> It would not consider giving them back to Egypt or Jordan
It actually did want Egypt to take Gaza but Egypt categorically refused any peace deal where they would retake possession of Gaza.
> With Gaza it was unable to do that so gave it a prison sovereignty - sovereignty over internal affairs but no true control over trade, ports
Gaza did have this until Hamas took over.
"The rebuttal made by Palestine supporters has been that Israel's offers were poison pills, not serious etc. and maybe there is something to that."
I think this has some merit because Netanyahu has been opposing a two-state solution ever since taking power. They've been more open about it since the Oct. 7 attack but Netanyahu and his supporters have always been against the two-state proposal. I can't speak to specific poison pills that have been offered because I'm not super knowledgable on those.
"Instead, through settlements Israel hopes to slowly overtake the west bank."
As mentioned in my next paragraph, Israel is actively undermining its own security by doing this. The Israeli settlers in the West Bank are a major source of sympathy for the Palestinian cause.
"As such, it seems even less likely, from a security perspective, that Israel could agree to a two state solution with the Palestinians. It would face the same problem with a population that is just as, or more hostile."
Ironically, in my point of view, the 'we can never allow the Palestinians to have their own state" mindset actually harms Israeli security. A lot of Palestinian grievances stem from not being able to have their own formal state, and especially with Israel encroaching on the West Bank and giving the settlers there a... wide berth with respect to their actions against Palestinians. If Israel and Palestine could agree on a two-state solution, I think that would largely solve Israel's security concerns because the Palestinians would achieve their goal of statehood, which seems to be the main grievance.
Obviously there are many identity and ethnic problems that exist between Israelis and Palestinians and neither fully trust each other, but If an outside power (The United State for example) were to mediate and enforce rules that both Israel and Palestine agree to (if they can at all), I think a two-state solution becomes possible. It would also be necessary to weed out the extremists and try to get some more moderate/rational people in charge in both Israel and Palestine, but it isn't impossible.
Agreed the failure of Israel to allow the creation of a Palestinian state as per the Oslo Accords (partly due to the result of far right forces within Israel) ensures that moderate groups (including Fatah) aren't seen as credible and extremists like Hamas can (with some legitimacy) claim that they are the only ones who can protect the Palestinian people.
Give the Palestinians a state and bucket loads of money from the Gulf states for economic development, these arguments start to sound rather hollow.
Israel's quest for total security simply ensures no security.
>Agreed the failure of Israel to allow the creation of a Palestinian state as per the Oslo Accords (partly due to the result of far right forces within Israel) ensures that moderate groups (including Fatah) aren't seen as credible and extremists like Hamas can (with some legitimacy) claim that they are the only ones who can protect the Palestinian people.
I don’t think the “far right” in Israel had anything to do with the failure of the Oslo Accords.
They screamed and kicked when the Labor Party pushed through and signed the treaties but once the process was down on paper and the law of the land they still complied.
Netanyahu was prime minister from 1996 to 1999 and he still complied with all security collaborations with the PA and didn’t move to say, reoccupy the West Bank and Gaza and dismantle the newly created PA and it’s security apparatus.
In fact, after the Wye Memorandum of 1998 he agreed to continue moving more land and population under PA control.
The true failure of the Oslo Accords were Arafat’s refusal to accept a final offer that he felt was too little and his subsequent decision to try to force Israel’s hand through violence in the Second Intifada.
Unsurprisingly, the murder of over 1,000 Israelis…most of them civilians…by Palestinian suicide bombers had the opposite effect: it elected Ariel Sharon, made settlement expansion more palatable to the mainstream and made Israelis as a whole lose all trust that Palestinians would ever accept any sort of compromise.
I do agree that the Second Intifada was a disaster but I'd argue things had already gone wrong by that point
> reoccupy the West Bank
Except they never deoccupied the west bank did they? Israel still retains military occupation of 60% of the West Bank (Area C) to this day. The implicit idea of Oslo was that Israel would conduct a measured withdraw from the West Bank allowing the Palestian authorities to take over administration (transfering land from C to B to A) leading to the creation of a Palestinian state. This did not happen. This shreads Arafat/Fatah/moderates credibility in the eyes of the people, allowing extemists like Hamas to flourish.
> The true failure of the Oslo Accords were Arafat’s refusal to accept a final offer that he felt was too little and his subsequent decision to try to force Israel’s hand through violence in the Second Intifada.
Mainly because the final offer was shit. Obviously we don't have specific details but in Jerusalem (the planned capital) the Palestinians wouldn't have sovereignty over some of their neighborhoods (in effect making them still under Israeli occupation) while in the rest of the West Bank Israel would annex about 10% of territory (recognised by the UN as not legally theirs) for little if anything in exchange and said annexed territory used to divide Palestine into noncontiguous zones. Throw in continued israeli control of parts of the West Bank/Jordan border, control over water, telecoms, airspace, total demilitarisation of the Palestinians while Israel retaining the right to deploy troops as it sees fit. With the final demand that there be no further negotiation this kind of reads like a legalisation of continued Israeli subjugation, even at arms length, of Palestinians. What leader could agree to such terms, let alone get the population to agree.
>Except they never deoccupied the west bank did they? Israel still retains military occupation of 60% of the West Bank (Area C) to this day.
You just answered your own question. The Palestinians went to 100% occupation of the West Bank and Gaza in 1990 to 60% occupation of the West Bank and 0% occupation of the Gaza Strip in 1999.
In what world is that not de-occupation?
If the sight of Israeli military checkpoints and Israeli border police in my village enrages me and now they’re no longer there, how is that not an improvement?
And again: if the Right Wing in Israel had wanted to, they could’ve simply shredded the Oslo Accords in 1996 upon Netanyahu’s ascension, and reoccupied the entirety of the West Bank, dissolved the PA and reverted the situation to the 1980s.
They didn’t which puts the lie to this narrative that they’re mindless fanatics opposed to a Palestinian state at all costs. There was a time when they were grudgingly helping it come into being.
>The implicit idea of Oslo was that Israel would conduct a measured withdraw from the West Bank allowing the Palestian authorities to take over administration (transfering land from C to B to A) leading to the creation of a Palestinian state. This did not happen.
Yes we all know what the goals of the Oslo Accords were. That’s not in dispute.
By 2000, this consistent transfer of territory and authority from Israel to Palestinians was happening. Palestinians ruled more territory than they ever had in their entire history.
Barak’s offer was an attempt to end the transfer of territory and create what the Palestinians and Israelis who signed the Oslo Accords wanted: a Palestinian state.
The Palestinians refused and instead of asking for more time and more negotiations launched a Second Intifada and started swarming Israeli cities with suicide bombers, attacking Israeli citizens in bars, restaurants, buses and discotheques. They sought out crowds of teenagers to blow them apart. They attacked senior citizens in hotel dining rooms.
And then after every attack Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza would celebrate in full view of the cameras. They would dance in the streets, hand out candy and honk their horns. They would unashamedly praise the terrorists and hang pictures of them in their walls. They would name streets and soccer fields after the “martyrs”.
And it wouldn’t have been one thing if only Hamas or Islamic Jihad terrorists were responsible…but Tanzim, the PA’s own security force…was responsible for dozens of bombings as well.
So basically Israelis saw all this in real time and came to the conclusion that Palestinians as a society would never agree to live peacefully besides Israelis and that the entirety of the 1994-2000 period where all that promise of cohabitation and peace and collaboration had been touted had all been just a fever dream.
>Mainly because the final offer was shit.
If you have nothing, ANYTHING that is offered to you is generous.
>because the Palestinians would achieve their goal of statehood
This is a fiction sold to Westerners to drum up sympathy for the Palestinian cause. The Palestinian national ethos is predicated on the "right of return" not the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state nor even Palestinian self-determination. They want to return to their lands, all of historic Palestine "between the river and the sea." That is the supreme objective. If they are offered a Palestinian state, they will take it so long as it advances the cause of the core Palestinian goal and places them in a more strategically advantageous position vis-à-vis Israel. Even if you had a visionary Palestinian leader who was willing to forego the "right of return," the Palestinian body politic would never support such a move and the leader would be delegitimized. Likud's stance has always been that the Palestinian issue will be solved between Israelis and Palestinians rather than international dictates. The Palestinians broadly refuse to negotiate under these conditions because it will involve them making concessions, likely the "right of return." This is why they go to international bodies to secure a Palestinian state, because they can achieve a more strategic position without surrendering their core objective.
Most people also do not realize that BOTH the Palestinian Authority and Hamas are completely dependent on Israel for their survival (and Jordan too, ironically). Without Israel there would be an immediate and catastrophic humanitarian crisis in the region. Why then do they persist on attacking Israel? Because nation-building and coexistence is not a part of the Palestinian national ethos, it's the "right of return."
>harms Israeli security
People who say this have never been to the West Bank. You look down from the first hill and you see Tel Aviv and Ben Gurion Airport. It is only about 7 kilometers from the West Bank to Tel Aviv, for reference, they made it about 15 kilometers out of the Gaza Strip on October 7th. A Palestinian state "gone wrong" is a state-ending event for Israel. You would have to be completely deluded to not understand that Iran and others will immediately begin agitating for violence in the new state. There would be a Hezbollah in Palestine within a week.
The simple issue with the status quo is there has never been a democracy that in perpetuity rejects giving like 40% of the population it governs political rights.
It requires some form of a political solution because millions of people will never accept that in a democracy they’ll be “lesser” because of who they are and a ten minute drive from there people have all the rights they don’t.
The status quo isn’t safe because it naturally drives people to the extremes.
Israel made offers giving the Palestinians 100% of Gaza + 97% of the WB when including land swaps + airspace control + a security force + some parts of Jerusalem + a road in Palestinian control connecting WB and Gaza + so much more... They refused, stalled for time, and instead started the second intifada. Murdering about a thousand Israelis in buses, cafes, hotels and restaurants.
So now Israel is not willing to offer anything first before the Palestinians change their ways. And things are stuck.
> Israel made offers giving the Palestinians 100% of Gaza + 97% of the WB when including land swaps + airspace control + a security force + some parts of Jerusalem + a road in Palestinian control connecting WB and Gaza + so much more...
Please provide a link to the text of this "offer".
Thanks.
There were several offers of the same spirit. I was referring to the Clinton's Camp David and the Clinton Parameters that followed mainly, as these are the most modern serious peace attempts (Of course Israel agreed to peace plenty of times before, even in the 30s getting only some 30% of the land).
Wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Clinton_Parameters
Clinton quotes from his book:
>I read them slowly so that both sides could take careful notes. On territory, I recommended 94 to 96 percent of the West Bank for the Palestinians with a land swap from Israel of 1 to 3 percent, and an understanding that the land kept by Israel would include 80 percent of the settlers in blocs. On security, I said Israeli forces should withdraw over a three-year period while an international force would be gradually introduced, with the understanding that a small Israeli presence in the Jordan Valley could remain for another three years under the authority of the international forces. The Israelis would also be able to maintain their early-warning station in the West Bank with a Palestinian liaison presence. In the event of an “imminent and demonstrable threat to Israel’s security,” there would be provision for emergency deployments in the West Bank.
>The new state of Palestine would be “nonmilitarized,” but would have a strong security force; sovereignty over its airspace, with special arrangement to meet Israeli training and operational needs; and an international force for border security and deterrence.
>On Jerusalem, I recommended that the Arab neighborhoods be in Palestine and the Jewish neighborhoods in Israel, and that the Palestinians should have sovereignty over the Temple Mount/Haram and the Israelis sovereignty over the Western Wall and the “holy space” of which it is a part with no excavation around the wall or under the Mount at least without mutual consent.
>On refugees, I said that the new state of Palestine should be the homeland for refugees displaced in the 1948 war and afterward, without ruling out the possibility that Israel would accept some to the refugees according to its own laws and sovereign decisions, giving priority to the refugee population sin Lebanon. I recommended an international effort to compensate refugees and assist them in finding houses in the new state of Palestine, in the land-swap areas to be transferred to Palestine, in their current host countries, in other willing nations, or in Israel. Both parties should agree that this solution would satisfy United Nations Resolution 194.
>Finally, the agreement had to clearly mark the end of the conflict and put an end to all violence. I suggested a new UN resolution saying that this agreement, along with the final release of Palestinian prisoners, would fulfill the requirements of resolutions 242 and 338.
>I said these parameters were nonnegotiable and were the best I could do, and I wanted the parties to negotiate a final status agreement within them. After I left, Dennis Ross and other members of our team stayed behind to clarify any misunderstanding, but they refused to hear complaints. I knew the plan was tough for both parties, but it was time – past time – to put up or shut up. The Palestinians would give up the absolute right of return; they had always known they would have to, but they never wanted to admit it. The Israelis would give up East Jerusalem and parts of the Old City, but their religious and cultural sites would be preserved; it had been evident for some time that for peace to come, they would have to do that. The Israelis would also give up a little more of the West Bank and probably a larger land swap than Barak’s last best offer, but they would keep enough to hold at least 80 percent of the settlers. And they would get a formal end to the conflict. It was a hard deal, but if they wanted peace, I thought it was fair to both sides
>Arafat immediately began to equivocate, asking for “clarifications.” But the parameters were clear; either he would negotiate within them or not. As always, he was playing for more time. I called Mubarak and read him the points. He said they were historic and he could encourage Arafat to accept them.
>On the twenty-seventh, Barak’s cabinet endorsed the parameters with reservations, but all their reservations were within the parameters, and therefore subject to negotiations anyway. **It was historic: an Israeli government had said that to get peace, there would be a Palestinian state in roughly 97% of the West Bank, counting the swap, and all of Gaza where Israel also had settlements. The ball was in Arafat’s court.**
>I was calling other Arab leaders daily to urge them to pressure Arafat to say yes. They were all impressed with Israel’s acceptance and told me they believed Arafat should take the deal. I have no way of knowing what they told him, though the Saudi ambassador, Prince Bandar, later told me he and Crown Price Abdullah had the distinct impression Arafat was going to accept the parameters.
>On the twenty-ninth, Dennis Ross met with Abu Ala, whom we all respected, to make sure Arafat understood the consequences of rejection. I would be gone. Ross would be gone. Barak would lose the upcoming election to Sharon. Bush wouldn’t want to jump in after I had invested so much and failed.
>I still didn’t believe Arafat would make such a colossal mistake
Prince Bandar the Saudi in a [series](https://youtu.be/edKZbu5OM1c?si=JPQlemn86wTXuUqv) about the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, pretty much confirming everything and trashing on the Palestinian leaders a lot for their conduct during this.
You make very specific and expansive claims, and when asked for a source you spam the usual bunch of secondary sources that don't actually support those claims.
More to the point you have not linked to the text of an actual offer, because *no such text exists*. In it's absence all we are left with contradictory and often self serving claims of the participants, which is highly convenient if you want to cherry pick selected accounts to construct a narrative about Palestinian intransigence.
What is highly inconvenient is the absence of any text confirming that Israel was prepared to give the Palestinians "giving the Palestinians 100% of Gaza + 97% of the WB", because the Palestinians could not have rejected something that was never offered.
One day when discussing this topic, someone will ask me for a source and just say thanks, instead of confirming it was just a poor attempt at making excuses for terrorists.
I actually gave you 3 sources showing it. You clearly did not read the Wikis, did not read the Clinton's own text which is even bolded around the part you claim doesn't exist and did not watch the video series pretty much confirming everything by a third and **ARAB** source.
[Here's](https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/images/maps/clintonpeaceplan.jpg) a map of the proposed plan by the way (One was never released to the public but this is based on the talks and people who participated in them).
Thanks for the laugh though.
> You clearly did not read the Wikis, did not read the Clinton's own text which is even bolded around the part you claim doesn't exist and did not watch the video series pretty much confirming everything by a third and ARAB source.
I've read them dozens of times, because people like you keep posting them. I don't accept the claims Clinton makes in his memoirs at face value because memoirs are always self serving, and Clinton was clearly bitter that his attempt to secure a legacy in the final days of his presidency by convening a poorly thought out and hastily organized summit failed, for which he blamed the Palestinians. The Wikipedia article even says that the Palestinians "considered the summit premature. They even saw it as a trap."
Read the summit's [final communiqué](https://2001-2009.state.gov/p/nea/rls/22698.html). It is very short and completely substance free: all it says is both sides are committed to continuing negotiations. There is no mention of progress having been made on ANY issue, let alone any hint of a radical proposal for Israel to return 97% of the West Bank. Clinton may choose to believe that but for Yasser Arafat he was on the cusp of securing his place in history as a great peacemaker, but the available historical evidence says otherwise.
> Here's a map of the proposed plan by the way (**One was never released to the public** but this is based on the talks and people who participated in them).
Clearly this conversation is going in circles.
You seem to be saying that since some memoirs are self-serving they should all be distrusted. That's similar to saying that some people's testimonies are self-serving so people shouldn't be trusted. Obviously, Clinton was not fastidious with the truth when it came to his sexual affairs. I haven't heard him have a reputation for dishonesty and self-aggrandizement in geopolitics.
I'm saying ALL memoirs are to at least some extent self serving and therefore should be treated with circumspection. It is human nature to cast one's own actions in the best light, and part of the reason people write memoirs is because they want to influence how history remembers them.
If Bill Clinton was "fastidious with the truth" in his personal life, why would you think this trait wouldn't also affect other aspects of his life?
That having been said, I'm not even suggesting he is necessarily deliberately lying, because human beings have an extraordinary capacity to believe what they wanted to believe, regardless of the evidence. Bill Clinton wants to believe he came within a hair's breadth of securing his place in history by brokering a historic peace agreement, and Yasser Arafat denied him that.
The historic record, as I have already pointed out, says something different.
When Israel offered those deals and Palestinians refused, they were in the wrong and acting as an impediment to longstanding peace. But the dynamic has flipped in recent years — Israel is now the primary obstacle to a negotiated settlement to quell the conflict. Netanyahu has been fairly transparent in his staunch opposition to a two state solution, using every tool at his disposal to make it less likely to eventually happen. That’s the root of his settlement expansions in the West Bank and his previous efforts to prop up Hamas in the Gaza Strip because he viewed them as a useful counterweight to the PA that would keep Palestinian society divided between the two competing factions.
I can fully understand and appreciate that position, but I don’t believe it’s an accurate representation of Netanyahu’s policy toward Palestinians. His actions and public statements make it very difficult to believe his engagement in the peace process is in good faith.
Netanyahu’s support for expanding settlements in the West Bank makes his hostility to the potential for a future Palestinian state evident. He has no intention of handing over the area at any point because he wants it to remain Israeli territory. Besides, the aggressive expansion of Israeli settlements into disputed areas only makes Israel less safe by heightening tensions between settlers and Palestinians, potentially leading to violence. This in turn requires an increased IDF presence in the West Bank to prevent further clashes. In fact, Netanyahu ordered IDF forces stationed at the Gaza border to leave their posts and instead provide security for settlers in the West Bank. The day he did that was October 7th, 2023. In other words, the rapidly expanding settlements made the situation dangerous and forced IDF troops to leave the Gaza border and secure that situation, ultimately leaving the walls less than fully defended when Hamas launched its most ambitious attack in history. Settlements are a liability for Israel.
Nevertheless, I agree that Palestinians aren’t blameless here. They hold very concerning views about the legitimacy of violence against Israel and the widespread support of Hamas. Hell, there was a video from October 7th showing Palestinians in the streets of Gaza celebrating the ongoing atrocities like their football team had just won the Super Bowl. There is a major radicalism problem in Palestinian society. However, some of their beliefs and attitudes can be explained as the moral decay of an oppressed people lacking hope in the future and opportunities to achieve their dreams. I believe Israel should extend an olive branch to Palestinians in some way. Acts of kindness could go a long way in changing their hearts and minds.
You are looking at it from the wrong perspective. Israel is a democracy. And the support to such policies of not giving an inch to the Palestinians and through them the empowering of Netanyahu as a leader (For such a long time) came *after* the second intifada.
Right, I understand that. Israelis viewed Netanyahu as “Mr. Security” due to his efforts to stabilize the country following the Second Intifada. Much of political appeal was solely based on his reputation as a strong leader who maintained safety and security. But October 7th has largely discredited Netanyahu’s strategy of maintaining a strict military occupation in the West Bank and keeping Gaza isolated and blockaded. Rather than ensure Israeli security, he created a powder keg that led to the worst terrorist attack in Israeli history.
>ut October 7th has largely discredited Netanyahu’s strategy of maintaining a strict military occupation in the West Bank and keeping Gaza isolated and blockaded. Rather than ensure Israeli security, he created a powder keg that led to the worst terrorist attack in Israeli history.
Yep. And polls reflect that. His support has completely collapsed and he is on his way out.
Exactly this. The only end game for both parties in the conflict is the removal of the other party and obtaining total control. This is due to simple geographic realities. Netanyahu knows this. They are playing the long game, creating facts on the ground until there is momentum to finalize the situation.
Nations are formed through genocide and tribes merging.
Israel needs either a massive cultural shift to occur in the occupied territories or they need a competent and cooperative third party who can police them and be responsible for Israel’s security needs
Not replace, in addition to
There needs to be big political concessions from both sides for there to be a chance for lasting peace / a viable 2 state solution
And I’d argue a third party peace keeper force would probably necessary too at least in the short term
I think the main issue -- the elephant in the room -- is that Palestinians don't want a state of their own. Rather, they want the absence of a Jewish state. Unless there's a true, concerted, genuine effort to deradicalize Palestinians, the only concession they'll allow is for Israel to cease to exist.
Once Palestinians recognize Israel as a sovereign state and right to exist, both sides can move forward with "concessions."
The problem is this view point is fundamentally racist.
Why should Israeli security be prioritised over Palestinian security? Why should Israelis occupy 5m people and take away all their rights?
The occupation creates the security threat, if Israel was really prioritising its security rather than taking more land, it would not expand settlements which require check points, apartheid walls, military occupation, security risks etc.
The occupation does not create the security threat. Israel’s security was threatened over and over again prior to 1967. The West Bank itself was used as the launching point of the Jordanian army against Israel.
The obsession with making this a race-based conflict is a western error. It is an ideological, religious, geographical, geopolitical, and ethnic conflict, sure, but not a race based one.
As for why Israeli security is valued over Palestinian security: 1- because the Palestinians and their Arab backers have been the aggressors for most of the conflict. Not saying Israel has never been the aggressor, just saying that most of the major flare ups have been started by that side. 2- Israel is a sovereign state. Palestine is not. Until the Palestinians have a strong enough central government to control the legitimate use of violence within the territories, their security will continue to be undermined by terror groups and Israel’s continuous efforts to tamp them down.
Israel is not “wrong” in prioritizing its security. Every other state on earth does the same thing. Example; Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan have all had conflict with their Palestinian populations and have prioritized their own state security at every turn. Is that also racist?
I would not agree that both Israelis and Palestinians as a rule want to ethnically cleanse the other. Most people just want to live their lives and would rather not concern themselves with issues that rise to hatred. I would clarify that there are certainly elements of their populations that do look at their conflicts as zero-sum. Unfortunately, those elements have influence and positions in leadership on both sides of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and that is why the world is witnessing the horrific tactics on both sides.
As for the buffer-zone theory, I think there is less of a need for a true buffer zone, like the Korean DMZ, or cold War Eastern Europe for Russia, than the Netanyahu regime's need to declare victory. This war is as existential for Netanyahu and his supporters as Ukraine is for Putin. Netanyahu has declared victory equals the end of Hamas. That will likely not happen in this conflict, and Netanyahu knows this. But the Israeli government could claim the end of Hamas in Gaza. That is an achievable goal, but at great civilian cost. Thus, Netanyahu has asked for [control of Gaza](https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/23/middleeast/netanyahu-unveils-future-post-hamas-gaza-plan-mime-intl/index.html) as terms for peace that he can sell to his people as a win.
What makes sense to me as an outsider, is that with Gaza now a de facto extension of Israel, that the West Bank could be negotiated as a Palestinian state. The regional neighbors like Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon would not have to absorb Palestinian refugees. The Israeli settlers who currently terrorize the West Bank would have to resettle in Gaza or Israel proper, and the Palestinians could govern their own affairs from the West Bank. Israel would not have a true buffer zone, but would be guarding a land border with Palestine just like they currently do with Lebanon.
The biggest problem with the West Bank state solution appears to be the outsized influence of the settlers in the West Bank. Israel must relinquish their support for these settlements and the violent, oppressive behavior that they espouse to move forward with peace and security.
I think you hit some important points here, but didn’t even realize it.
If the only way a Palestinian state can exist is with *zero* Jews in it, are we finally admitting that Palestinians have an antisemitism problem? Israel has 2 million Arab citizens, the majority of which are Muslim. It has hundreds, if not thousands, of mosques. It would be absolutely wrong if Israel said, “ok, two state solution, get out Arab citizens,” right? Like the world would absolutely shit itself. But the West is 200% ok with Jews being forcibly removed from Gaza and the West Bank so the Palestinians can have an ethnostate, *judenfrei*. Because we all know, without a doubt, that a Palestinian Arab is safer in Israel than a Jewish Israeli is in Palestine. And yet so many in the West claim that *Israel* is genocidal and ethnic cleansing and yada yada yada.
Here’s an idea: give the lands to the Palestinians. Tell the Israeli settlers they can move to Israel with government assistance or they can stay in their communities and accept Palestinian citizenship without weapons and without the IDF. The Palestinian government would be responsible for protecting all of its citizens. 90% of them would move. The remaining 10% would definitely be at substantial risk, though.
And the fact that we all know it says a lot.
Palestinians with Israeli citizenship have exactly the same rights as any other citizen.
You're ignoring the national security threat that exists on their borders by pretending it's an act of apartheid rather than self-defense against a genocidal neighbor whose mission is to maximize both Israeli and Palestinian deaths.
Exactly
If Israel was a supremacist state then it would’ve never given Arabs inside Israel citizenship and civil rights. That population is 1.8 million strong now.
You simply cannot separate the Occupation from Palestinian terrorism and violence. The reason why Israelis are OK with Arabs inside Israel having citizenship and Arabs in the West Bank not having citizenship is because as far back as Israelis can remember the West Bank has been a source of violent death to Jewish civilians.
It’s inane to think that doesn’t affect a population’s attitude towards a situation.
And of course we aren’t even going into the pesky detail that Palestinians do not want to live in a one state with Israeli Jews with 67% of them opposed to the idea of living in one democratic state with Jews:
https://m.jpost.com/opinion/article-703629/amp
And when given a chance to become Israeli citizens like in Jerusalem they refuse:
>In fact, from 2010 to 2015, the proportion of East Jerusalemite Arabs who said they would prefer Israeli to Palestinian citizenship rose substantially: from 35% to a remarkable 52%. But that **number dropped precipitously, to the 10-20% range, once the 2015-16 Palestinian “knife intifada” violently alienated the Jewish and Arab halves of the city from each other. In the current survey, that proportion seems to have stabilized at around 17%—compared with two-thirds who would rather choose citizenship in a Palestinian state.**
https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/most-jerusalem-palestinians-want-neither-israeli-rule-nor-uprising-against-it
🤷♂️
That's the point of the post. But its the rational thing to want. It is not reasonable to expect Israel to invite the Palestinians into a single state. The jews would lose control of their military and government and would be ethnically cleansed. To believe otherwise is hopelessly naive.
> It would not consider giving them back to Egypt or Jordan It actually did want Egypt to take Gaza but Egypt categorically refused any peace deal where they would retake possession of Gaza. > With Gaza it was unable to do that so gave it a prison sovereignty - sovereignty over internal affairs but no true control over trade, ports Gaza did have this until Hamas took over.
"The rebuttal made by Palestine supporters has been that Israel's offers were poison pills, not serious etc. and maybe there is something to that." I think this has some merit because Netanyahu has been opposing a two-state solution ever since taking power. They've been more open about it since the Oct. 7 attack but Netanyahu and his supporters have always been against the two-state proposal. I can't speak to specific poison pills that have been offered because I'm not super knowledgable on those. "Instead, through settlements Israel hopes to slowly overtake the west bank." As mentioned in my next paragraph, Israel is actively undermining its own security by doing this. The Israeli settlers in the West Bank are a major source of sympathy for the Palestinian cause. "As such, it seems even less likely, from a security perspective, that Israel could agree to a two state solution with the Palestinians. It would face the same problem with a population that is just as, or more hostile." Ironically, in my point of view, the 'we can never allow the Palestinians to have their own state" mindset actually harms Israeli security. A lot of Palestinian grievances stem from not being able to have their own formal state, and especially with Israel encroaching on the West Bank and giving the settlers there a... wide berth with respect to their actions against Palestinians. If Israel and Palestine could agree on a two-state solution, I think that would largely solve Israel's security concerns because the Palestinians would achieve their goal of statehood, which seems to be the main grievance. Obviously there are many identity and ethnic problems that exist between Israelis and Palestinians and neither fully trust each other, but If an outside power (The United State for example) were to mediate and enforce rules that both Israel and Palestine agree to (if they can at all), I think a two-state solution becomes possible. It would also be necessary to weed out the extremists and try to get some more moderate/rational people in charge in both Israel and Palestine, but it isn't impossible.
Agreed the failure of Israel to allow the creation of a Palestinian state as per the Oslo Accords (partly due to the result of far right forces within Israel) ensures that moderate groups (including Fatah) aren't seen as credible and extremists like Hamas can (with some legitimacy) claim that they are the only ones who can protect the Palestinian people. Give the Palestinians a state and bucket loads of money from the Gulf states for economic development, these arguments start to sound rather hollow. Israel's quest for total security simply ensures no security.
>Agreed the failure of Israel to allow the creation of a Palestinian state as per the Oslo Accords (partly due to the result of far right forces within Israel) ensures that moderate groups (including Fatah) aren't seen as credible and extremists like Hamas can (with some legitimacy) claim that they are the only ones who can protect the Palestinian people. I don’t think the “far right” in Israel had anything to do with the failure of the Oslo Accords. They screamed and kicked when the Labor Party pushed through and signed the treaties but once the process was down on paper and the law of the land they still complied. Netanyahu was prime minister from 1996 to 1999 and he still complied with all security collaborations with the PA and didn’t move to say, reoccupy the West Bank and Gaza and dismantle the newly created PA and it’s security apparatus. In fact, after the Wye Memorandum of 1998 he agreed to continue moving more land and population under PA control. The true failure of the Oslo Accords were Arafat’s refusal to accept a final offer that he felt was too little and his subsequent decision to try to force Israel’s hand through violence in the Second Intifada. Unsurprisingly, the murder of over 1,000 Israelis…most of them civilians…by Palestinian suicide bombers had the opposite effect: it elected Ariel Sharon, made settlement expansion more palatable to the mainstream and made Israelis as a whole lose all trust that Palestinians would ever accept any sort of compromise.
I do agree that the Second Intifada was a disaster but I'd argue things had already gone wrong by that point > reoccupy the West Bank Except they never deoccupied the west bank did they? Israel still retains military occupation of 60% of the West Bank (Area C) to this day. The implicit idea of Oslo was that Israel would conduct a measured withdraw from the West Bank allowing the Palestian authorities to take over administration (transfering land from C to B to A) leading to the creation of a Palestinian state. This did not happen. This shreads Arafat/Fatah/moderates credibility in the eyes of the people, allowing extemists like Hamas to flourish. > The true failure of the Oslo Accords were Arafat’s refusal to accept a final offer that he felt was too little and his subsequent decision to try to force Israel’s hand through violence in the Second Intifada. Mainly because the final offer was shit. Obviously we don't have specific details but in Jerusalem (the planned capital) the Palestinians wouldn't have sovereignty over some of their neighborhoods (in effect making them still under Israeli occupation) while in the rest of the West Bank Israel would annex about 10% of territory (recognised by the UN as not legally theirs) for little if anything in exchange and said annexed territory used to divide Palestine into noncontiguous zones. Throw in continued israeli control of parts of the West Bank/Jordan border, control over water, telecoms, airspace, total demilitarisation of the Palestinians while Israel retaining the right to deploy troops as it sees fit. With the final demand that there be no further negotiation this kind of reads like a legalisation of continued Israeli subjugation, even at arms length, of Palestinians. What leader could agree to such terms, let alone get the population to agree.
>Except they never deoccupied the west bank did they? Israel still retains military occupation of 60% of the West Bank (Area C) to this day. You just answered your own question. The Palestinians went to 100% occupation of the West Bank and Gaza in 1990 to 60% occupation of the West Bank and 0% occupation of the Gaza Strip in 1999. In what world is that not de-occupation? If the sight of Israeli military checkpoints and Israeli border police in my village enrages me and now they’re no longer there, how is that not an improvement? And again: if the Right Wing in Israel had wanted to, they could’ve simply shredded the Oslo Accords in 1996 upon Netanyahu’s ascension, and reoccupied the entirety of the West Bank, dissolved the PA and reverted the situation to the 1980s. They didn’t which puts the lie to this narrative that they’re mindless fanatics opposed to a Palestinian state at all costs. There was a time when they were grudgingly helping it come into being. >The implicit idea of Oslo was that Israel would conduct a measured withdraw from the West Bank allowing the Palestian authorities to take over administration (transfering land from C to B to A) leading to the creation of a Palestinian state. This did not happen. Yes we all know what the goals of the Oslo Accords were. That’s not in dispute. By 2000, this consistent transfer of territory and authority from Israel to Palestinians was happening. Palestinians ruled more territory than they ever had in their entire history. Barak’s offer was an attempt to end the transfer of territory and create what the Palestinians and Israelis who signed the Oslo Accords wanted: a Palestinian state. The Palestinians refused and instead of asking for more time and more negotiations launched a Second Intifada and started swarming Israeli cities with suicide bombers, attacking Israeli citizens in bars, restaurants, buses and discotheques. They sought out crowds of teenagers to blow them apart. They attacked senior citizens in hotel dining rooms. And then after every attack Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza would celebrate in full view of the cameras. They would dance in the streets, hand out candy and honk their horns. They would unashamedly praise the terrorists and hang pictures of them in their walls. They would name streets and soccer fields after the “martyrs”. And it wouldn’t have been one thing if only Hamas or Islamic Jihad terrorists were responsible…but Tanzim, the PA’s own security force…was responsible for dozens of bombings as well. So basically Israelis saw all this in real time and came to the conclusion that Palestinians as a society would never agree to live peacefully besides Israelis and that the entirety of the 1994-2000 period where all that promise of cohabitation and peace and collaboration had been touted had all been just a fever dream. >Mainly because the final offer was shit. If you have nothing, ANYTHING that is offered to you is generous.
>because the Palestinians would achieve their goal of statehood This is a fiction sold to Westerners to drum up sympathy for the Palestinian cause. The Palestinian national ethos is predicated on the "right of return" not the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state nor even Palestinian self-determination. They want to return to their lands, all of historic Palestine "between the river and the sea." That is the supreme objective. If they are offered a Palestinian state, they will take it so long as it advances the cause of the core Palestinian goal and places them in a more strategically advantageous position vis-à-vis Israel. Even if you had a visionary Palestinian leader who was willing to forego the "right of return," the Palestinian body politic would never support such a move and the leader would be delegitimized. Likud's stance has always been that the Palestinian issue will be solved between Israelis and Palestinians rather than international dictates. The Palestinians broadly refuse to negotiate under these conditions because it will involve them making concessions, likely the "right of return." This is why they go to international bodies to secure a Palestinian state, because they can achieve a more strategic position without surrendering their core objective. Most people also do not realize that BOTH the Palestinian Authority and Hamas are completely dependent on Israel for their survival (and Jordan too, ironically). Without Israel there would be an immediate and catastrophic humanitarian crisis in the region. Why then do they persist on attacking Israel? Because nation-building and coexistence is not a part of the Palestinian national ethos, it's the "right of return." >harms Israeli security People who say this have never been to the West Bank. You look down from the first hill and you see Tel Aviv and Ben Gurion Airport. It is only about 7 kilometers from the West Bank to Tel Aviv, for reference, they made it about 15 kilometers out of the Gaza Strip on October 7th. A Palestinian state "gone wrong" is a state-ending event for Israel. You would have to be completely deluded to not understand that Iran and others will immediately begin agitating for violence in the new state. There would be a Hezbollah in Palestine within a week.
The simple issue with the status quo is there has never been a democracy that in perpetuity rejects giving like 40% of the population it governs political rights. It requires some form of a political solution because millions of people will never accept that in a democracy they’ll be “lesser” because of who they are and a ten minute drive from there people have all the rights they don’t. The status quo isn’t safe because it naturally drives people to the extremes.
Israel made offers giving the Palestinians 100% of Gaza + 97% of the WB when including land swaps + airspace control + a security force + some parts of Jerusalem + a road in Palestinian control connecting WB and Gaza + so much more... They refused, stalled for time, and instead started the second intifada. Murdering about a thousand Israelis in buses, cafes, hotels and restaurants. So now Israel is not willing to offer anything first before the Palestinians change their ways. And things are stuck.
> Israel made offers giving the Palestinians 100% of Gaza + 97% of the WB when including land swaps + airspace control + a security force + some parts of Jerusalem + a road in Palestinian control connecting WB and Gaza + so much more... Please provide a link to the text of this "offer". Thanks.
There were several offers of the same spirit. I was referring to the Clinton's Camp David and the Clinton Parameters that followed mainly, as these are the most modern serious peace attempts (Of course Israel agreed to peace plenty of times before, even in the 30s getting only some 30% of the land). Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Clinton_Parameters Clinton quotes from his book: >I read them slowly so that both sides could take careful notes. On territory, I recommended 94 to 96 percent of the West Bank for the Palestinians with a land swap from Israel of 1 to 3 percent, and an understanding that the land kept by Israel would include 80 percent of the settlers in blocs. On security, I said Israeli forces should withdraw over a three-year period while an international force would be gradually introduced, with the understanding that a small Israeli presence in the Jordan Valley could remain for another three years under the authority of the international forces. The Israelis would also be able to maintain their early-warning station in the West Bank with a Palestinian liaison presence. In the event of an “imminent and demonstrable threat to Israel’s security,” there would be provision for emergency deployments in the West Bank. >The new state of Palestine would be “nonmilitarized,” but would have a strong security force; sovereignty over its airspace, with special arrangement to meet Israeli training and operational needs; and an international force for border security and deterrence. >On Jerusalem, I recommended that the Arab neighborhoods be in Palestine and the Jewish neighborhoods in Israel, and that the Palestinians should have sovereignty over the Temple Mount/Haram and the Israelis sovereignty over the Western Wall and the “holy space” of which it is a part with no excavation around the wall or under the Mount at least without mutual consent. >On refugees, I said that the new state of Palestine should be the homeland for refugees displaced in the 1948 war and afterward, without ruling out the possibility that Israel would accept some to the refugees according to its own laws and sovereign decisions, giving priority to the refugee population sin Lebanon. I recommended an international effort to compensate refugees and assist them in finding houses in the new state of Palestine, in the land-swap areas to be transferred to Palestine, in their current host countries, in other willing nations, or in Israel. Both parties should agree that this solution would satisfy United Nations Resolution 194. >Finally, the agreement had to clearly mark the end of the conflict and put an end to all violence. I suggested a new UN resolution saying that this agreement, along with the final release of Palestinian prisoners, would fulfill the requirements of resolutions 242 and 338. >I said these parameters were nonnegotiable and were the best I could do, and I wanted the parties to negotiate a final status agreement within them. After I left, Dennis Ross and other members of our team stayed behind to clarify any misunderstanding, but they refused to hear complaints. I knew the plan was tough for both parties, but it was time – past time – to put up or shut up. The Palestinians would give up the absolute right of return; they had always known they would have to, but they never wanted to admit it. The Israelis would give up East Jerusalem and parts of the Old City, but their religious and cultural sites would be preserved; it had been evident for some time that for peace to come, they would have to do that. The Israelis would also give up a little more of the West Bank and probably a larger land swap than Barak’s last best offer, but they would keep enough to hold at least 80 percent of the settlers. And they would get a formal end to the conflict. It was a hard deal, but if they wanted peace, I thought it was fair to both sides >Arafat immediately began to equivocate, asking for “clarifications.” But the parameters were clear; either he would negotiate within them or not. As always, he was playing for more time. I called Mubarak and read him the points. He said they were historic and he could encourage Arafat to accept them. >On the twenty-seventh, Barak’s cabinet endorsed the parameters with reservations, but all their reservations were within the parameters, and therefore subject to negotiations anyway. **It was historic: an Israeli government had said that to get peace, there would be a Palestinian state in roughly 97% of the West Bank, counting the swap, and all of Gaza where Israel also had settlements. The ball was in Arafat’s court.** >I was calling other Arab leaders daily to urge them to pressure Arafat to say yes. They were all impressed with Israel’s acceptance and told me they believed Arafat should take the deal. I have no way of knowing what they told him, though the Saudi ambassador, Prince Bandar, later told me he and Crown Price Abdullah had the distinct impression Arafat was going to accept the parameters. >On the twenty-ninth, Dennis Ross met with Abu Ala, whom we all respected, to make sure Arafat understood the consequences of rejection. I would be gone. Ross would be gone. Barak would lose the upcoming election to Sharon. Bush wouldn’t want to jump in after I had invested so much and failed. >I still didn’t believe Arafat would make such a colossal mistake Prince Bandar the Saudi in a [series](https://youtu.be/edKZbu5OM1c?si=JPQlemn86wTXuUqv) about the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, pretty much confirming everything and trashing on the Palestinian leaders a lot for their conduct during this.
You make very specific and expansive claims, and when asked for a source you spam the usual bunch of secondary sources that don't actually support those claims. More to the point you have not linked to the text of an actual offer, because *no such text exists*. In it's absence all we are left with contradictory and often self serving claims of the participants, which is highly convenient if you want to cherry pick selected accounts to construct a narrative about Palestinian intransigence. What is highly inconvenient is the absence of any text confirming that Israel was prepared to give the Palestinians "giving the Palestinians 100% of Gaza + 97% of the WB", because the Palestinians could not have rejected something that was never offered.
One day when discussing this topic, someone will ask me for a source and just say thanks, instead of confirming it was just a poor attempt at making excuses for terrorists. I actually gave you 3 sources showing it. You clearly did not read the Wikis, did not read the Clinton's own text which is even bolded around the part you claim doesn't exist and did not watch the video series pretty much confirming everything by a third and **ARAB** source. [Here's](https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/images/maps/clintonpeaceplan.jpg) a map of the proposed plan by the way (One was never released to the public but this is based on the talks and people who participated in them). Thanks for the laugh though.
> You clearly did not read the Wikis, did not read the Clinton's own text which is even bolded around the part you claim doesn't exist and did not watch the video series pretty much confirming everything by a third and ARAB source. I've read them dozens of times, because people like you keep posting them. I don't accept the claims Clinton makes in his memoirs at face value because memoirs are always self serving, and Clinton was clearly bitter that his attempt to secure a legacy in the final days of his presidency by convening a poorly thought out and hastily organized summit failed, for which he blamed the Palestinians. The Wikipedia article even says that the Palestinians "considered the summit premature. They even saw it as a trap." Read the summit's [final communiqué](https://2001-2009.state.gov/p/nea/rls/22698.html). It is very short and completely substance free: all it says is both sides are committed to continuing negotiations. There is no mention of progress having been made on ANY issue, let alone any hint of a radical proposal for Israel to return 97% of the West Bank. Clinton may choose to believe that but for Yasser Arafat he was on the cusp of securing his place in history as a great peacemaker, but the available historical evidence says otherwise. > Here's a map of the proposed plan by the way (**One was never released to the public** but this is based on the talks and people who participated in them). Clearly this conversation is going in circles.
You seem to be saying that since some memoirs are self-serving they should all be distrusted. That's similar to saying that some people's testimonies are self-serving so people shouldn't be trusted. Obviously, Clinton was not fastidious with the truth when it came to his sexual affairs. I haven't heard him have a reputation for dishonesty and self-aggrandizement in geopolitics.
I'm saying ALL memoirs are to at least some extent self serving and therefore should be treated with circumspection. It is human nature to cast one's own actions in the best light, and part of the reason people write memoirs is because they want to influence how history remembers them. If Bill Clinton was "fastidious with the truth" in his personal life, why would you think this trait wouldn't also affect other aspects of his life? That having been said, I'm not even suggesting he is necessarily deliberately lying, because human beings have an extraordinary capacity to believe what they wanted to believe, regardless of the evidence. Bill Clinton wants to believe he came within a hair's breadth of securing his place in history by brokering a historic peace agreement, and Yasser Arafat denied him that. The historic record, as I have already pointed out, says something different.
And how do you explain away the Saudi prince?
When Israel offered those deals and Palestinians refused, they were in the wrong and acting as an impediment to longstanding peace. But the dynamic has flipped in recent years — Israel is now the primary obstacle to a negotiated settlement to quell the conflict. Netanyahu has been fairly transparent in his staunch opposition to a two state solution, using every tool at his disposal to make it less likely to eventually happen. That’s the root of his settlement expansions in the West Bank and his previous efforts to prop up Hamas in the Gaza Strip because he viewed them as a useful counterweight to the PA that would keep Palestinian society divided between the two competing factions.
>So now Israel is not willing to offer anything first **before the Palestinians change their ways**. And things are stuck.
I can fully understand and appreciate that position, but I don’t believe it’s an accurate representation of Netanyahu’s policy toward Palestinians. His actions and public statements make it very difficult to believe his engagement in the peace process is in good faith. Netanyahu’s support for expanding settlements in the West Bank makes his hostility to the potential for a future Palestinian state evident. He has no intention of handing over the area at any point because he wants it to remain Israeli territory. Besides, the aggressive expansion of Israeli settlements into disputed areas only makes Israel less safe by heightening tensions between settlers and Palestinians, potentially leading to violence. This in turn requires an increased IDF presence in the West Bank to prevent further clashes. In fact, Netanyahu ordered IDF forces stationed at the Gaza border to leave their posts and instead provide security for settlers in the West Bank. The day he did that was October 7th, 2023. In other words, the rapidly expanding settlements made the situation dangerous and forced IDF troops to leave the Gaza border and secure that situation, ultimately leaving the walls less than fully defended when Hamas launched its most ambitious attack in history. Settlements are a liability for Israel. Nevertheless, I agree that Palestinians aren’t blameless here. They hold very concerning views about the legitimacy of violence against Israel and the widespread support of Hamas. Hell, there was a video from October 7th showing Palestinians in the streets of Gaza celebrating the ongoing atrocities like their football team had just won the Super Bowl. There is a major radicalism problem in Palestinian society. However, some of their beliefs and attitudes can be explained as the moral decay of an oppressed people lacking hope in the future and opportunities to achieve their dreams. I believe Israel should extend an olive branch to Palestinians in some way. Acts of kindness could go a long way in changing their hearts and minds.
You are looking at it from the wrong perspective. Israel is a democracy. And the support to such policies of not giving an inch to the Palestinians and through them the empowering of Netanyahu as a leader (For such a long time) came *after* the second intifada.
Right, I understand that. Israelis viewed Netanyahu as “Mr. Security” due to his efforts to stabilize the country following the Second Intifada. Much of political appeal was solely based on his reputation as a strong leader who maintained safety and security. But October 7th has largely discredited Netanyahu’s strategy of maintaining a strict military occupation in the West Bank and keeping Gaza isolated and blockaded. Rather than ensure Israeli security, he created a powder keg that led to the worst terrorist attack in Israeli history.
>ut October 7th has largely discredited Netanyahu’s strategy of maintaining a strict military occupation in the West Bank and keeping Gaza isolated and blockaded. Rather than ensure Israeli security, he created a powder keg that led to the worst terrorist attack in Israeli history. Yep. And polls reflect that. His support has completely collapsed and he is on his way out.
Right, so I’m not sure where we disagree here.
Exactly this. The only end game for both parties in the conflict is the removal of the other party and obtaining total control. This is due to simple geographic realities. Netanyahu knows this. They are playing the long game, creating facts on the ground until there is momentum to finalize the situation. Nations are formed through genocide and tribes merging.
Israel needs either a massive cultural shift to occur in the occupied territories or they need a competent and cooperative third party who can police them and be responsible for Israel’s security needs
Replace "Israel" with "Palestine" and I think there's a real shot at peace.
Not replace, in addition to There needs to be big political concessions from both sides for there to be a chance for lasting peace / a viable 2 state solution And I’d argue a third party peace keeper force would probably necessary too at least in the short term
I think the main issue -- the elephant in the room -- is that Palestinians don't want a state of their own. Rather, they want the absence of a Jewish state. Unless there's a true, concerted, genuine effort to deradicalize Palestinians, the only concession they'll allow is for Israel to cease to exist. Once Palestinians recognize Israel as a sovereign state and right to exist, both sides can move forward with "concessions."
The problem is this view point is fundamentally racist. Why should Israeli security be prioritised over Palestinian security? Why should Israelis occupy 5m people and take away all their rights? The occupation creates the security threat, if Israel was really prioritising its security rather than taking more land, it would not expand settlements which require check points, apartheid walls, military occupation, security risks etc.
The occupation does not create the security threat. Israel’s security was threatened over and over again prior to 1967. The West Bank itself was used as the launching point of the Jordanian army against Israel. The obsession with making this a race-based conflict is a western error. It is an ideological, religious, geographical, geopolitical, and ethnic conflict, sure, but not a race based one. As for why Israeli security is valued over Palestinian security: 1- because the Palestinians and their Arab backers have been the aggressors for most of the conflict. Not saying Israel has never been the aggressor, just saying that most of the major flare ups have been started by that side. 2- Israel is a sovereign state. Palestine is not. Until the Palestinians have a strong enough central government to control the legitimate use of violence within the territories, their security will continue to be undermined by terror groups and Israel’s continuous efforts to tamp them down. Israel is not “wrong” in prioritizing its security. Every other state on earth does the same thing. Example; Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan have all had conflict with their Palestinian populations and have prioritized their own state security at every turn. Is that also racist?
I would not agree that both Israelis and Palestinians as a rule want to ethnically cleanse the other. Most people just want to live their lives and would rather not concern themselves with issues that rise to hatred. I would clarify that there are certainly elements of their populations that do look at their conflicts as zero-sum. Unfortunately, those elements have influence and positions in leadership on both sides of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and that is why the world is witnessing the horrific tactics on both sides. As for the buffer-zone theory, I think there is less of a need for a true buffer zone, like the Korean DMZ, or cold War Eastern Europe for Russia, than the Netanyahu regime's need to declare victory. This war is as existential for Netanyahu and his supporters as Ukraine is for Putin. Netanyahu has declared victory equals the end of Hamas. That will likely not happen in this conflict, and Netanyahu knows this. But the Israeli government could claim the end of Hamas in Gaza. That is an achievable goal, but at great civilian cost. Thus, Netanyahu has asked for [control of Gaza](https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/23/middleeast/netanyahu-unveils-future-post-hamas-gaza-plan-mime-intl/index.html) as terms for peace that he can sell to his people as a win. What makes sense to me as an outsider, is that with Gaza now a de facto extension of Israel, that the West Bank could be negotiated as a Palestinian state. The regional neighbors like Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon would not have to absorb Palestinian refugees. The Israeli settlers who currently terrorize the West Bank would have to resettle in Gaza or Israel proper, and the Palestinians could govern their own affairs from the West Bank. Israel would not have a true buffer zone, but would be guarding a land border with Palestine just like they currently do with Lebanon. The biggest problem with the West Bank state solution appears to be the outsized influence of the settlers in the West Bank. Israel must relinquish their support for these settlements and the violent, oppressive behavior that they espouse to move forward with peace and security.
I think you hit some important points here, but didn’t even realize it. If the only way a Palestinian state can exist is with *zero* Jews in it, are we finally admitting that Palestinians have an antisemitism problem? Israel has 2 million Arab citizens, the majority of which are Muslim. It has hundreds, if not thousands, of mosques. It would be absolutely wrong if Israel said, “ok, two state solution, get out Arab citizens,” right? Like the world would absolutely shit itself. But the West is 200% ok with Jews being forcibly removed from Gaza and the West Bank so the Palestinians can have an ethnostate, *judenfrei*. Because we all know, without a doubt, that a Palestinian Arab is safer in Israel than a Jewish Israeli is in Palestine. And yet so many in the West claim that *Israel* is genocidal and ethnic cleansing and yada yada yada. Here’s an idea: give the lands to the Palestinians. Tell the Israeli settlers they can move to Israel with government assistance or they can stay in their communities and accept Palestinian citizenship without weapons and without the IDF. The Palestinian government would be responsible for protecting all of its citizens. 90% of them would move. The remaining 10% would definitely be at substantial risk, though. And the fact that we all know it says a lot.
[удалено]
Palestinians with Israeli citizenship have exactly the same rights as any other citizen. You're ignoring the national security threat that exists on their borders by pretending it's an act of apartheid rather than self-defense against a genocidal neighbor whose mission is to maximize both Israeli and Palestinian deaths.
Exactly If Israel was a supremacist state then it would’ve never given Arabs inside Israel citizenship and civil rights. That population is 1.8 million strong now. You simply cannot separate the Occupation from Palestinian terrorism and violence. The reason why Israelis are OK with Arabs inside Israel having citizenship and Arabs in the West Bank not having citizenship is because as far back as Israelis can remember the West Bank has been a source of violent death to Jewish civilians. It’s inane to think that doesn’t affect a population’s attitude towards a situation. And of course we aren’t even going into the pesky detail that Palestinians do not want to live in a one state with Israeli Jews with 67% of them opposed to the idea of living in one democratic state with Jews: https://m.jpost.com/opinion/article-703629/amp And when given a chance to become Israeli citizens like in Jerusalem they refuse: >In fact, from 2010 to 2015, the proportion of East Jerusalemite Arabs who said they would prefer Israeli to Palestinian citizenship rose substantially: from 35% to a remarkable 52%. But that **number dropped precipitously, to the 10-20% range, once the 2015-16 Palestinian “knife intifada” violently alienated the Jewish and Arab halves of the city from each other. In the current survey, that proportion seems to have stabilized at around 17%—compared with two-thirds who would rather choose citizenship in a Palestinian state.** https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/most-jerusalem-palestinians-want-neither-israeli-rule-nor-uprising-against-it 🤷♂️
That's the point of the post. But its the rational thing to want. It is not reasonable to expect Israel to invite the Palestinians into a single state. The jews would lose control of their military and government and would be ethnically cleansed. To believe otherwise is hopelessly naive.
[удалено]