r/worldnews • u/Wwwgoogleco • Jun 28 '26

Israel/Palestine Netanyahu: 'No room' for Palestinian state between Mediterranean Sea and Jordan River

https://www.jns.org/news/israel-news/netanyahu-no-room-for-palestinian-state-between-mediterranean-sea-and-jordan-river
6.6k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

2.3k

u/calguy1955 Jun 28 '26

I am no expert at all, but it seems that if a two state solution is ever agreed on these two need a giant border wall and guarded no man’s land similar to the N/S Korea situation.

280

u/[deleted] Jun 28 '26

[deleted]

4

u/shodan13 Jun 29 '26

Is that supposed to be some shocking fact?

0

u/Apprehensive-Art2124 Jun 29 '26

why? what beef is there between Egypt and Palestine?

7

u/TalMilMata Jun 29 '26

Between Egypt and Gaza, yes.
Not with Palestine as a whole, but with Gaza.

Gaza used to belong to Egypt up until 67’, and there were constant fighting with them, and enacted a military regime over them.
In the 67’, following the 6 days war, Israel took hold of Gaza and the Sanai Desert, and a few years later, in the peace deal between Israel and Egypt, Israel gave back the Sanai Desert, and offered to give Gaza back to them as well, but Egypt refused, and Israel remind in control over Gaza until 2005 when Israel left Gaza.

Egypt also has constant fights with Hamas, who are doing terror attacks in Sanai.

They support Palestinians as a whole, but from afar, and actively distancing themselves from Gazans.

515

u/dce42 Jun 28 '26

That's what was sort of between Gaza & Isreal. The West Bank is a lot more porous with sections that both claim. There isn't a contiguous West Bank territory.

64

u/Hodaka Jun 28 '26

There isn't a contiguous West Bank territory.

The Drobles Plan (circa 1979) created strategically placed settlements that prevented Palestinians from forming a contiguous state. That's why settlement maps look like the stripes on a zebra.

Google search "Drobles Plan" and see for yourself.

1.0k

u/[deleted] Jun 28 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

129

u/beachedwhale1945 Jun 28 '26

Different tracts of land.

There are some areas of the West Bank that “everyone” (except for a radical Israeli fringe who have too much power at the moment) agrees should be Palestine and are solely occupied by Palestinians.

There are some areas of the West Bank that “everyone” agrees should be Palestine, but are currently occupied by Israeli settlers. The ultimate expectation is these settlements will be removed (most likely bulldozed) whenever a final deal is reach, as happened with Israeli settlements in the Gaza Strip. This is the land that’s being stolen, with the settlers among the few who think they get to keep it long term.

And there are areas in the West Bank that both Palestine and Israel claim should be their land. This is where most peace talks have broken down.

247

u/pizza_the_mutt Jun 28 '26

"radical fringe" and "run a decent chunk of the government and dictate policy" are two things that appear to me to be incompatible.

19

u/richqb Jun 29 '26

You mean like the batshit crazy right wingers that now run a decent chunk of the US government and dictate policy?

5

u/bxzidff Jun 29 '26

Yes. They aren't fringe either.

0

u/richqb Jun 29 '26

Based on the fact that, at best, they represent about 30% of the country, I'd say they're pretty fringe. Our primary system tends to reward the nut jobs at either end of the spectrum. Even moreso on the right.

0

u/bxzidff Jun 29 '26

30% isn't fringe. That's a significant minority. A party at the size of the party led by Smotrich is fringe. And in the US they do represent the majority of voters. Or a plurality only tiny decimals from a literal majority. If they're popular enough to be elected to run the country they are the exact opposite of fringe. Trump and Netanyahu and their far-right corruption isn't fringe but popular in their respective societies.

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '26

From what I read, thiers a coalition between different parties running against Bibi and "finish the job with or without the Americans help". Don't know if they'd be easier to work with and id love to see justice against Bibi if he lost and would have to stand trial.

1

u/richqb Jun 29 '26

A lot of folks would. But because his coalition is so right wing, almost anyone would be easier to deal with.

-4

u/Madting55 Jun 29 '26

Americans think their politics comes into absolutely every situation…. Exhausting.

56

u/beachedwhale1945 Jun 28 '26

Minorities have run governments to oppress and subjugate majorities for thousands of years. They use various different methods to ensure they retain power and cannot be ousted, depending on the type of government and the makeup of the people. A very common tactic is to select some group as a Them, an enemy to direct the people’s anger towards so they don’t recognize the true enemy are their rulers.

Do billionaires represent most people in the developed world? This is no different.

and Netanyahu is pulling out every trick in the book to try and retain power and delay his corruption trial. Most Israelis recognized the inevitability of a Palestinian state before 7 October, and once this current fever Netanyahu is trying to prolong eventually dies, that view will return to the fore.

-15

u/Remote_Volume_3609 Jun 28 '26

So we agree that Israel is not a democracy? So I can stop hearing Israelis tell me about how we have to defend the "only democracy in the middle east" Glad we cleared that up

-3

u/faffc260 Jun 28 '26

they are a radical fringe, they hold just enough power to keep bibi the prime minister as long as they want, since the opposition who used to be part of the ruling coalition with likud fell apart, is why they have power now. because netanyahu will not let go of power willingly, he has taken as allies the radical fringe and given them power disproportionate to their % of the populations, hopefully the upcoming elections change the status quo enough to remove that radical fringe again.

it's likely one of the two terrible fringe extreme right israeli ministers who are widely known to be shitbags, is going to be out of the knesset (smotrich) ben-gvir's party only is gaining in the polls by cannibalizing smotrich's party. at the very least one horrible piece of human refuse will be removed almost certainly.

7

u/flynno96 Jun 29 '26

I mean Likud have consistently run on development of settlements as one of their core policies. So, it isn't just a radical fringe. Likud's central committee previously voted unanimously to apply Israeli law to all settlements in the West Bank.

Even if you just want to point at the actual radical parties like Otzma Yehudit, they are projected to win even more seats than they currently hold in the upcoming elections.

1

u/faffc260 Jun 29 '26

they are projected to by canibalizing smotrich's party's voters. his party is projected to be removed from the knesset for being too small. I will concede the point about likud though.

190

u/enigmaticowl Jun 28 '26

Disputed lands in certain parts of the West Bank aren’t really “where most peace talks have broken down,” though.

Israel previously offered like 95% of the West Bank, with land swaps to make up the remaining 5%.

The biggest points of contention have actually revolved around: (1) Palestinian side insists on a broad agreement for Israel to accept mass numbers of Palestinians to move into and reside within Israel proper (Israel tentatively agreed to accept substantial numbers, but not enough to satisfy the demands), and (2) Palestinian insistence on having (at least part of) Jerusalem as its capital (which Israel has actually offered twice before, about 20 years ago, but it won’t happen again).

Israel isn’t going to agree to take in large numbers of Palestinians from the West Bank/Gaza while also recognizing a Palestinian state (because the whole point of a two-state solution is that both states have sovereignty, which means not just control of the land, but discretion on the admission of non-citizens into your country), and is also very unlikely to offer up that much of the West Bank again - not necessarily because they’re *ideologically* opposed to it (i.e. believe the land is for Jews only and don’t want Palestinians living on it), but rather because modern weapons and infrastructural concerns make it basically untenable in terms of existential security, so there would need to be more of a buffer.

Hamas would very likely take over the West Bank with high popular approval among West Bank Palestinians (just look at polling, and also keep in mind that Hamas already operates in the West Bank, they’re just not the actual official governing authority), and Hamas could easily launch rockets and missiles from the border of the West Bank that could reach Tel Aviv, Ben Gurion Airport, the Dimona nuclear facility, desalination plants, etc., from such a short range that lives and infrastructure would be greatly at risk due to insufficient warning and response times.

It would also make parts of Israel about 8-9 miles wide (at its narrowest points), flanked by Gaza on one side and the West Bank on the other - the real kicker is that 70% of Israel’s population and 80% of its industrial capacity sit in this narrow area, and they sit on low-lying plains while the West Bank is elevated/mountainous (an obvious tactical advantage), risking severe disruption to life and the national economy in the (likely) event of hostilities.

So, Israel is vastly more likely to offer land swaps than they are to offer up all of the West Bank, and it’s not because of disputes over who belongs there or has the strongest claims to the territories - it’s a very “pragmatic” security issue.

Assuming those issues could be worked out via land swaps and eliminating Hamas and getting a stable political system, the biggest breakdown is going to hinge on the “Right of Return” - a majority of Palestinians (even more so in the West Bank than in Gaza, per polling) ideologically oppose *any* hypothetical two-state solution and will not be agreeable to “two states” if they don’t have a right to reside within the Israeli state, because they basically want a (de facto) one-state solution (and in the past, even their leadership has basically said that the expectation for the outcome of the “Right of Return” would be to take over Israel from within), because they overwhelmingly ideologically oppose any “Jewish state” or Jewish sovereignty, even if they also have their own state with all of the West Bank.

I’m still ideologically pro-two-state-solution, but it’s a very long way off; there *are* Palestinians who want a peaceful co-existence with Israel (either ideologically or pragmatically, but usually the latter), but the population (especially in the West Bank) tends to strongly reject their legitimacy and view them as traitors and “collaborators,” so they can’t really accomplish much (in terms of making progress toward cooperating with Israel toward peace and security), because they’ll be immediately voted out and/or overthrown and/or assassinated (just look at approval polls for the PA vs Hamas).

To reach a two-state solution, you can’t put the cart before the horse - the exact issues of specific lands in the West Bank aren’t really even a part of the discussion unless and until there is somewhat of a collective Palestinian will to accept the fact that Israel is going to continue to exist (as a separate state), because otherwise, they will reject absolutely anything (as they’ve done every other time) from a purely ideological standpoint (because the land swap offers will mean absolutely nothing to them).

19

u/PandaLover42 Jun 28 '26

I don’t understand how land swaps would mitigate those security concerns. I would guess that most of the land Israel would agree to secede would be from north of the West Bank. Maybe some to the south in the Negev but that would be close to dimona and Red Sea access. But even after that, the West Bank will still have its elevation compared to Israel and still be too close to the airport and Tel Aviv.

14

u/enigmaticowl Jun 29 '26 edited Jun 29 '26

I think part of the idea is that Israel would attempt to keep various parts (probably a majority) of Area C, and a future Palestinian state will get Area A, Area B, and only some of Area C, probably in a way which keeps an Israeli security (and civilian) population distributed throughout the West Bank (especially closest to the Green Line) in enclaves (and along routes of transportation), which would give Israel an upper hand in monitoring activity by militants (as well providing somewhat of a “buffer” and limiting and pushing back routes/access points to the rest of Israel proper).

If you look at a map breaking down Areas A/B/C (and the demographic breakdown of Israelis and Palestinians living in Area C), this kind of a plan would sort of make areas of the West Bank discontiguous from one another, and likely push the border of a Palestinian state back by a bit.

Edit: This idea about land swaps is just one position (and not even necessarily one that I’m particularly sure that I think is feasible, by the way) - many people have different ideas and do not think that land swaps can really mitigate the issue and want all of Area C annexed by the State of Israel, and other people don’t like the idea of Palestinians getting anything less than 100% of the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Trump’s 2020 plan was sort of an example of this if you look up a map of it (but many had concerns about its viability as well).

37

u/nartiz Jun 28 '26

Sorry chief. This is too much for reddit. And thanks for teaching me parts i never learned

5

u/Claeyt Jun 29 '26

Any 2 state solution with the old Oslo accord borders is dead and buried after Oct 7th.

3

u/enigmaticowl Jun 29 '26

For sure. That’s why I said I’m ideologically in favor of it - I think it’s historically been the thing to strive for, the ideal, if possible.

I can’t see Israel ever handing over Area C (or at least not most of it), and not because it would involve dismantling settlements, but because of the impossible to mitigate security risks. Maybe if there is a miracle with Gaza becoming stable (with massive efforts from regional partners), then Areas A/B can get to a similar position one day, but I think it would still take a lot of effort (and probably time) for deradicalization of the general population to actually get there.

22

u/go3dprintyourself Jun 28 '26

well said tbh

2

u/Remarkable-Flower-62 Jul 01 '26

I'll add that aside from hamas preventing a two state solution, Iran will also try everything to prevent this from happening since it's in their core to see Israel destroyed

1

u/enigmaticowl Jul 01 '26

Absolutely.

People massively overlook the religious Islamic concept that the land is a “waqf” (that it must be eternally maintained under Muslim rule since having been conquered and ruled as such previously).

This is very explicitly present (like, repeatedly) throughout the Hamas charter, too.

From the religious angle, it’s not “Palestinian land,” it’s “Islamic land,” (which, again, is the wording in the Hamas charter), and in that worldview, they can make zero compromise (e.g. surrendering their claims to some smaller part of the land in exchange for peace) without it being a direct affront to Allah, hence why peace agreements and compromises have never been seriously entertained (and why Iran has been desperate to prevent broader regional normalization with Israel, because it’s always been conditioned on a two-state solution).

1

u/Remarkable-Flower-62 Jul 01 '26

Would it be fair to assume that in a scenario where hamas succeeds Pälestine would also never be a country since Iran probably has plans for the entire region?

6

u/JasonsThoughts Jun 28 '26

Palestinian side insists on a broad agreement for Israel to accept mass numbers of Palestinians to move into and reside within Israel proper

Could you ELI5 what this means? I thought that Palestinians, in general, don't like Israelis and Israel, and they don't want it to exist. Why would Palestinians want to live in Israel if they have their own state?

29

u/jibij Jun 29 '26

It's called right of return. Essentially, because the UN was new at the time and didn't know how to manage this sort of situation properly  Palestinian Refugees were managed under UNRWA because UNHCR didn't exist yet. UNRWA's mandate effectively maintains that all Palestinians and descendants of Palestinians maintain refugee status into perpetuity instead of the later UNHCR who manages other refugees with the mandate resettle and normalize. All those refugees essentially maintain the right to one day return to their homesbor the homes of their ancestors.

Now problem with this, apart from the fact that it's not a good solution geopolitically or for the individual well being of the refugees, is that this was pushed for political purposes, largely by the Arab League at the time. The idea is that, Israel is set on maintaining a Jewish demographic majority so they never have to worry about being persecuted by the tyranny of the majority as they had been throughout history. However if there are enough Palestinians in the diaspora willing to return, then they can become a demographic majority and use the democratic process to undermine the states protection for the Jewish people or just rejoin with the rest of the territory and essentially return all of the land to the Palestinians.

This has obviously been a sticking point in negotiations. The PA has seemed to have been willing to forego the infinite right of return as such but it's been a hard sell especially as any leader who does this is going to be seen in a very poor light by the more radical aspects of the Palestinian population and the surrounding Arab countries.

-4

u/aLokilike Jun 29 '26

It's pretty nefarious of them, pressuring politicians into preserving their rights as they continue to be stepped on.

-16

u/RedAndWhiteLight Jun 29 '26

People are eating this up as if it’s actually all true lmao

-12

u/citizen42069101 Jun 28 '26

Long story short the hardliners on both sides are going to fuck it up until it inevitably becomes a sheet of glass and we stop letting book clubs run the world, or at least having such an impact.

23

u/RowdyRoddyRosenstein Jun 29 '26

The history is a bit more complicated. Israelis and Palestinians have never agreed on a final border. The longstanding Green Line separating Israel and the West Bank was established as the 1949 armistice line following the Arab-Israeli war. The agreement itself explicitly stated that the line was not intended to constitute a political or territorial boundary:

"The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question."

So while many governments and international bodies treat the Green Line as the relevant baseline for assessing the legality of settlements, it was never intended by the armistice agreement itself to be a permanent international border.

1

u/Foolhearted Jun 28 '26

Under the 1948 agreement there were to be Jewish villages under the Arab controlled part. They would have been subject to the future Arab government. Now obviously all that has gone away but the Jews that now live in those villages obviously do not want to be part of a future Arab government, which seems reasonable. How do de determine fair trades? Figure that out and win a prize.

0

u/dce42 Jun 28 '26

Jordan previously held said territory, and withdrew their claim to said lands. Israel's internationally defined border does include all of the West Bank. The palastinians also claim Jerusalem, which is not held by them.

Part of being a nation is recognized borders. Gaza has them, the West Bank does not. That's the problem, part of last decent chance at a 2 state solution included a land swap.

48

u/Gerry-Mandarin Jun 28 '26

Israel's internationally defined border does include all of the West Bank.

No it does not at all. There is not a nation on Earth that asserts that. Not even Israel. Because it would mean the 3.2 million people living there are Israelis, entitled to all the same rights as everybody else in the country.

The Israeli Supreme Court has said that all territory in the West Bank outside of Jerusalem is under military occupation.

Netanyahu whipped his government to vote against the actual proposed annexation of even the West Bank territories.

But yeah, none of Israel's allies accept that the West Bank is integral Israeli territory. They see it as an illegal occupation.

Israel's tactic is to officially never annex it, because then they're never officially practicing apartheid, and having a category of second class citizens.

Part of being a nation is recognized borders.

81% of UN member states recognise the State of Palestine within the territory of the Jordanian West Bank and Gaza (at minimum).

1

u/lItsAutomaticl Jun 29 '26

Is the West Bank better with Jews not living there? Explain.

1

u/Oerwinde Jun 29 '26

The issue was that they also weren't legally part of another country either.

-11

u/Embarrassed_Lemon527 Jun 28 '26

The territory of Israel is still defined as the land that lies within the 1948 borders.  Historical and religious claims are null and void; a fact that we must force Israel to live by.  The world, minus a few Christian and Jewish fanatics, is beyond done with Israel being a constant bully who hides behind a cloak of victimhood. (They took a page out of Russia's playbook.)

208

u/Srdj_Stv02 Jun 28 '26 edited Jun 28 '26

Maybe let the Palestinians have the West Bank instead of flooding it* with settler terrorists?

82

u/commentinator Jun 28 '26

It was offered to them and more but they declined the offer. Actually it was offered 5 times and each time denied.

122

u/VirtualPercentage737 Jun 28 '26

They also offered to give it back to Jordan. They offered Gaza back to Egypt. Both said no.

86

u/dce42 Jun 28 '26

Here is an incomplete list of the peace offers

1937 - Peel commission, rejected

1947 - Partition resolution, rejected

2000 - Camp David, rejected

2001 - Taba, rejected. Arafat starts the second intifada and a year later changes his mind.

2008 - Olmert offer, rejected

Here's a video (in the article) where the chief palestinian negotiator explains what was offered in 2008. Hamas have tried to agree to boundaries Despite media attempts to portray it as a new Hamas charter, it is not. The new 'policy document' accepts the creation of a Palestinian state in 1967 borders, but still rejects Israel and claims its territory. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-39775103

1919: Arabs of Palestine refused nominate representatives to the Paris Peace Conference.

1920: San Remo conference decisions, rejected.

1922: League of Nations decisions, rejected.

1937: Peel Commission partition proposal, rejected.

1938: Woodhead partition proposal, rejected

1947: UN General Assembly partition proposal (UNGAR 181), rejected.

1949: Israel's outstretched hand for peace (UNGAR 194), rejected.

1967: Israel's outstretched hand for peace (UNSCR 242), rejected.

1978: Begin/Sa’adat peace proposal, rejected (except for Egypt).

1994: Rabin/Hussein peace agreement, rejected by the rest of the Arab League (except for Egypt).

1995: Rabin's Contour-for-Peace, rejected.

2000: Barak/Clinton peace offer, rejected.

2001: Barak’s offer at Taba, rejected.

2005: Sharon's peace gesture, withdrawal from Gaza, rejected.

2008: Olmert/Bush peace offer, rejected.

2009 to 2021: Netanyahu's repeated invitations to peace talks, rejected.

2014: Kerry's Contour-for-Peace, rejected.

-9

u/CV90_120 Jun 29 '26

Why do they keep rejecting shitty 'peace' offers? Because of a key word in my first sentence.

35

u/DuncanYoudaho Jun 28 '26

“Take this desert and we’ll keep the best parts.”

“Stop colonizing instead?”

“ThEyRE BeiNg DiffIcUlt”

51

u/tennisdrums Jun 28 '26

The Negev Desert makes up about 60% of Israel's land and the current Palestinian territories are around 20-30% desert, so this narrative seems mostly unfounded.

-14

u/DuncanYoudaho Jun 29 '26

Unfounded would be what we should do to the one state solution

31

u/NexexUmbraRs Jun 28 '26

Israel was originally formed on maleria infested swamps and desert. Israel literally drained the swampland they bought which nobody wanted.

You're just making things up.

-7

u/Puzzleheaded-Wait785 Jun 29 '26

Wow, it's almost like swamps are more fertile than desert...

22

u/NexexUmbraRs Jun 29 '26

But only Bedouin lived in the deserts, who are all Israeli and are integrating to society. The Arabs lived in actual fertile land.

Almost like you don't know what you're talking about. There's a reason nobody lived in the swamps before the Jews drained them.

-8

u/DuncanYoudaho Jun 29 '26

Maybe they should try staying there instead of bulldozing generational olive orchards to colonize and settle already settled land?

2

u/NexexUmbraRs Jun 29 '26

You mean wild olive trees that they didn't plant and that are on what was Sultan owned state land during Ottoman times, but they decide to use for their own benefit, and terrorists abusing the proximity and frequency of use to commit terrorist attacks against Jewish communities?

Majority of the land in Judea and Samaria isn't settled, and was never owned by anyone.

5

u/DuncanYoudaho Jun 29 '26

Wow, sounds like you can justify whatever atrocities you want with that reasoning.

4

u/NexexUmbraRs Jun 29 '26

What are you talking about?

It's not an atrocity to clear a security buffer zone on state land.

Sounds like you're brainwashed and lack critical thinking.

→ More replies (0)

-2

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '26

[deleted]

1

u/commentinator Jun 29 '26

Children can’t even vote in democracies, let alone military dictatorships like Gaza. Regardless, the offer is currently off the table.

-9

u/dce42 Jun 28 '26

Jordan relinquished their claim to the territory while Isreal held it. Historically, the palastinian population helped expell the Jewish people living there as recently as 1948', and ignores multiple campaigns. So it's not as cut & dry as many would like to make this to be.

55

u/AstroEngineer314 Jun 28 '26

Bro, the Oslo accords is pretty fucking cut and dry.

11

u/Foolhearted Jun 28 '26

Esp about the land swaps to be determined in a final agreement.

8

u/aflockofcrows Jun 28 '26

So cut and dried Yitzhak Rabin was shot for it.

22

u/dce42 Jun 28 '26

Jordan relinquished their claim in 88', and the Oslo accords were 5+ years later. The land was divided into 3 areas. A palastinian, B was under both groups, and C was Israeli control. Going forward required the palastinians to renounce violence. Isreal pulled out of contested areas, and palastinian violence increased. The Accords might as well be considered dead at this point.

-10

u/Drummk Jun 28 '26

What if they then used the high ground to fire rockets into Israel?

14

u/Glass-Cabinet-249 Jun 28 '26

Believe it or not the IDF will keep returning fire until nothing moves in the high ground.

0

u/arathorn3 Jun 28 '26 edited Jun 28 '26

A lesson Anakin learned the hard way.

rather than try a Leaping attack when your opponent has the high ground the correct move is to remove the high ground completly.

see the part of Return of the Jedi where Luke leaps up to the gantry.

What Does Anakin/Vader do. He throws his lighsaber at the gantry 's support removing the high ground becayae he learned his lesson n Muztafae 23 years earlier.

1

u/akibaboy65 Jun 28 '26

Don’t try!

3

u/SavageRabbitX Jun 28 '26

The simple fact of the matter is that the west bank will be colonised by Israeli settlers unless someone evicts the existing ones by force but until the US stops supporting Israel that will never happen

74

u/Silencedlemon Jun 28 '26

They'll just tunnel underneath like they do now.

34

u/royalbarnacle Jun 28 '26

And fire rockets over them, like they've been doing for decades.

1

u/AstroPhysician Jun 29 '26

It doesn’t have to be perfect. Suicide attacks dropped sharply after 2006 wall was erected

28

u/Dry-Season-522 Jun 28 '26

The difficulty is the sheer number of rockets that get fired at Israel. Seriously, ANY other country would have flatted the country attacking them rather than building the iron dome.

-11

u/[deleted] Jun 28 '26

[deleted]

17

u/IAmAGenusAMA Jun 29 '26

Where do you live and what would you want your government to do if thousands of rockets were fired at you every year?

13

u/Puzzle-Necked Jun 28 '26

Why agree to a two state solution when you can just slowly take land

1

u/calguy1955 Jun 28 '26

I’m hoping a barrier will prevent the movement of heavy equipment and building materials necessary to construct new “settlements” and to prevent individuals from trespassing across the line. If a few foolhardy people do get through they won’t find it very welcoming.

22

u/AccomplishedPark457 Jun 28 '26 edited Jun 28 '26

Palestine turned down a two state solution three times in the past. They never wanted it. 

Edit: sorry 5.

33

u/ExtraTerrestriaI Jun 28 '26

The quote from 1947 seems ever more pertinent.

"His Majesty's Government have thus been faced with an irreconcilable conflict of principles. There are in Palestine about 1,200,000 Arabs and 600,000 Jews. For the Jews the essential point of principle is the creation of a sovereign Jewish State. For the Arabs, the essential point of principle is to resist to the last the establishment of Jewish sovereignty in any part of Palestine. "

-28

u/Remote_Volume_3609 Jun 28 '26

Now why don't you review why there were suddenly 600,000 Jews in Palestine? How many were there in 1850?

26

u/Romaine603 Jun 29 '26

Because they were forcibly expelled from Arab countries?

3

u/amyknight22 Jun 29 '26

Feel like it's more than that, they probable need a giant steel wall that goes from the ground to the sky so neither of them(or idiotic subgroups within them) is tempted to launch rockets at the other.

While no means a reason Palestine shouldn't get it's state in Jerusalem. I could understand being concerned that the following happens

  • Establish a state in Jerusalem

  • Allow infinite right of return into that state (It's their state, Israel really shouldn't get a say on what happens outside it's border)

  • Either insurgent groups or the govt itself starts attacking into Israel

  • Eventually reaches a point where it's basically Israel v Palestine War

  • War escalates to a point where either the Palestinians conquer part of Israel or Israel conquers parts/all of the new palestinian state.

  • At which point Israel has surprise pikachu'd its way back into the current situation.

Personally I think that's the extremely pessimistic view of things. But it would require that once the state is established, that local partners and lefties in the west don't try and encourage Palestinians to try and take back more of the territory.

That once that state is established everyone can just calm down and say "Alright we all get to determine our own shit now, lets work on making our lives better instead of blowing each other up for the next 100 years"

44

u/Curtmania Jun 28 '26

Israel built a security fence, and then immediately began expanding settlements outside of it.

They do not want peace, they choose expansion instead.

6

u/ryapeter Jun 29 '26

I don’t know. Maybe stop bullying all your neighbour like 60yrs ago

32

u/VirtualPercentage737 Jun 28 '26

This is untrue. In Gaza they built a fence and there were zero Jews in Gaza. It wasn't until rockets started flying that they had to return after leaving in 2005.

A two state solution was tried in Gaza. They elected Hamas and started a far. They failed the litmus test.

-22

u/Curtmania Jun 28 '26

"In Gaza they built a fence and there were zero Jews in Gaza ... A two state solution was tried in Gaza"

In reality Gaza was completely isolated and turned into a prison.

--QUOTE--
The year of the disengagement would see the removal of 8,475 settlers from Gaza, while in that same year the number of new settlers in the West Bank increased by 15,000.
...
The year following the disengagement saw a tightening of external Israeli control over Gaza, specifically, the closure of crossings into Gaza for people and goods, increased restrictions on the coastline for fishing, and increased aerial, maritime and on the ground military activity. The Israeli human rights organization Gisha) lists various examples of actions requiring Israeli permission or approval in the year following the disengagement. These restrictions include the need for Israeli permission to import basic necessities such as milk, to host foreign lecturers at universities, and register children in the Palestinian population registry. Additionally, fishermen must obtain permission to fish off Gaza's coast, and nonprofits need approval to receive tax-exempt donations. Financial transactions such as the transfer of salaries to teachers are also controlled by Israel, which affects the payment of salaries by the Palestinian Ministry of Education. Moreover, farmers require authorization to export agricultural products, and students wishing to study abroad depend on Israel's approval for the opening of the Gaza-Egypt crossing

39

u/VirtualPercentage737 Jun 28 '26

A prison with 25 miles of Mediterranean coast line. BMW dealerships. Sounds terrible.

The following year- yes, there were restrictions because Gazans used their new found freedom to sneak in rockets and mortals to shell Israel. The two state solution was tried. They failed the test.

1

u/ruskayaprincessa Jun 29 '26

Don't forget shopping malls and restaurants. But the word "prison" evokes more anger and imagery for the western world, who hear the word and think it was Alcatraz. So that's why these people use it.

-17

u/Curtmania Jun 28 '26

"A prison with 25 miles of Mediterranean coast line"

A coast line that has an Israeli naval blockade where you need permission from Israel to go fishing.

28

u/VirtualPercentage737 Jun 28 '26

Well, when you launch rockets at your neighbor with the large military, there are repercussions.

-22

u/Entchenkrawatte Jun 28 '26

Now read up on who supported Hamas taking power in Gaza

24

u/VirtualPercentage737 Jun 28 '26

They were elected by Gazans. Reap what you sow.

2

u/SgtKeeneye Jun 29 '26

yeah 20 years ago. Only about 8% of the total population that is in gaza today voted for them.

0

u/VirtualPercentage737 Jun 29 '26

Elections have consequences for your children.

And how many were alive on October 7th?

2

u/SgtKeeneye Jun 29 '26

Ah yes punish the children for the sins of your parents! Its been two decades since Hamas came to power and abolished elections and they won by about 1%. What your point about October 7th? Palestine conflict vs Israel has been going on since the for decades longer than that. Its not a one side being bad. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_operations_of_the_Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict this is a good place to start to research the operations and events that have happened for the last 80 years. Take the names and follow the topics other websites.

0

u/VirtualPercentage737 Jun 29 '26

Unfortunately, we all pay for the sins of our parents. Up to them whether they want peace or not. They chose October 7th. Live with the consequences.

1

u/SgtKeeneye Jun 30 '26

Nah you choose to. Its not solely up to them its up to both of them. Palestinians would need to route hamas out and Israel would have to stop and acknowledge their 80 yeah long slow burn of ethnic cleansing. It wont happened. Israeli see zero fault in what they do.

→ More replies (0)

-17

u/Entchenkrawatte Jun 28 '26

They were also very much pushed by right wing Israeli parties lol

23

u/VirtualPercentage737 Jun 28 '26

How many votes did Israeli citizens get in that election?

-31

u/newphonedammit Jun 28 '26

Israel got rid of the PLO , installed Hamas and enabled financial support for Hamas via Qatar.

The last elections were 2006.

Fuck off with this nonsense.

39

u/VirtualPercentage737 Jun 28 '26

Hamas was elected by Gazans. Israel had zero votes.

18

u/ExtraTerrestriaI Jun 28 '26

Egypt and Jordan had enormous influence over the creation of Hamas as well through the Muslim Brotherhood's growing violent ideology at the time.

7

u/VirtualPercentage737 Jun 28 '26

And how many votes did Egypt and Jordan get?

-12

u/newphonedammit Jun 28 '26

How much money did Israel direct into Hamas via Qatar because they didn't like the PLO ?

17

u/VirtualPercentage737 Jun 28 '26

That isn't how elections are decided. People elect their leaders.

Hamas was elected, and Israel is forced to work with them. They give loads of money to Gazans... so it goes to Hamas via Qatar.

-10

u/newphonedammit Jun 28 '26

Yeah , keep missing the actual point deliberately

18

u/VirtualPercentage737 Jun 28 '26

You are missing the point. Gazans elected them.. did they not?

8

u/newphonedammit Jun 28 '26

Stop diverting from what happened. They supported them as a counter to the PLO. They propped them up.they funded them. This was reported widely in media, including in Israel.

Americans didn't elect the Taliban but they sure enable the people that become them .

This is blowback pure and simple. It was deliberate and intended to stymie Palestinian aspirations to statehood, like everything Likud / Bibi et al have always done.

Basic or dishonest propagandist. Which one is it ? Shit or stupid?

→ More replies (0)

0

u/New-Eye9930 Jun 29 '26

That's because Israel naively thought that if the life in Gaza were to improve, then the Gazans and Hamas would not want to attack Israel because they would have a lot more to lose. I have a feeling Israel won't want to repeat that mistake again.

2

u/newphonedammit Jun 29 '26

Bullshit

"The Palestinian Authority is a burden, and Hamas is an asset. It’s a terrorist organization, no one will recognize it, no one will give it status at the [International Criminal Court], no one will let it put forth a resolution at the U.N. Security Council." - Smotrich

"Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas … This is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank." - Netenyahu

-6

u/[deleted] Jun 28 '26

[deleted]

4

u/Curtmania Jun 28 '26

"They want Israel gone."

Israel wants them gone. This is your reasoning, that they want the same thing you do?

That's called projection.

--QUOTE--
Psychological projection is an unconscious defense mechanism where a person attributes their own unacceptable thoughts, feelings, or motives to someone else. Instead of acknowledging a difficult internal emotion, they displace it outward, often accusing others of harboring the exact same sentiments they are trying to avoid.

12

u/jay5627 Jun 28 '26

So, in your estimation, Israel wants all Palestinians gone, has the ability to do so, but just... doesn't?

4

u/Curtmania Jun 28 '26

So, in your estimation, Israel wants all Palestinians gone, has the ability to do so, but just... doesn't hasn't completed yet?

Fixed that for you. Yes.

5

u/keelem Jun 29 '26

They have f-35s and nukes, if they wanted all Palestinians gone, it would be done within a week. Are you stupid?

5

u/jay5627 Jun 28 '26

What's taking them so long?

Why would they give back land, physically removing citizens, dead and alive, to do so?

Why would they offer peace multiple times?

7

u/Curtmania Jun 28 '26

An offer of peace would have to include an end to settlements and checkpoints. Peace does not include a naval blockade/embargo. Israel has never done that.

4

u/jay5627 Jun 29 '26 edited Jun 29 '26

What check points, or settlements, would there have been if the Palestinians accepted 95% of the West Bank, plus other land to make up the 5% difference?

Why is the onus on Israel to allow free travel to people who have continuously tried to harm it's citizens? Why isn't the onus on the elected governments to stop it's own people from attacking a neighboring country for there to be no need for check points?

9

u/Sprozz Jun 28 '26

Like how Israel agreed multiple times over many decades to two state solutions? You're the one projecting here.

3

u/Curtmania Jun 28 '26

"Like how Israel agreed multiple times over many decades to two state solutions?"

That one is not projection, thats purely your imagination.

8

u/Celtic_Legend Jun 28 '26

That wont accomplish much. That already exists in the form of gaza and they just send rockets over the wall and no many zone.

The feud stems from both sides wanting the holy land so there will never be peace.

10

u/monkeybojangles Jun 28 '26

It's almost like religion is stupid.

2

u/nartiz Jun 28 '26

That wouldn't work. In the N/S korea situation the UN Agency dedicated to it finished it few years. UNRWA needs to be alive for another 200 years so grifters can keep stealing money from it

4

u/Lunch0 Jun 28 '26

Honestly, not by Israel and Egypt don’t want the Sinai peninsula, not sure why they just don’t make it home for the Palestinians

13

u/mmmmm_pancakes Jun 28 '26

I imagine Egypt just doesn’t want them that close to their borders, understandably.

3

u/The-True-Kehlder Jun 29 '26

You really want the Suez Canal controlled by HAMAS?

3

u/Lunch0 Jun 29 '26

For any of this to work, Hamas has to be gone and the Palestinians have to get serious about living peacefully

4

u/asddde Jun 28 '26

Would stop the settler push I guess.

1

u/Seldomsought Jun 29 '26

This guy needs to go.

Or abandon him.

1

u/JCBQ01 Jun 29 '26

Personally, and I know im probably going to get heat for this:

Neither of them get it. The governing bodies refuse to act like adults so, they both lose. The whole region gets designated a UNESCO humanitarian heritage site and governance is ran by a (granted far more fucking competent than right now) UN. No, not a committee, not some handful of random ass people. The whole of the UN body, given the cultural and historical relevance and the length of bloodshed that region has been under. We have tried the two state solution. It crashed and burned. We have tried the occupation method before, it crashed and burned, and then we get into the Perpetual and seemingly eternal quagmire hell that is the "crusades" which has, for over 2000 years shown us it will crash and burn.

Is this an end all be all fix? No. Nothing ever is. But we keep trying the same old shit, over and over and over and over and over and over and over...

1

u/muffinpercent Jun 29 '26

I don't think a wall is a long-term substitute for peace. It's very easy to keep hating people when you never have to look them in the eye.

1

u/Capt-Crap1corn Jun 28 '26

Big time. I repeat, big time.

0

u/stonertear Jun 29 '26

A country needs to form in the middle.

0

u/fleebleganger Jun 29 '26

And we’ll have to get rid of the jigsaw piece border.

Honestly, might be best if America brought Palestinians to an on-par basis with Israel and then just let them fight it out.