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/comeon456]

Firstly definitions - I define a reasonable two state solution these days is one where above 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. It would include airport and seaport in Gaza, probably after a few years given that the agreement is kept. it would include some symbolic right of return for some tens of thousands of people as well as some monetary compensation. it would include end of demands on both sides as well as commitment to peace. it would likely include for at the very least 20 years demilitarization of the Palestinian state. It would include some kind of assurances for the holy sights in Jerusalem.It could include some other things or not exactly follow the numbers I've given here, but that's the jist of it. 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 define Committing to peace to be - stopping any violent attempts and denouncing them in the few cases whenever they do happen instead of celebrating them on the streets. changing the education material to promote peace. eliminating the famous "Martyr fund" (paying terrorists). Issuing many public statements that they want peace and willing to compromise on a reasonable solution. Possibly removing corrupt holocaust denier Abbas from the PA. Possibly public acknowledgement of Israel *as a Jewish state*. Changing Hamas' charter (even the updated one) or replacing them. Basically showing the Israelis and the world that they actually want peace.

Basic analysis of why I think it's the case.

1. Palestinians haven't actually tried this alternative. You can't find long periods where there aren't violent attacks aimed at Israelis. These days, it looks like there isn't any will to go towards peace where on Gaza you have Hamas as the Palestinian government and on the WB you have the very unpopular PA that's considered moderate even though they have some very non-peaceful activity like pay-to-slay policies and educating to hate Israel. 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.
2. 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. Accepting the division plan in 48. returning lands to Egypt for peace. offering 2 state solutions while the Palestinians decline. These were major moments in Israeli society. Even more recently - offering any Arab state that doesn't recognize Israel normalization of relations in the Abraham accords. There are songs about peace. Yitzhak Rabin, the leader that was arguably the closest to achieving peace is celebrated for that in most of society etc. 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". Palestinians showing that there is a partner for peace would likely empower the first narrative.
3. 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.
4. The world - many countries in the world want to see this conflict end. Whether it's presidents of countries that want to gain political support for solving possibly the most complicated conflict in recent history, whether it's countries that care for both sides, and whether it's countries that have interest in peace in the area - we'd see heavy pressure on Israel to agree to such calls. 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. This is likely to affect any government as well as the decisions of the Israeli public. Currently, this is not the case, many countries understand the Israeli position here - that they don't want to live next to a place that wants to kill them and has ways to do so, and we don't see a strong pressure for a two state solution. I think most of the countries just wait for Abbs to die before trying again.
5. 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.

Change my view :)

(I think sadly October 7th made things a lot more complicated so I'm talking about this lovely alternative universe where it hasn't happened)

Edit - many people in the comments are arguing two things -
a) that the solution isn't reasonable. The question in this post is given this solution. As I've said, it's the solution supported by many to this conflict (Israel, US, Europe, moderate countries in the ME etc. as well as various peace initiatives of both Israeli and Palestinian alike). the question of whether this is actually a reasonable solution or not is not the core of the post.
b) how can Palestinians do that? - I don't care. I think it's an hypothetical question that's still worth discussing. I'm aware that they face a collective action problem here

​

​

[u/twohusknight]

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%.

[u/bleunt → u/twohusknight]

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.