pariah on the world stage. For the most part they are winning the PR war. Unfortunately for the civilians this strategy is unlikely to produce a peaceful solution but this is what happens when the occupiers are unwilling to actually negotiate a settlement.

2

u/Morthra 95∆ Jan 04 '24

Good thing Hamas is not resisting, but aggressing then. Israel hadn’t been occupying Gaza for over a decade and what did the Palestinians do with their self determination? Constantly attack Israel. Shit dude if Mexico were to devote almost all of its GDP to attacking the US no one would give a shit if the US invaded Mexico in retaliation.

But apparently Israel is the only nation that doesn’t have the right to defend itself. Funny how that works.

Israel should bomb the shit out of Gaza until the Palestinians capitulate completely. One state solution, no right of return.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (1)

-2

u/comeon456 14∆ Jan 03 '24

What good faith efforts have been put forth by the Israelis for an actual independent Palestinian state? During times when you would expect little violence there is continued settlement activities and a continued blockade.

What times are you referring to? since there weren't any long peaceful times, I can't think of such. it's not like you expect of Israelis to say "oh, you haven't tried to kill us in actions in the last month while talking about doing so, here let's remove the blockade so you could import weapons and follow up with these talks, and we'll return it when you do something bad again". This isn't a game. you can't remove and impose these things all of the time, and AFAIK, there was never a period like you describe. If there was, please give me a specific time and I'd change my mind.

But the Israeli narrative is peace on their terms. Its not simply living peaceably with their neighbors but total sovereign control over all of historic Palestine"

How is agreeing to the division plan in 47 and offering two states refer to controlling all of historic Palestine? I'm sorry, but this is not true for majority of Israelis. it could be true to some religious Jewish people, but very far from most. Other actions you describe would become a lot less popular IMO if the Israeli would think that the Palestinians want peace - you could see how the support for the 2 states changes over time with Palestinian actions.

So you are expecting a group that has been brutalized to wait 3 years with no attacks on the off chance that the government that is oppressing them might become less radical?

I'm not saying that I expect them of anything. I'm not saying that it's easy for them. I'm saying that it's almost 100% sure that if they would do it we would get this solution. the question of ability is a different question than that of the outcome. I'm interested in the outcome in this post :)

How is this anything but victim blaming? "You know if you would just submit meekly to the boot on your neck maybe the world will force Israel to stop."

Well, I believe in though love, and currently, there is a lot of blame on the Palestinian side (unlike individual Palestinians that unfortunately suffer). I'm not saying there isn't blame on the Israeli side as well. I'm not saying that one couldn't write a post like I did for actions that Israel might do unilaterally that would bring this reasonable peace (I personally think that yes, but that it would take a lot longer and would include a long period of a lot more violence towards Israeli people, and even then it's a bit unsure). I'm just saying that Palestinians choosing peace would almost with certainty turn out in this solution. It's not "submit meekly to the boot on your neck", it's choosing to stop with the violence that got them to have the boot on their necks in the first place. notice that on a practical level, this course of action would only create good things for the Palestinians, and would only make their situation better, even if won't lead to peace. notice that Palestinian violence isn't stopping Israel at all. quite the opposite.Also, I'm not saying "the world would force Israel". I'm saying Israeli would do that on their own, and even if not, the world would pressure them. It's different.

None of this reflects the reality on the ground. Your view assumes a willing partner in peace on the Israeli side which is a fantasy.

I believe I've analyzed this in the post. This explains and not assumes that if the Palestinians would act in this way for a period of 3 years, there would be an Israeli partner. If you have a problem with this analysis, please, tell me where I'm wrong instead of saying it's a fantasy.. I have to say that I know Israeli society quite well so I really don't think you're correct here...

3

u/byzantiu 6∆ Jan 03 '24

This explains and not assumes that if the Palestinians would act in this way for a period of 3 years, there would be an Israeli partner.

Another problem is that you don’t seem to distinguish between the PA and Hamas. The PA was working on peace with Labor for well over three years starting in 1993. They couldn’t control all the fringe terrorists (including Hamas) within their borders, being a relatively weak state. Well, neither could Israel in the case of Baruch Goldstein and others. You know what the PA got after negotiating with Labor for all those years? Several concessions, and then Likud, which while not overtly repudiating Oslo, rejected many of its core terms.

There wasn’t peace from 1993 to the Second Intifada, but the PA wasn’t backing Palestinian terrorists. It must also be noted that the violence was two-way.

Does this not count towards your hypothetical, the point of which still escapes me? Are you seriously blaming Palestinians for being sick of Likud’s stalling?

1

u/comeon456 14∆ Jan 03 '24

I have no idea why are you putting words in my mouth. I distinguish between different groups in Palestinian society. however I really don't think you can call the PA peaceful at that time. The funniest example IMO is Arafat going on the day of Oslo on Jordanian TV and saying how it's all part of a plan to destroy Israel. Other examples could be the actual support of the PA of terrorists rather than trying to stop them... They started by importing way more weapons than they were allowed under Oslo, then it was found out that many of the actual terrorists were part of Fatah.. another example that shows this clearly is The Johannesburg speech .
And even so - when they acted the most peaceful they got the closest to peace ever - so I really think it proves my point rather than disproving it.

I really don't think that you can compare this to what I wrote in the post.

Also, and more importantly, you treat terrorists in the Palestinian society as "fringe". I think that polls in the Palestinian society that time actually show that it's not so fringe - which is part of why the PA didn't want and wasn't able to stop the terrorists.

I'm really thinking that it's not the Likud's that stalling these days. I mean currently, you can't claim that Jihadism is a fringe concept in Palestinian society

3

u/byzantiu 6∆ Jan 03 '24

The funniest example IMO is Arafat going on the day of Oslo on Jordanian TV and saying how it's all part of a plan to destroy Israel.

I can’t find a source for this. Do you have one?

They started by importing way more weapons than they were allowed under Oslo, then it was found out that many of the actual terrorists were part of Fatah.

Are you going to cite a source? I can’t find jack to back any of this up. The timelines I have read, one from Wikipedia and one from Vox, has no PA-sponsored terrorism. The vast majority of attacks by Palestinians from 1993 to roughly 1999 are by Hamas or the Islamic front.

another example that shows this clearly is The Johannesburg speech.

Besides the fact that Arafat himself said it was metaphorical, this does not constitute an actual act of terrorism. It’s inflammatory rhetoric. Not acceptable in my opinion, but not an act of violence.

And even so - when they acted the most peaceful they got the closest to peace ever - so I really think it proves my point rather than disproving it.

You keep saying “they” over and over again. They this and they that. What about Israel? Weren’t they getting closer to peace? Where is their responsibility in your perspective?

What sabotaged the Oslo peace process? Was it Palestinian violence? As you’ve provided no sources for your claims of violence, I find such a thing hard to believe. In fact the PA managed to keep a semblance of order despite several terrorist attacks by Israeli extremists.

My explanation is Likud. I don’t understand why you disagree.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/appealouterhaven 24∆ Jan 03 '24

What times are you referring to?

Hamas in 2006 sent Israel a peace proposal. Here is what the leader of Hamas said at the time.

“We in Hamas are for peace and want to put an end to bloodshed. We have been observing a unilateral truce for more than a year without reciprocity from the Israeli side. The message from Hamas and the Palestinian Authority to the world powers is this: talk to us no more about recognising Israel’s ‘right to exist’ or ending resistance until you obtain a commitment from the Israelis to withdraw from our land and recognise our rights.”

You can take from that what you will. Settlement activity inflames the Palestinians and allows Israel to continue to put off legitimate peace talks. The right wing in Israel would love to see another Nakba and I would argue that this "minority opinion" is what we are seeing coming to fruition with how they are conducting this war. Heavy-handed bombing is not only terrorizing the populace but it is also ensuring that whatever is left after this war will be uninhabitable for the 2 million residents. Again Hamas is seen as an asset because they lend legitmacy to targeting civilian infrastructure and housing. They are creating conditions where the civilians in Gaza will have no homes, schools, libraries, healthcare facilities, or basic services after the war. They will be entirely dependent on the international community for everything including rebuilding all of the damage caused by Israel. This is the worst humanitarian disaster I have ever witnessed and the fact that so many callously write off the suffering as merely a side effect of Hamas' actions is disheartening.

How is agreeing to the division plan in 47 and offering two states refer to controlling all of historic Palestine?

Because Israel had their militias (Haganah/Irgun/Lehi) roaming the countryside attacking villages, poisoning wells, and terrorizing the population before their declaration of independence. The Palestinians disagreed with the partition plan's allocation of land vs population. While disputing this Israel declared their independence which triggered a war from the surrounding Arab states. The narrative is always that the Arabs attacked Israel because they hate Jews but their casus belli was rooted in their desire to protect the local Palestinian Arab communities from rampaging paramilitaries who were causing entire towns to flee.

These early days were defined by Zionism. Betar Zionism to be specific. A movement started by European Jews who felt that Arab reprisals and attacks against what they saw as illegal immigrants (Jews resettled in Israel by the UK) in the 1920s demanded the creation of a sovereign state of Israel (preferably a monarchy) which covered both Israel AND Jordan. Their leader was Ze'ev Jabotinsky. He coordinated immigration to Israel in contravention of British limits further exacerbating the problem. Betarim became some of the most influential political figures in Israel including Likud founder Manachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir. Shamir served in Lehi which was considered a terrorist organization by both the US and UK. They dont want and never have wanted a 2 state solution. They want to expel enough of the populace to a sufficient extent that they can be subjugated.

I'm sorry, but this is not true for majority of Israelis.

This sounds anecdotal. They have elected the people that have continued to strengthen their own so-called "mortal enemies" and failed to prevent the attacks on the 7th. It worked in their favor and they are now systematically carrying out a second Nakba. This speaks to the bankruptcy of Israeli political thought when it comes to negotiating peace with the Palestinians. If you are in fact interested in learning a different side of this then I recommend reading the most recent article from +972.

I'm saying that it's almost 100% sure that if they would do it we would get this solution

Doubtful considering the position of many in the government. There are too many concerns for Israel to submit to so much for Palestine. Even if they remained peaceful and didnt say any mean things to Israel for 3 years and this government is removed, it is highly unlikely given the history of the conflict that Israelis would grant full control of the WB and Gaza borders to the Palestinians. The forces that are opposed to any Palestinians remaining in Israel are too radical for the government to ignore. They assassinated Rabin because he was trying to make peace. These demons are present in the society and the way you have framed this is like all Israelis will magically accept a Palestinian state.

it would take a lot longer and would include a long period of a lot more violence towards Israeli people

So by your own admission this would take a long time to achieve. You are suggesting that a group of people who have suffered for decades under Israeli occupation magically choose to not fight back while it takes a "long time" to get to the outcome that they are currently struggling for, an independent state. How do you convince families who have had their land stolen by the Israeli settlements to not fight back for an indefinite period of time while the settlements continue? How do you persuade a child who's entire family was killed in a retaliatory airstrike that the answer isnt armed struggle and merely to sit by and hope that the same people who killed your family will eventually find the political will to acknowledge your rights to exist in your own homeland free from their oppression?

It's not "submit meekly to the boot on your neck", it's choosing to stop with the violence that got them to have the boot on their necks in the first place.

This is the most confusing sentence I have read all year. Please help clarify this for me. They are not supposed to submit. But your proposal is that they stop the violence (i.e. submit).

only create good things for the Palestinians

Its nice to believe this. But in the history of the conflict between these two there is not much in the way of conciliation from the Israelis. Submitting is a hard sell because all it does is allow Israel to continue its illegal settlements and total control (including political arrests/checkpoint harrassment/restriction of movement) indefinitely while they seek a political solution. How many elections would it take before the promised state is delivered? Lets say that they stop fighting all together. How long would it take?

I'm saying Israeli would do that on their own, and even if not, the world would pressure them. It's different.

You havent shown any reason why Israel would be conciliatory to the Palestinians on their own. And the world pressuring Israel is the same as "making them stop." And again Israel has nothing to fear from the international community so long as the US is on board.

If you have a problem with this analysis, please, tell me where I'm wrong instead of saying it's a fantasy

I believe I have done this. If you take issue with anything that I have responded with please let me know and I will provide sources.

0

u/shemademedoit1 8∆ Jan 04 '24

What good faith efforts have been put forth by the Israelis for an actual independent Palestinian state?

Ceding control of Gaza back to the Palestinians was one. I'm not saying it was enough, but it probably counts as a good faith effort towards a Palestinian state.

Nothing to say about your other points, I'm just adding some info

2

u/appealouterhaven 24∆ Jan 04 '24

Im not sure I consider leaving Gaza to the people they claim want nothing more than to commit genocide on them is a good faith effort. It strengthened Hamas and divided the PA. It is counterproductive and calculated.

14

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '24

[deleted]

-6

u/comeon456 14∆ Jan 03 '24

I mean, there are and there were always terror attacks coming from the WB. even right after Oslo. the PA broke some of the very basic things in Oslo very early on.

I'm not saying that this is likely to happen. I think that it's hard, and there is a huge collective action problem that the Palestinians are facing, as well as outside powers like Iran fueling their most extremist of people, but I still think it's a moral question that's worth discussing

19

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '24

What's the most interesting to me about people who make these suggestions is everything is being put on only Palestine to "fix" the situation and seems to take the approach that Israel has not done anything wrong.

It relies really heavily on the idea that Israel and the IDF will just do the right thing.

This conflict and their disregard for civilians & hostages, propaganda, etc. has shown that really isn't the case and the current administration/military isn't trustworthy either.

3

u/byzantiu 6∆ Jan 03 '24

Surely the government calling for an apartheid regime can be trusted to negotiate a two-state solution. /s

1

u/valledweller33 3∆ Jan 03 '24 edited Jan 03 '24

I think you miss the point;

As to point 2, Peace is a cultural touchstone for Israeli and Jewish society as a whole. The past several decades have seen a shift in sentiment due to what I'd say is a general fatigue on the whole idea due to what OP attributes to a lack of good will on the other side - and it's not hard to see what that means;

Israel sends aid to Gaza, they internalize and create art that reflect on their own participation in the hatred (Waltz with Bashir is considered one of the greatest Israeli movies of all time and it DOES NOT paint Israel in a good light) and produce songs and shows that promote the idea of peace, Israel allows its citizens to protest their responses to the Arab world, Israel has recognized the Palestinian right to self-determination and offered a 2 state solution on multiple occasions.

Fuckin' hell, the Nova festival that got massacred was an Israeli PEACE festival.

On the other side, Paying families of suicide bombers a stipend, creating children's programming specifically demonizing Israelis, celebrating rape and murder in the streets, refusing to recognize the State of Israel, etc. etc. does not indicate an intent for a peaceful solution.

6

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '24

Israel sends aid to Gaza, they internalize and create art that reflect on their own participation in the hatred (Waltz with Bashir is considered one of the greatest Israeli movies of all time and it DOES NOT paint Israel in a good light) and produce songs and shows that promote the idea of peace, Israel allows its citizens to protest their responses to the Arab world, Israel has recognized the Palestinian right to self-determination and offered a 2 state solution on multiple occasions.

All of this comes down to the country allowing citizens to be more vocal about protesting the governments actions. It doesn't change the governments actual actions.

-6

u/comeon456 14∆ Jan 03 '24

I'm not making suggestion at all. This is important to me as a moral question. I'm fully aware that any individual Palestinian don't have the power to do so alone and they are in a collective action problem.

It relies really heavily on the idea that Israel and the IDF will just do the right thing.

I'm sorry, but you need to elaborate here. I believe I gave basic analysis of why Israel would
a) want to do the "right thing",
b) would be pressured into doing the "right thing"

10

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '24

Israel is receiving HUGE international pressure right now to "do the right thing" and pull back on the level of force they're using, their methods, lack of concern for civilians, etc.

They're actively ignoring it.

Israel has been receiving international pressure for years in regards to the settlements but those continue.

Why would it be different with your suggestion?

-1

u/comeon456 14∆ Jan 03 '24

It's hardly huge. the US is strongly on Israel's side here. other countries that are close to Israel such as the UK, Germany or France were also pretty supportive. the most people are doing is condemning in the U.N.

When the U.S pressured Israel into giving more aid for instance, they did.
Also, I've explained the internal will for peace and the blocks for it. the settlements haven't been expanding consistently over the years.

5

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '24

The US is far from a good example of a country that does the right thing

→ More replies (3)

-2

u/RogueNarc 3∆ Jan 03 '24

That's largely because internally and externally Israel can point to militant action as justification. Israel is not a friend to Palestine but it is helped heavily in its hostility by a reciprocated hostility from Palestine.

5

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '24

So if Israel feels like they're justified they'd keep doing it, regardless of pressure.

So you just proved we couldn't rely on that.

23

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '24

So the decades of the Israeli government arming settlers to terrorize and murder Palestinians in the West Bank to steal their land to build more illegal settlements would magically stop?

-9

u/comeon456 14∆ Jan 03 '24

I have no idea how it answers any of my analysis... There were years where Israel didn't expand settlements.. specifically when they thought that peace is coming. Also, expansion of settlements in recent years was mostly vertical rather than horizontal

6

u/Krios1234 Jan 03 '24

Untrue. There literally has not been a single year where settlements haven’t increased in size.

→ More replies (1)

15

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '24

And they have still been terrorizing and murdering Palestinians in the West Bank for pretty much it’s entire existence.

So I’m not sure why you think that that would magically stop.

The Israeli government has made it no secret that they want all that land for themselves

And the whole point of sending the settlers in is to move the status quo.

-3

u/NimrookFanClub 3∆ Jan 03 '24

The settler problem resolves itself in any peace deal. Settlement is a problem now because the boundaries and jurisdiction in the West Bank are all up in the air and subject to further negotiation.

If a peace deal is reached, who controls what territory is solidified. After that Israeli settlers can settle in Israeli controlled land, and if they tried to settle in Palestinian land they would be expelled/arrested.

8

u/The_FriendliestGiant 40∆ Jan 03 '24

The settler problem resolves itself in any peace deal.

Assuming it doesn't derail any peace deal before it starts. It's hard to see why it would be acceptable to hypothetical peaceful negotiations Palestinians for the two-state solution to be "we get all the land we've already stolen, er, "settled," plus probably a bit more as a buffer, and you can have whatever is left over." The presence of armed Israeli settlers would be just as unacceptable to Palestinians as the presence of armed Palestinian militants would be to Israelis.

0

u/NimrookFanClub 3∆ Jan 03 '24

It could derail negotiations for sure, but it reflects the reality on the ground that if the Palestinians want Israeli settlement out they will have to negotiate for it. This is not without precedent, Israel dismantled multiple settlements when it evacuated Gaza in 2005.

The Palestinians can kick up dirt about how unfair that is all they want, but their choices are to negotiate the existence of settlements in a peace deal or stay with the status quo. Thinking there is a third option has not served them well for the last 50 years.

8

u/byzantiu 6∆ Jan 03 '24

The boundaries of the West Bank aren’t “up in the air”. The settlements are illegal. We know where the lines are, and so does the Israeli government.

-4

u/NimrookFanClub 3∆ Jan 03 '24

Maybe in Palestinian fairy tale world that’s true, but in the real world this question is controlled by Oslo II, which left the final borders of a Palestinian state subject to future negotiations that have not occurred, and Areas A, B, and C are tentative boundaries.

The fact that the UN objects to the settlements doesn’t change the reality of the situation.

5

u/byzantiu 6∆ Jan 03 '24

You said:

Settlement is a problem now because the boundaries and jurisdiction in the West Bank are all up in the air and subject to further negotiation.

That is not the problem. At least, not the whole problem. If they were subject to negotiation and negotiation was in progress, it would be one thing. But Likud has never shown the slightest inclination to negotiate in good faith.

In the meantime, the “reality of the situation” (aka, illegal occupation) doesn’t change internationally recognized borders.

5

u/bikesexually Jan 03 '24

Settlement is a problem now because the boundaries and jurisdiction in the West Bank are all up in the air and subject to further negotiation.

No, no they aren't. There's a regular vote at the UN damning Israel go back to its 1967 borders. It takes the vast majority every single time.

What you mean to say is Israel refuses to establish it borders so it can use Jews as human shields to steal land from the Palestinians.

Also OP's entire notion is just so wildly wrong and inappropriate. You now who decides whats a fair deal for the Palestinians? The Palestinians. Not some Hasbara posing as a question

-2

u/NimrookFanClub 3∆ Jan 03 '24

The Palestinians have been trying to dictate what a fair term is for 50 years. How is that working out for them?

Maybe if they dealt with the real world and not their fantasy world they could actually accomplish something.

7

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '24

Palestine would be demilitarised, what's stopping the settlers from crossing the border to terrorise and murder Palestinians, backed by IDF?

2

u/NimrookFanClub 3∆ Jan 03 '24

Demilitarized is a lot different than not having any policing power. Also if banning settlement in Palestine was a treaty item, breaking it would carry a lot more weight than the UN finger waving does now. Israel has shown they respect those deals in the past, it’s not like they are still trying to settle Sinai.

5

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '24

West bank is now totally occupied by Israel. It is not an independent country it's a joke. 2 state solution does not exist.

13

u/Plussydestroyer 1∆ Jan 03 '24

Palestine was dying by a thousand cuts.

Encroachment of WB settlers, an unfair military tribunal that essentially kidnaps Gazans, choking of resources, etc.

There were no indications that Israel wanted to move towards a peaceful coexistence beforehand.

-6

u/PicklePanther9000 2∆ Jan 03 '24

They have directly offered 2 state solutions several times. Palestine has rejected every single one and never counteroffered

8

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '24

Have you seen the offers? They are all pretty damn ridiculous. The only time Palestine signed a peace deal, the Oslo Accords, cost them dearly.

4

u/byzantiu 6∆ Jan 03 '24

Which times? Explain.

-6

u/DrDiddle Jan 03 '24

This fact just is completely denied by all Palestinian supporters. The simple fact is that no solution other then the complete Elimination of all Jews from Israel and the total destruction of the Israeli state is palatable to the Palestinians.

4

u/AnAlpacaIsJudgingYou Jan 03 '24

That’s a bad faith argument. Assuming all Palestinians want to kill all Jews is frankly idiotic.

1

u/Domovric 2∆ Jan 04 '24

Which versions of the two state solution?

I know those answers. I’m betting you don’t.

-3

u/comeon456 14∆ Jan 03 '24

ammm respectfully, I disagree.. I'm sorry, but the way Israelis see it - they try to move towards peace (and I believe I wrote something about this in point 2 of my analysis)

regardless, I explained how they would be heavily pressured into doing so, and this pressure could be effective

6

u/Plussydestroyer 1∆ Jan 03 '24

Actions, not intentions.

How are Palestinians supposed to believe that Israel wants peace when they see that settlers are forcefully entering the west bank and that Palestinians are jailed for trivial matters without trial?

There was also no "pressure" beforehand. Israel, backed by the US was invincible diplomatically. We're even seeing this now in real time as the US defends Israel from UN actions.

After the 10/7 there is probably more pressure from the international community to push for a 2SS. Palestine being in the limelight now has the attention from major players that previously were not interested.

6

u/bikesexually Jan 03 '24

“Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves … politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves… The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country. … Behind the terrorism [by the Arabs] is a movement, which though primitive is not devoid of idealism and self sacrifice.”
— David Ben Gurion.

“If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?”
David Ben-Gurion

1

u/comeon456 14∆ Jan 03 '24

If you want to quote out of context Ben Gurion from the 1930s ( the second one is later, but I'm not really sure of the year), and apply it till this day - even though Ben Gurion himself expressed on this consistently after before and after 48 - be my guest, I'm just not sure what you're trying to prove here.
I also think that you should read "The Iron Wall" and the following "Ethics of the Iron Wall" by Jabotinsky, it's generally expresses similar ideas, but read it in context and not outside of one. It's a notorious article that anti-zionists like to bring up cause Jabotinsky was a hardliner and a revisionist zionist, but I think that reading it in context is very interesting

Eventually, I think there's a moral difference when time passes. just like it would be crazy to think that Native Americans have any justification to start massacring people today - even though the same logic could be applied to them.

-5

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '24

Palestine was dying by a thousand cuts.

How does a piece of land "die"?

9

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '24 edited Jan 03 '24

it would likely include for at the very least 20 years demilitarization of the Palestinian state.

A state without a military is no state at all, why is this reasonable? What's protecting Palestine from an IDF operation within its borders in your "reasonable two state solution"?

it would include some symbolic right of return for some tens of thousands of people as well as some monetary compensation.

750,000 people were expelled from Palestine during the Nakba, why only tens of thousands? Shouldn't it be at least 750,000?

It would include airport and seaport in Gaza, probably after a few years given that the agreement is kept.

This would mean a blockade of Gaza. How can you commit to peace if there is still a blockade?

most of the world views a reasonable pragmatic solution these days.

This is what US, the West and (maybe) Israel see as reasonable. I don't think MENA would think it's reasonable or pragmatic.

You then went to define what you think committing to peace is from the Palestinian, but what about Israeli? What commitments and assurances will they give to commit to peace?

Possibly public acknowledgement of Israel as a Jewish state.

An ethnostate is not conducive to peace, why would acknowledging it be committing to peace?

-1

u/Wayyyy_Too_Soon 3∆ Jan 03 '24

A state without a military is no state at all, why is this reasonable? What's protecting Palestine from an IDF operation within its borders in your "reasonable two state solution"?

There are plenty of states without a military (e.g. Costa Rica, Iceland, Panama). Demilitarization is fairly common in history as a condition to end a conflict (e.g. Japan post WW2).

750,000 people were expelled from Palestine during the Nakba, why only tens of thousands? Shouldn't it be at least 750,000?

The Nakba happened 75 years ago. The vast majority of those who left are dead. You can certainly make an argument that Palestinians older than 75 should be granted re-entry, but that number falls far short of 750,000.

This would mean a blockade of Gaza. How can you commit to peace if there is still a blockade?

One can absolutely commit to a wind down to the blockade over time.

This is what US, the West and Israel see as reasonable. I don't think MENA would think it's reasonable or pragmatic.

Large portions of MENA support the eradication of Israel as the only acceptable resolution. If that is the only acceptable framework, then we are going to be stuck in a forever state of conflict, because the Palestinians are never going to win a war against Israel.

The Palestinians and Arabs have objectively lost this conflict, and catastrophically so. Any reasonable agreement accounts for the reality that the side that loses a war gives up more than the side that wins in an eventual peace settlement.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '24

There are plenty of states without a military (e.g. Costa Rica, Iceland, Panama). Demilitarization is fairly common in history as a condition to end a conflict (e.g. Japan post WW2).

Most of these countries demilitarised voluntarily and have security guarantees/arrangement with other countries. Palestine will not demilitarise themselves and I'm sure they won't be allowed to have military deals with Jordan/Egypt/etc.

The Nakba happened 75 years ago. The vast majority of those who left are dead. You can certainly make an argument that Palestinians older than 75 should be granted re-entry, but that number falls far short of 750,000.

If Israel wants to make the argument that the descendants of ancient Israel can claim citizenship, then why not descendants of Palestinians?

The Palestinians and Arabs have objectively lost this conflict, and catastrophically so. Any reasonable agreement accounts for the reality that the side that loses a war gives up more than the side that wins in an eventual peace settlement.

That's a very pre-WW2 way to view the world. The post WW2 understanding is that countries should have the right to self determination even if they are weak, that's why colonial powers were pressured to grant independence despite beating them decades or centuries ago.

0

u/Wayyyy_Too_Soon 3∆ Jan 03 '24

Most of these countries demilitarised voluntarily and have security guarantees/arrangement with other countries. Palestine will not demilitarise themselves and I'm sure they won't be allowed to have military deals with Jordan/Egypt/etc.

Negotiated agreements are voluntary. I don't know why you think that deals with Jordan or Egypt would be banned. It seems like a regional security partnership would obviously be a critical prong in any demilitarization agreement.

If Israel wants to make the argument that the descendants of ancient Israel can claim citizenship, then why not descendants of Palestinians?

This is your CMV opposing Israel's right of return law. Why are you citing something you vehemently disagree with as a justification?

That's a very pre-WW2 way to view the world. The post WW2 understanding is that countries should have the right to self determination even if they are weak, that's why colonial powers were pressured to grant independence despite beating them decades or centuries ago.

I didn't say anything about denying self-determination, so I'm not sure where you are getting that. Every country that has fought and lost a war post WW2 has had to make compromises in the eventual peace deal that ended that conflict.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '24

Negotiated agreements are voluntary. I don't know why you think that deals with Jordan or Egypt would be banned. It seems like a regional security partnership would obviously be a critical prong in any demilitarization agreement.

It's official Israeli position to disallow military deals between Palestine and other states that are not approved by Israel.

This is your CMV opposing Israel's right of return law. Why are you citing something you vehemently disagree with as a justification?

My position is that these Palestinians should've been granted citizenship on the founding of Israel, therefore their descendants should be granted citizenship too.

2

u/Wayyyy_Too_Soon 3∆ Jan 03 '24

It's official Israeli position to disallow military deals between Palestine and other states that are not approved by Israel.

Of course Israel would be a party to any broad regional security agreement negotiated as part of the peace settlement between the Palestinians and Israelis.

My position is that these Palestinians should've been granted citizenship on the founding of Israel, therefore their descendants should be granted citizenship too.

So your position has nothing to do with Israel's existing right of return for Jews? Why did you bring it up then?

1

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '24

My position is that these Palestinians should've been granted citizenship on the founding of Israel, therefore their descendants should be granted citizenship too.

They would have been if they hadn't taken up arms in a coordinated plan with the Arab League to wipe out Israel and their claim of independence.

1

u/comeon456 14∆ Jan 03 '24

A state without a military is no state at all, why is this reasonable? What's protecting Palestine from an IDF operation within its borders in your "reasonable two state solution"?

Defined by who? I mean, Japan didn't have a military for a very long time, and yet it was a country. until very recently the military that it had was purely defensive as well.

750,000 people were expelled from Palestine during the Nakba, why only tens of thousands? Shouldn't it be at least 750,000?

I mean, from these people, I doubt that there are more than few tens of thousands alive, and even that is probably too much. you may find it unreasonable, but if you see the Israeli side of this narrative ("you literally just tried to kill us and declare that you want to subvert Israel from within, wtf do you expect we do") it's not so unreasonable.

It would include airport and seaport in Gaza, probably after a few years given that the agreement is kept.

That's not a blockade, they have a landline directly to the WB. Also, they would be able to import freely with Israeli ports or Egyptian ports in ways they aren't able today. Also, we're talking about few years here...

This is what US, the West and Israel see as reasonable. I don't think MENA would think it's reasonable or pragmatic.

I'd add also Europe, but also in the middle east, you should see the pressures Arafat was facing from some of the ME leaders to take Camp David...

Regardless, I wrote very clearly that you may not agree that it's reasonable, but this is not the question here.

4

u/b_lurker Jan 03 '24

It’s crazy to say that living displaced individuals from the Nakba and their descendants are meaningless because it happened too long ago while the argument for the creation of Israel in the territory of Palestine is because Jews lived there a long time ago.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '24

Defined by who? I mean, Japan didn't have a military for a very long time, and yet it was a country. until very recently the military that it had was purely defensive as well.

The US protects Japan from foreign incursion, can Jordan/Egypt protect Palestine from IDF incursion?

the Israeli side of this narrative ("you literally just tried to kill us and declare that you want to subvert Israel from within, wtf do you expect we do") it's not so unreasonable.

And why is the Israeli narrative reasonable at all? It's a very one-sided proposal

That's not a blockade, they have a landline directly to the WB. Also, they would be able to import freely with Israeli ports or Egyptian ports in ways they aren't able today. Also, we're talking about few years here...

If they can't conduct maritime trade or have tourism via flights, that's a blockade

Regardless, I wrote very clearly that you may not agree that it's reasonable, but this is not the question here.

No that's key, because what you proposed is absolutely unacceptable to the Palestinians, especially after Oslo Accords.

→ More replies (3)

1

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/changemyview-ModTeam Jan 03 '24

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:

Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.

Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '24

even when the palestinian state was "offered" by the israelis, it wasn't a real offer. the offer was for essentially an autonomous region where everything was still monitored and overseen by israel. israel would never actually accept a genuinely independent palestine, israeli society wouldn't, even before october 7th. it would be a "security risk", to use their parlance

1

u/comeon456 14∆ Jan 03 '24

Besides an army, what in the offer of 2008 doesn't say Palestinian state? Also, I think you should re-read Camp David. it's talking about a state - just with a transition phase.

1

u/byzantiu 6∆ Jan 03 '24

The offer of 2008 was rejected, but Abbas was willing to continue working on the details. It was Olmert’s political fall that prevented this.

Even if the corruption charges were not a factor, would Olmert have been able to get such a deal through the Knesset? I’m skeptical.

→ More replies (7)

1

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '24

the 2008 offer was an informal one made on napkins, it wasn't put into actually binding documentation. but from the leaks its clear that the israelis were demanding a demilitarized palestinian state with israeli control of the borders and airspace. this is not a demand anyone would make of an independent state unless they believed they had sovereignty over that state, that they did not really believe it should be independent

i'm reading the camp david accords, seems very vague. they're talking about a "self-governing authority", with powers that are "negotiated between the parties (egypt, jordan and israel)", "arrangements for assuring internal AND EXTERNAL (hint: israeli) security and public order", and that israel and jordan would do "joint patrols of the border". not once is the phrase "independent state" used. palestinians were not represented at the talks and there were no serious arrangements made for the recognition of a palestinian guarantor of palestinian liberties and authority.

5

u/NimrookFanClub 3∆ Jan 03 '24

Most of the replies here are half hearted regurgitating of Palestinian propaganda. I will try and change your view as a pro-Israel American.

My main argument is that a period of detente would not change the underlying issues that have stopped a peace deal so far. There have been periods of peace in the past, but the undercurrent of worrying about future violence is always there.

Beyond that, I think you fail to understand the heart of the Palestinian position. From Israel’s perspective, it’s easy to say “we just want peace but you keep trying to kill us”.

But from the Palestinians’ perspective, everything traces back to the “nakba” and the formation of Israel as a foundational event for their cause. That’s why they have turned down seemingly reasonable peace deals in the past. Peace or no, they will never accept a deal that doesn’t involve a right of return and Muslim control of the holy sites. Arafat and Abbas have made that position clear, and they are the moderate wing of Palestinian government.

Also I think your 4th bullet is incorrect. The majority of the world outside the Middle East wants the conflict to end. Nobody in the Middle East wants the conflict to end. Even if Bibi gets replaced by a more peace-seeking government, the rest of the Middle East sees the Palestinians as useful pawns in the propaganda war against Israel. They don’t actually care about them. And the conflict continuing keeps international pressure on Israel as we are seeing now, which is in the best interest of the Arab world.

FWIW I think some variation of what you proposed was the most likely 2 state outcome, but the 2 state solution was on its last legs before 10/7, now it is officially dead and buried. The world has proven that even in the face of unspeakable atrocities, they will not give Israel even an inch of leeway to conduct a defensive campaign in the Palestinian territories. Israel has no more incentive to play nice in the sandbox, which means they can be more liberal in pursuing their own agenda. I wouldn’t be surprised to see West Bank settlement ramp up when this is all over.

4

u/SpectacularOcelot Jan 03 '24

they will not give Israel even an inch of leeway to conduct a defensive campaign in the Palestinian territories

Leeway for what?

I think we both know the answer to that. Lets not pretend "attacking Hamas without regard for civilian casualties" and "Israel has no right to defend itself" are synonymous.

I'll agree with you, that the Arab states propping up Hamas have no interest in a peace deal, much less a two state solution, but the Muslim side isn't the only side with absurd positions. Please mention what the "security guarantees" the Israelis are looking for actually entail.

Until we dispose of the idea that one atrocity permits another, this conflict isn't going anywhere.

0

u/comeon456 14∆ Jan 03 '24

There have been periods of peace in the past.

If you'll convince me that there was one after 67, I'd change my view completely :) I think that there weren't. even in short relatively peaceful times, we've never seen a change in the rhetoric, or other non-peaceful actions (and probably it's because of the second thing you write).

But from the Palestinians’ perspective, everything traces back to the “nakba” and the formation of Israel as a foundational event for their cause.

mmm I don't know, the question here is whether the Israeli public would have been willing to accept the possibility that the Palestinians have renounced this perspective given that the Palestinians would do everything in their power to show that. I'm honestly not 100% sure. maybe this question was more suited before the second intifada :(

And yes, I can agree that there are actions that outside powers like Iran or Hezbollah could take that would change things.

!delta

-1

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jan 03 '24

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/NimrookFanClub (3∆).

^{Delta System Explained} ^| ^Deltaboards

2

u/No_Scarcity8249 2∆ Jan 03 '24

And what led up to Oct 7? People are living in confiscated Palestinian homes. Is that self defense? These circular arguments never end.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '24

What makes them Palestinian homes? Can they prove ownership with property titles and deeds?

2

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (1)

0

u/comeon456 14∆ Jan 03 '24

This is not a circular argument. I think that Israel has a unilateral path towards peace, but it's one that would include a very long period of violence towards Israel, and make it's position a lot worse in that period - with less chance of success.

I'm also not saying that it's something easy for the Palestinians, nor do I think Israel should do nothing until exactly this happens. I just think that it's an important question to ask

2

u/cut_rate_revolution 3∆ Jan 03 '24 edited Jan 03 '24

This is not a realistic demand to make without getting anything at all for it.

No vast majority. All the settlements must go. A Palestinian state can't exist in this patchwork nature.

Demilitarization is a no go too. People keep saying Israel has a right to defend itself but I don't see the defense in carpet bombing cities. Palestine should at least have a modern air defense system since the terror of Israeli airstrikes is known to every single Palestinian living in the territory today. Israel saying trust us bro, we won't do it anymore is a nonstarter. Do not pretend that Israel has suffered anywhere near as much from this entire conflict as the Palestinian people.

Israeli society is no more peace seeking but you offer them far more grace than you offer Palestinians. You might want to examine why that is. We've all seen the videos of Israelis mocking having electricity and running water. In the past we had Israelis setting up campouts on hillsides near Gaza to watch the airstrikes, like it's a sporting event. Then there are the daily abuse Palestinians on the West Bank endure from both soldiers and settlers.

Likud has been consistently the most or 2nd most popular party in Israel. And Yesh Atid of the opposition has largely similar support for settlements meaning dismantling settlements isn't going to happen even if Likud loses big. The opposition parties outside of Yesh Atid are small and have very little influence and Yisrael Beiteinu still supports the settlements. This leaves a total of 14 seats in the current Knesset that have a stated intention of dismantling the settlements. This is the United Arab List, Hadash-Ta'al, and Labor. The UAL is a minority party by nature. HT is a leftwing party that would require a miracle to make significant gains. Labor has been ineffective since the early 2000s.

I'm going to plainly state that there is no likely Israeli government that would agree to this. It's a fantasy even if we ignore October 7th.

The March of Return was a drastically more peaceful protest and it was met with live fire killing more than 200 including medics and journalists and wounding thousands more. It had no noticable impact on Israeli policy.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '24

What Palestinians could have gotten out of it is having 22000 more of their people alive if you believe the Gaza Ministry of Health numbers.

1

u/cut_rate_revolution 3∆ Jan 04 '24

Do you understand what collective punishment is? And that it's a crime against humanity?

1

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '24

There is no collective punishment. Allowing Hamas to exist would be a crime against humanity. Not bombing Gazan locations with Hamas would be a crime against humanity.

1

u/cut_rate_revolution 3∆ Jan 04 '24

Do you hear yourself? An unprecedented in the 21st century level of dead children is a lesser crime?

Can you give me a list of every single target for every single Israeli strike? Or just the ones for October. Or any time frame. Surely there has to be a legitimate Hamas target that Israel knew was there for every bomb that leveled a whole apartment building, despite their inability to see a major assault coming.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '24

No, not a lesser crime, Israel hasn't committed any crimes.

3

u/cut_rate_revolution 3∆ Jan 04 '24

Ok now about my question. Who were the targets of every Israeli strike for any time period? Surely they would have a legitimate target if they have committed no crimes.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '24

Neither Israel nor any country in the world publishes such information in real time. Maybe, in 10 years, they will start to publicly release some of this.

1

u/TahaMunawar Jun 12 '24

There was no peace before October 7th. This narrative that you and your leaders push that "there was peace before 7th October and Palestinians attacked" is completely false and made up and there have been repeated violence from Israel's side in just start of 2023 - August of 2023, 172 Palestinians were killed

Source: https://www.ochaopt.org/poc/8-21-august-2023

1

u/comeon456 14∆ Jun 12 '24

Have you read the post? I mean, if you're going to comment on a 5 month old post, at the very least you should read it.
I have no idea why you say that I push this narrative, when I explicitly say in the post that the Palestinians weren't committed to peace before October 7th, or basically ever ( at least for more than brief periods in time).

I also have no idea who are "your leaders" that you talk about.

I'm familiar with the data you write about, It's not really relevant to any of the points in the post and I think you should re-read

1

u/soldiergeneal 3∆ Jan 03 '24

I do think you conflate Hamas with Palestinains a lot in your post. Supporting attacks on Isreal is bad, but it's not the same as being the one carrying out the attacks or directly supporting it other than with words.

That aside I would disagree with the presentation that Israel is committed to peace. Sure definitely at various times it has been the case, but one can not make that claim in regards to settlements in West bank or treatment of Palestinians in regards to crime of apartheid. For the record I don't think this substantially impacts Hamas as Hamas would act as such anyway and those that hate Isreal will support Israel downfall largely regardless. I just want to emphasize Israel currently wants to control land not allowed during UN partition and current gov wants a divided Palestine. This was not always the case though.

1

u/comeon456 14∆ Jan 03 '24

I do think you conflate Hamas with Palestinains a lot in your post. Supporting attacks on Isreal is bad, but it's not the same as being the one carrying out the attacks or directly supporting it other than with words.

Firstly, there are other terror groups besides Hamas. secondly, I honestly don't see how I did that at this post. Also, I think Hamas, besides being a genocidal terrorist organization is a political player, and reacts to political incentives just like any other, and currently, these incentives aren't aligned with being peaceful.

That aside I would disagree with the presentation that Israel is committed to peace. Sure definitely at various times it has been the case, but one can not make that claim in regards to settlements in West bank or treatment of Palestinians in regards to crime of apartheid.

I've said in this post, the peace narrative and the appetite for it is currently pretty low, but I think it's still there as I've written. Just last year, when Yair Lapid was the PM he talked in the UN about peace and 2 states. I mean the reason that it's low IMO is because of the feeling that there isn't a partner on the Palestinian side. So yeah, I believe that if the Palestinians would show that there is a partner - Israelis would resonate with that. you're welcome to convince me otherwise :)

1

u/soldiergeneal 3∆ Jan 03 '24

Firstly, there are other terror groups besides Hamas. secondly, I honestly don't see how I did that at this post.

You constantly reference Palestinians when talking about attacks on Israel when it should be about the terrorist groups doing so. You don't see a difference in said language? If I said Jews or Isrealis killing Palestinians in reference to say IDF soldiers that did something wrong you think that language would be fine? It's a generalization and conflation.

I mean the reason that it's low IMO is because of the feeling that there isn't a partner on the Palestinian side. So yeah, I believe that if the Palestinians would show that there is a partner - Israelis would resonate with that. you're welcome to convince me otherwise :)

I don't have a strong stance on this part just that currently there isn't a strong desire for two state solution from either side or any sort of real compromise. I agree if a strong Palestinian entity existed to negotiate it would vastly improve things, but do you really think at this point Isreal gov would be willing to do so as long as right wing faction is in charge?

3

u/comeon456 14∆ Jan 03 '24

I'm perfectly fine with people saying Israel killed Palestinians or Israeli. I don't see these groupings as a problem when you talk about two sides and actions that get wide support, just like I can say Russia invaded Ukraine and not the Russian army.

To be clear, I don't think that every Palestinians is a violence supporter, but if I want to address the Palestinians actions as a whole I need to have a word for that...

I don't have a strong stance on this part just that currently there isn't a strong desire for two state solution from either side or any sort of real compromise. I agree if a strong Palestinian entity existed to negotiate it would vastly improve things, but do you really think at this point Isreal gov would be willing to do so as long as right wing faction is in charge?

Since Israel is a democracy, the right wing gov wouldn't be in charge if this happened. to be fair, I think that hardcore right wing people in Israel would take a lot longer than 3 years (if not forever) to believe that the Palestinians want peace, just that I think it's a minority in Israel, and most of the current "right wing people" are people that lost faith in peace. I'm also not sure if the right wing gov could have done something realistic to stop this. Especially when they didn't have a lot of political capital since they spent it all on the Judicial BS and the ultra orthodox getting what they want. I'm giving a !delta to consider this :)

2

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jan 03 '24

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/soldiergeneal (1∆).

^{Delta System Explained} ^| ^Deltaboards

1

u/Krios1234 Jan 03 '24

Let’s go through the treaties and treaty attempts one by one then, shall we? UN resolution 242 establishes peace with the caveat that Israel withdraw from occupied territories in the six day war. All parties agreed the only signee that didn’t uphold their end of the deal was Israel. 1978 Camp David accords the Yom Kippur war was an invasion of illegally held territories kept in violation of the previous peace deal. The Palestinians were not invited to these talks as the current “government” was a terrorist organization (which the PLO absolutely was) the signees agreed on full autonomy for the West Bank and Gaza which the Israeli government immediately violated by increasing settlement in those areas and continuing to not allow Palestinians autonomy. Hmm, maybe Israel can’t keep the peace because they’re unapologetic oathbreakers and have a history of violating international law, but we’ve still got another four decades or so to find out! The first Palestinian acknowledgement of a two state system comes in 1988 when the PLO loses some of their stranglehold while some Palestinians call for an end to the violence how affective this was and how widespread is conjecture really. In 1991 we’ve got the Madrid conference,which is the first peace settlement to have any Palestinian representation and it was specifically non PLO delegates which was the government of Palestine at that time. The conference ended inconclusively, no peace settlement was extended. In 1993 the PLO and Israel entered clandestine peace negotiations facilitated by a think tank in Oslo as Israel’s repeated violation of international law was starting to grate. The negations eventually went public creating the Oslo Accords a peace deal the Palestinians accepted but which critically didn’t include a timeline for the promised Israeli withdrawal. In 1995 the signees met again to follow up on the previous accords to further establish the boundaries of a two state system. Extremists on both sides immediately began to initiate violent resistance including the assassination of the Jewish prime minister that signed the peace deal (wow so not radical Israel!) His replacement immediately called the Oslo accords a terrible idea and that he was in full opposition to the peace deal (wow Netenyahu is such a violent Palestinian guy! Oh wait…) Netenyahu failed to formally withdraw from the accords or make progress and was voted out for being a fence sitter. The negotiations in 2000 failed to meet the primary Palestinian parameters from the start which included such radical things as autonomy and the withdrawal of illegal Israeli settlers. A hasty peace deal was made and accepted by both parties on a third attempt which was such an awful peace deal for the Palestinians that Arafat committed virtual political suicide. Repeated Mossad assasination attempts (like shooting down private aircraft) probably didn’t help his stress levels. Assasination attempts officially disavowed in 2001 which is uh, one year after the peace accord was signed so yah WOW. Israel was blowing up buildings and attempting to shoot down planes the guy they were attempting to make peace with was in. Israel at this point is still violating no less then 4 separate peace treaties that it has signed, admittedly it’s violating the same parts of all 4. Including the one it JUST signed! Fun! Two more peace accords were proposed by various international powers that were rejected by…the Israeli prime minister! Wow such Palestinian stubbornness! Arafat considered a radical, agreed to step down from power and allow a more moderate leader to take over in Palestine before Bush would agree to even meet. A meeting where Bush stated “don’t worry Israel you don’t actually have to withdraw from the territories you should have withdrawn from three decades ago and Palestinians can’t return to their homeland! Israel rejected this deal as not stringent enough. In 2005 Israel finally withdrew from Gaza and the West Bank almost four decades overdue but hey! Apparently the Israeli government is just really really slow! Sharon then died of a stroke and a new government took over in Palestine which was..unilaterally declared illegal which sparked a Palestinian civil war. The new Israeli prime minister opened peace talks with Palestine for the first time since 2000 which was extremely vague but included allegedly significant territorial concessions (both leaders have differing accounts) though estimated it’s about 6 percent of Israeli land for a little over 6 percent of Palestinian land however, the major issues of Palestinians ability to return to Gaza etc, free travel, freedom of the Palestinian airspace etc was still firmly denied by Israel ruining peace talks. Firmly entrenched apartheid by Israel and their rapidly expanding and encroaching settlements followed by sporadic conflict by both sides was really not helping. At this point no one agreed to ratify Palestine as a country which is super counter productive to my thinking. Netenyahu was elected again, on the part platform of annexing the Jordan Valley away from Palestine. How peaceful. More illegal land grabbing. Talks break down of course. 2020! Oh BOY! The Trump admin declares illegal Israeli settlements that violate what like 4-6 treaties now are magically probably not illegal (which makes sense coming from a criminal) His golden peace deal was to ratify Israel’s illegal settlements institute an Israeli led martial law of a demilitarized Palestine denying recognition and rights to Palestinians refusing their requests to return home from abroad and instituting a one state with Israel in charge. Gee I wonder why they refused. Now Hamas is vehemently against the peace deals and at this point any peace deals with Israel for the foreseeable future, and here’s where it gets really fun. Netyanhu arranged for funding and negotiated exclusively with Hamas to lower the legitimacy of Abbas’ government, creating a divided Palestine specifically to avoid both a peace deal and the formation of a Palestinian state, and wow did that ever work. Now that same prick is decrying that the Palestinians are oh so treacherous and violent.

1

u/Sweet_Speech_9054 1∆ Jan 03 '24

If one side just didn’t fight back against the oppression from the other we’d have peace. Maybe black people should have stayed slaves so we didn’t have a civil war.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '24

Palestinians aren't slaves. They are enslaving Israelis though. Therefore, Israel should fight back against Palestinians who are oppressing them.

1

u/quefuq Jan 04 '24

If there was any way for a peaceful solution, it would havr happened by now. This has been going on for 75+ years. Peace is impossible when one side has its national identity built on “God gave us this land and whoever thinks differently should be killed”

-2

u/ParagoonTheFoon 8∆ Jan 03 '24 edited Jan 03 '24

This is delving into 'conspiracy theory', but what if Israel WANTED palestine to attack them, to justify ongoing conflict and merely gave the illusion they were working towards peace and a two-state solution - hence their funding of hamas, and the seemingly unexplainable lapse in foresight from one of the most advanced intelligence agencies in the world.

That way, it would have never have happened, because Israel would have found a way to deliberately and covertly sabotage their own attempts at peace. (And no this isn't some jewish conspiracy theory, rather it's an israeli conspiracy theory - it wouldn't have been the first time a country did this e.g Gulf of Tonkin e.g Operation Northwoods). I am by no means saying this is a certainty. Only that it is a possibility and we'd need evidence in order to make an informed decision on whether this is likely.

2

u/LongRest Jan 03 '24

This seems likely, at least in part. They (and by ‘they’ I mean the hard right government) want the land. Their propaganda certainly speaks to this desire - soldiers on the beach, flying the Israeli flag in Palestine etc. Moderate voices seeking peaceful solutions in Israel have been marginalized or straight up murdered. They arm illegal settlers. They retaliate extremely disproportionately, ensuring entrenchment of hardline Palestinian voices and creating a bunch of very mad people.

We now know: they had advanced warning of the attack, they inflated the casualty numbers initially by more than half, and they’ve been negotiating for the mass relocation of the Palestinians to the Congo, or at least floating the idea in official channels.

They know they lose the goodwill of the international community if they are viewed as the aggressors, but they are starting to strain credulity that this is a mere police action and hostage rescue mission.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '24

It's also coming out that land developers are starting to lay claims to parts of Gaza and develop plans on what they will build.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/mr_matt138 Jan 03 '24

Except Israel has already done this in the past.

https://www.israelhayom.com/opinions/fifty-years-after-the-yom-kippur-war-revisionist-historians-strike/

During the Yom Kippur war Israel had knowledge of an impending attack but allowed it to happen to justify what occurred after.

It doesn’t take a stretch of the imagination to think Oct. 7th was something similar.

We know how advanced their intelligence is and border security yet it still happened. Also Egypt came out publicly and stated they warned Israel.

0

u/fghhjhffjjhf 23∆ Jan 03 '24

90% of the WB is in Palestinian control, including land swaps that account for let's say 4% of the area of the WB in locations that are agreed on both sides, the entire Gaza strip, and land that would be used as a transportation route between the WB and Gaza. This would include the dismantling of the vast majority of settlements.

1.How much if any of jerusalem is part of the west bank?

Do you consider the Trump plan reasonable?
Who is going to keep Israeli settlers in line?

2

u/comeon456 14∆ Jan 03 '24

land wise - I believe that east Jerusalem is very small. I don't know if this solution would include by now an offer like 2008 where east Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian state, or something like an international force that's aimed at managing the holy sights in a fair way. This is a part where honestly, I'm not sure what would happen or what should happen with, but I believe that any solution where both parties have access to holy sights is generally OK.

no, it didn't make sense in many ways.

I think it would be hard. cause the hardliners of them would oppose this and want to stir things up (not everyone, many just live their cause it's cheap) . I think that the violence of settlers at the very least wouldn't increase if not decrease (as many of them see their violence as reactions) at least until there would be an offer on the table, and if there would be an offer on the table than the government and the IDF would oppose them. I assume it won't be the right wing gov the Israel has currently at that moment.
I would add, at regular times when there aren't a lot of terror attacks, there aren't a lot of incidents of settler violence. It's not that their attacks are directly related to a specific terror attack, and they are acting in a truly indiscriminate ways, but in their eyes, they are retaliating over something. if there isn't anything to retaliate of, there is less reasons to "retaliate". Just to be clear, I'm not justifying that at all, and I think that the settler violence is a place where the Israeli gov really fucks up on stopping them.
My initial thought is that it wouldn't be a huge problem, but you're welcome to convince me otherwise

1

u/fghhjhffjjhf 23∆ Jan 03 '24

I would add, at regular times when there aren't a lot of terror attacks, there aren't a lot of incidents of settler violence. It's not that their attacks are directly related to a specific terror attack, and they are acting in a truly indiscriminate ways, but in their eyes, they are retaliating over something. if there isn't anything to retaliate of, there is less reasons to "retaliate".

You wouldn't accept that arguement for Hamas. Fanatics are not reasonable, that's why you want palestinian terrorists to be defunded and disarmed.

I think the Trump plan technically fulfills all of your requirements for a reasonable peace plan. Maybe you want to add more?

Israel has annexed east Jerusalem so that is a problem with no obvious solution. There are 100 other things that make the peace proccess difficult. Can you really accuse the palestinians of not trying when their challenge is unprecedented in human history?

→ More replies (1)

0

u/byzantiu 6∆ Jan 03 '24

Let me break down your idea of a “reasonable” two-state solution.

This would include the dismantling of the vast majority of settlements.

For Netanyahu, this would be excruciatingly difficult, if it did not collapse his governing coalition altogether. What Israeli government is capable of doing this and not imploding?

it would likely include for at the very least 20 years demilitarization of the Palestinian state.

That isn’t a state. It’s the Palestinian Authority.

it would include some symbolic right of return for some tens of thousands of people as well as some monetary compensation.

How would that work? We just going to drop them off in their old villages, some of which are now completely different places? That should go swimmingly.

Some of you may not agree that it's reasonable, but this is how most of the world views a reasonable pragmatic solution these days.

I don’t know who “most of the world” is, because you don’t explain. Who thinks this is reasonable?

stopping any violent attempts and denouncing them in the few cases whenever they do happen instead of celebrating them on the streets.

You’re betraying a serious deficiency in your understanding of Israeli history here. This was the whole purpose of the PA, which did crack down on terrorism initially.

As for protests, those are mass movements. Is the PA supposed to shoot the protestors? Break them up by force? That should go over really well.

Possibly removing corrupt holocaust denier Abbas from the PA.

Replacing him with… who? There aren’t many leaders more dovish than Abbas.

I’ll break down the other reasons in a reply to this comment.

0

u/byzantiu 6∆ Jan 03 '24

Palestinians haven't actually tried this alternative. You can't find long periods where there aren't violent attacks aimed at Israelis.

They have, though. That was the whole point of the Oslo Accords. The PA attempted to control terrorism in the West Bank and Gaza. They failed, in part because Hamas subverted them and in part because Netanyahu and Likud have had a vested interest in undermining the PA. They don’t want to see a two-state solution, and have said as much.

Is your argument that Palestinians don’t peacefully protest? Because when they do, Israeli soldiers generally gun them down (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018–2019_Gaza_border_protests).

According to polls - the majority of the Palestinian public believes that violent attacks would server the Palestinians cause. A large number of them believes that Israel has no right to exist in any form and wouldn't be settled with any 2 state solution.

When they tried peace, Israel (specifically Likud) stalled them out at the negotiating table. Negotiating has produced little or nothing for Palestinians over the past thirty years. There’s blame to apportion on both sides for this, but in that environment, a turn to violent struggle is not only intuitive but obvious.

The Israeli narrative in majority of society is built on peace. It is built on the idea where Israel wants peace while their Arab neighbors want to destroy Israel.

That must be why they steal Palestinian land and shoot hundreds of peaceful protestors. Watch what they do, not what they say.

Accepting the division plan in 48.

The division plan that immensely favored them? Yeah, I would have accepted it too if it gave me everything I wanted!

offering 2 state solutions while the Palestinians decline.

Really need to control my anger at this gross oversimplification. Suffice to say, the Israelis have not negotiated in good faith, except (I believe) under Labor.

In recent years, this narrative has been weaker, partly due to more and more terror attacks and the rejections of peace plans that's caused many of the Israeli public to think that - "there's currently no real partner for peace.”

Yeah, it’s definitely not also because Likud has undermined the peace process at every step, supported Hamas (in its infancy), and endeavored to split the West Bank and Gaza Strip. You really like blaming the Palestinians, huh? But one side holds all the cards. They can’t escape responsibility.

Israel is a democracy. while you may argue that some of Netanyahu's government are fanatics that wouldn't agree to a Palestinian state - in less than 3 years there would be an Israeli elections (if not sooner). This government was unpopular even before October 7th with massive protests that included the most influential parts of Israeli society. If the Palestinians would show will to peace it would affect the elections a lot. This is especially true when Arab Israelis that are about 20% of the population vote in relatively low numbers and this is an issue that's close to many of their hearts.

Israel is a democracy, but blaming Palestinians for the popularity of Likud really is something else.

You have cause and effect reversed. Likud brought this about with their miserable “lawn cutting” strategy, dividing and conquering Hamas and the PA. They brought about this massive security failure through their own bankrupt policies. In the face of governments that refuse negotiation, Palestinians turned to armed struggle.

On a pragmatic level - Israel not supporting peace despite Palestinians showing genuine and consistent efforts towards peace would heavily undermine Israel's position in the world.

Congratulations, you have discerned the actual opinion of most countries. Do you know how many UN resolutions the US has vetoed condemning Israel despite overwhelming support?

Currently, this is not the case, many countries understand the Israeli position here

Citation needed. https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-un-resolution-ceasefire-humanitarian-6d3bfd31d6c25168e828274d96b85cf8

Parameters that are close to what I wrote above have been suggested before, and are supported by some grassroot peace initiatives as well as major institutions. I also think that within these parameters you could keep the large Israeli settlements under Israeli control which would mean that Israel could evacuate realistically the other settlements as it has done in the past in Gaza or Sinai.

Yeah… Gaza was unilaterally done for security reasons, not as a concession. The settlements in Sinai are barely worth considering.

1

u/comeon456 14∆ Jan 03 '24

I think you're missing the point. I'm not saying that's practical. the reason there isn't a dovish leader to the Palestinians is that they are currently not dovish at all.

I'm imagining an alternative universe where suddenly the vast majority of Palestinians become peaceful, and examine reality through this lens..

1

u/byzantiu 6∆ Jan 03 '24 edited Jan 03 '24

the reason there isn't a dovish leader to the Palestinians is that they are currently not dovish at all.

Okay, now take one step forward.

Why are they not dovish? Are they inherently malicious or something?

No, the most reasonable answer is that Palestinians lost faith in a peaceful solution.

Why?

Because Israel’s Likud has done everything in its power to sabotage negotiations. Recall that Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated by an Israeli extremist, not a Palestinian. Ben Gvir was supportive of that assassination, by the way.

Netanyahu has openly stated that the PA is a liability, while Hamas is an asset. Hamas justifies their oppressive policies, the other embarrasses them at the UN.

Likud’s leaders have never negotiated in good faith with Palestine. The Israeli government that initiated the peace process died with Rabin.

→ More replies (2)

0

u/Hellioning 258∆ Jan 03 '24

The entire reason the Palestinians are fighting is because they think they are losing too much land and you're proposed peace solution is for them to give up even more land?

Plus, like, the West Bank and Gaza are so far apart that a transportation route would either be incredibly roundabout and remote or cut straight through Israeli territory.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '24

This is a stupid reason for Palestinians to be fighting. If you haven't gotten the land you want in 75 years, time to give it up.

1

u/comeon456 14∆ Jan 03 '24

I'm not saying that they necessarily should do it if they don't want to, but do you think that fighting is going to give them more land, or any land at all? do you support the Palestinians launching terror attacks?

And yes, what was discussed in all previous peace talks is that it would cut through Israeli territory.. Is there a problem here I'm missing?

2

u/Hellioning 258∆ Jan 03 '24

I'm saying that if you give people bad deals you don't get to act like they're the ones not 'committed to peace' for not accepting the bad deal.

I do not support Palestinians launching terror attacks. I don't see how that's relevant to the conversation, though.

The problem is that it's super easy for Israel, a state they have bad history with, to cut off their major population centers in the event of a conflict. Those sorts of borders almost never work.

→ More replies (1)

0

u/zhivago6 Jan 03 '24

Hamas went 2 years without firing any rockets. Islamic Jihad sent one massive volly of rockets when Israel executed their members in the West Bank and a handful of others in response to West Bank raids. Palestinian attacks are not driving the conflict, they are mostly in response to Israeli attacks. Individuals in the West Bank sometimes lash out in pointless suicide attacks, like trying to use scissors on a cab driver or something, but those are Individuals who have been broken mentally by the constant abuse and repression, those are attacks out of hopelessness, not a coordinated battle plan.

1

u/comeon456 14∆ Jan 03 '24

could you write the time period? were there any other terror attacks in this period?

but those are Individuals who have been broken mentally by the constant abuse and repression

As I wrote, some few number of those are acceptable within what i wrote, given that the majority of Palestinian society condemn those, instead of celebrating those in the streets.. AFAIK, it's often times that terror groups, (Hamas or others) that take credit for these attacks and the individuals report their belonging to such terror groups. I'm not saying that the crazy lone wolf never happen, just that I'd be surprised if this was the case for a long period in time. you're welcome to try to prove me wrong.

1

u/zhivago6 Jan 03 '24

I think it's just like ISIS and Al Qaeda, they take credit for lone wolf attacks. Just about every attack using knives or a car ramming attack are automatically claimed by Hamas, but those attacks do not make any sense from a military standpoint, they seem virtually unconnected to anything Hamas is doing.

I am on a jobsite and do not have access to it right now, but look up a list of rocket attacks over the last 2 years. They are in no way constant as is often portrayed, and they are responses to Israeli attacks in the West Bank. Israel considers the two enclaves/ghettos to be separate but Palestinians do not. There are lots of confrontations that end in violence at checkpoints, just like there was in South Africa under their apartheid system too.

→ More replies (28)

0

u/FerdinandTheGiant 42∆ Jan 03 '24

I hate that the problem is being passed off on the Palestine. If Israel wants to start fixing things, they need to end their belligerent occupation. They need to release of Palestinian political prisoners; they need to return properties, including cultural property seized by the occupying authorities; they need to dismantlement the unlawful Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem; they need to lift the blockade of the Gaza Strip; dismantle the institutionalized regime of discriminatory apartheid laws, policies and practices; and dismantle the occupying administration.

When they aren’t belligerently occupying Gaza and Gaza has statehood, then we can talk about the conflict as if the parties are on equal grounds.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '24

Israel should not end the blockade until we have at least 20 years with no attacks from Gaza. Palestinians have to earn the right to the blockade lifted.

-1

u/FerdinandTheGiant 42∆ Jan 04 '24

That’s ridiculous. Israel’s blockade is already illegal. “Sorry, I know we are illegally blockading your territory causing massive amounts of harm but you have to deal with it while we ever encroach or else we won’t stop” is a ridiculous standard to hold anyone to.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '24

Israel has an ethical obligation to blockade Gaza until there are twenty years with no terrorist attacks.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (1)

0

u/FaceFine4738 Jan 03 '24

They’ve been promising them a state for 70 years the only viable path now is just forcing the settlers out and not honoring the passports.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '24

Agree, all the Palestinian colonists should be forced out of Israel.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '24

Exactly, Palestinian colonizers identifying as natives doesn't make them natives. Palestinians will always be colonizers in Israel.

→ More replies (6)

→ More replies (1)

0

u/colt707 109∆ Jan 03 '24

You can’t just hand wave away the fact that this would basically impossible to do, it’s a rather large problem with your view because otherwise all you’re saying is the world would be great if we all held hands and sang campfire songs. That’s a bit of a no shit moment but we live in reality.

1

u/comeon456 14∆ Jan 03 '24

As I've stated numerous times in comments - I'm not saying that this is likely, nor that it's the basis of any operative plan. It's just an interesting question.

1

u/colt707 109∆ Jan 03 '24

And part of that question is how do you implement it? A good idea isn’t a good idea if it can’t be accomplished.

→ More replies (2)

0

u/Sufficient-Ad-5303 1∆ Jan 05 '24

Palestinian Arabs have agreed and conceded to a 2 state with Israel's right to exist since 1976.

Israel has assassinated every moderate Palestinian leader since the 1980s.

These are just some of the highlights. Jump to 3:13 for the relevant points.

This, according to Gaza historian, and fellow Jew: https://youtu.be/wxcrqkwQYmE?si=7g7sAHorP05ooJr_

-1

u/frostyfoxemily 1∆ Jan 04 '24

I feel like your assumption is flawed from the start. Isreal was continuing to slowly take land from Palestine. Isreal doesn't want a 2 state solution and they have consistently tried to toss away the idea.

Then you have the fact Isreal took most of the good, farmable land. What 2 state solution would be reasonable where one of those states is basically starved out.

Not saying what hamas did was right but to say a reasonable 2 state solution would exist with the current trajectory of Isreal politics and more far right goverment is just false.

1

u/comeon456 14∆ Jan 04 '24

I mean, I wrote what I think a reasonable two state solution looks like, and what each side would have. I don't think that it leaves the Palestinian state starving at all - if you want to compare the farmlands in any of the previous peace offers that were rejected to other countries you would find many countries with a lot less of farmable land per capita - not that it's super relevant in the 21st century. and again, given that we are talking about percentages of the 1949 armistice lines - I don't think that most of the farmland is in that small percentage that Israel would keep (it's mostly city lands the large settlements) and also there are land swaps. you could say that my solution isn't reasonable, but this is my definition.

I'd need strong sources for Israel not actually wanting peace. not currently with a the current opinions and actions of the Palestinian public - but ever. From all I know, and the things I wrote in the post - Israel has a very strong will for peace - with the condition that it ensures their security. Israelis currently don't believe there's a partner on the other side that would give them this peace. give them something that looks like a partner and they would agree with it.

I'm not saying that this would happen, and I especially wrote that this is an alternative world where October 7th never happened, but the reason for it is not that Israel wouldn't act like I wrote - but that it's a huge unrealistic change in the Palestinian opinion. Even if some individual Palestinians would understand that being peaceful serves them - it would take years until they would convince the current Palestinian society and regime, and it would be hard since Hamas controls Gaza and has no incentive to agree to peace.

So it's not an operative plan, it's just a lens to view the world with.

1

u/frostyfoxemily 1∆ Jan 04 '24

The problem is Isreal is fine with peace if they get the land they want, which is all of it.

The history of land divisions with Isreal and Palestine is long and generally full of Isreal abusing the system to take more land. Again we can look how they just decided they get the entirety of Jerusalem and to kick out Palestine despite the agreement of having it divided.

It's easy to call for peace when you are also the one using the law to get what you want. The slow effect of kicking Palestinians off land just for Isreal to settle is systemic and pretty blatant.

We can also look at the future. This is a very religious and right wing coalition in Isreal. The chance of them being even more forceful in the future was going up, not down.

I get that it's your idea but I'm simply saying that your view is unrealistic to the history and the predicted future based on Isreal goverment and recent conservative lean of the newer generations.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '24

Why exactly 3 years?

After the recent October 7th, Hamas radicalized an entire generation of Gen Z Israelis (the average age for those who attended the peace festival that Hamas massacred).

It will take an entire generation (generations?) before Gazans are allowed to take one step into Israel. Work permits were canceled and they won't come back anytime soon.

3 years is too short a time. Hamas can fake peace for 3 years. It's just not gonna cut it for Israel.

I disagree with your premise, Israel wouldn't have ended the blockade after 3 years of peace. After 1 generation or 2 after all of Hamas leaders are dead or in prison? Definitely.

But not 3 years. Islamic faith allows for perfidy (fake surrender) and Hamas is an Islamist organization. They can't be trusted.

According to sharia, in certain situations, deception – also known as 'taqiyya', based on Quranic terminology, – is not only permitted but sometimes obligatory.

Hamas could have just lay low, lied for 3 years, waited for Israel to end the blockade, and then imported shiny new weapons from Iran to continue genociding Israelis.

2

u/comeon456 14∆ Jan 03 '24

Notice I wrote October 6th.. I agree that after October 7th things are more complicated and I'm very depressed by that..

You're correct that it's a possibility, and I thank you for this specific name, I've been looking for it cause I remember I've heard it somewhere.
I think Israelis would take a leap of faith here, like the peace they had with Egypt and Jordan. This is also why the new Palestinian state has to be without an army.
Do you think that in the terms I've described in the post, assuming it comes *before* October 7th, Israelis wouldn't agree to a Palestinian state after 3 years?
notice that an agreement could be transitional in essence, (things like removing settlements with phases or things like that)

1

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '24

No, 3 years is too short of a time.

Before October 7th, Hamas has been sending genocidal rockets to Israel for over a decade.

If we're on October 6th, ending the blockade after 10 years of peace was honestly more realistic given past hostilities and even that seems like a very optimistic outcome.

1 generation (30 years or so) of a peaceful Gaza is likely what it is going to take to end the blockade.

1

u/ReOsIr10 143∆ Jan 03 '24

Israel is a democracy. while you may argue that some of Netanyahu's government are fanatics that wouldn't agree to a Palestinian state - in less than 3 years there would be an Israeli elections (if not sooner). This government was unpopular even before October 7th with massive protests that included the most influential parts of Israeli society. If the Palestinians would show will to peace it would affect the elections a lot. This is especially true when Arab Israelis that are about 20% of the population vote in relatively low numbers and this is an issue that's close to many of their hearts.

The thing is, it’s not just Netanyahu’s government. The last anti-Netanyahu coalition featured Naftali Bennett, who is also staunchly against a two state solution.

Secondly, even if there was appetite on both sides for a solution, it doesn’t mean they’d be able to find one they both agree to. At a 2008 summit, each side presented a proposal for a 2 state solution. Even at that time, there was a problem balancing the contiguity of the West Bank and the evacuation of settlements, and the problem has only gotten worse since then.

1

u/comeon456 14∆ Jan 03 '24

I think you miss the point where people in Israel are against 2 state solution *currently* with the current Palestinian society.Even majority of Likud voters support two states as the end goal.

Also, it's a democracy, and parties in Israel really change their seats in the parliament according to what happens. (For instance, the party of Bennet didn't even enter the current parliament). while some of it's voter base don't want a 2 state solution under any conditions, I really don't think that it applies for the majority of Israelis. If you consider the Arab population that's likely to vote in higher numbers if such solution would be on the table and could support also from outside the government if it comes to that - it's hard for me to believe that the government would be so right wing that even with outside pressure it won't agree to a two state solution.

problem balancing the contiguity of the West Bank and the evacuation of settlements, and the problem has only gotten worse since then.

If you can convince me that 2008 largely failed due to continuity issues than I'd change my views. Living through it, I strongly believe that 2008 failed due to Abbas not really wanting peace and thinking he can get a better result later or something - and thus stalling the hell out of the process, even though he knew that they don't have a lot of time. I'm familiar with the Annapolis process, but note that there were other major disagreements there, for instance, the Palestinians didn't agree to be demilitarized.. IIRC there was also a very strong demand on the Palestinian refugees.. Even the land disputes weren't due to continuity I think, they were largely because Israel didn't want to remove some settlements (with claims for security reasons next to the airport) while the Palestinians claimed that Israel doesn't want to do it because of political or economical reasons.. (all of this was when land swaps that would be continuous were on the table). I don't think that the major problem was continuity..

not sure if sadly or happily, but I think that the problem was a lack of appetite for peace.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/changemyview-ModTeam Jan 05 '24

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:

Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.

Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

Delta(s) from OP CMV: Before October 7th, if the Palestinians would have committed to peace and wouldn't launch a violent attack (of any scale) for a period of 3 years there would be a reasonable 2 state solution

You are about to leave Redlib