You're viewing a single thread.
The most middle of the road opinion on Israel-Palestine issue is the two state solution. It worked on Northern Ireland with the Good Friday Agreement and it should work between Israel and Palestine. Many scholars from both sides also want to use NI peace deal as the blueprint. Compromise is the key just like with Protestants and Catholics did in Northern Ireland.
The problem is, of course radicals from both Palestine and Israel do not want this because-- well-- they're radical.
This is false. Only Israel does not want a two state solution. Even Hamas accepted it in 2017.
This is what people mean with enlightened centrism. There are no two sides preventing peace. There is only Israel preventing peace.
The 2017 Hamas charter is openly available on the Internet, and it says it still doesn't recognise Israel as a state and strive for "complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea." This is not really a two-state solution. Two states recognise each other's right to exist if this is indeed a two state solution.
Of course Hamas is not stupid like the PA. They will not recognize Israel unless Israel agrees to a two state solution.
Your arguments are the most generic Hasbara so I am not assuming you are speaking in good faith.
Hamas stated "from the river to the sea" in that charter you yourself mentioned. That could not be any more ambiguous.
They've pretty explicitly been aiming for a Palestinian state in the territories occupied since 1967. And not just recently, proposals for a permanent ceasefire (which sets the first steps towards recognition and normalization of relations) with Israel under these conditions go back to 1999. Conveniently, both Israel and the US didn't find it necessary to respond.
Hamas still doesn't recognise Israel, do they?
Does Israel recognize West Bank as Palestine?
From the article you linked:
without recognising the statehood of Israel,
Exactly the point. Both sides need to recognise each other. This isn't a sports competition. It doesn't require a PhD to figure that one out.
Yes of course they have the right to regain all their stolen land unless Israel wants to accept a deal. What is your point exactly?
Read this before typing your next comment
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/5/2/hamas-accepts-palestinian-state-with-1967-borders
without recognising the statehood of Israel
I think we can track down several times two state option was on the table, starting as early as 68
Very cool and false. But now everyone accepts it except Israel.
What is the benefit from lying? I don't get it. This is all basic info.
The two-state solution is supported by many countries, and the Palestinian Authority. Israel currently does not support the idea, though it has in the past. The first proposal for separate Jewish and Arab states in the territory was made by the British Peel Commission report in 1937.
It was also on the table at Camp David.
How does that prove they're lying about Israel currently not supporting it?
Right now they're wanting to just take the land after eliminating the people who lived there
Because I said it was on the table several times in the past. And they wrote:
Very cool and false
???
Yes because they've (Israel) always negotiated in good faith. Even the camp David accords was a 2 state solution in name only
Well, there you have it. The most unproductive statements as usual. If you don't know the specifics, why comment? Why not discuss the actual policies or the historical details? Why live in the realm of memes and buzzwords? Oh wait... I know why
Ok now explain why Israel does not accept the deal since Hamas does accept it.
I do not have to read any history to disprove your lies. I can open the news right now.
You are correct. Israel, in the present does not accept the two state solution. Hence why I was talking about the past.
-
Why was it rejected by PLO when it was on the table?.
-
Show me where Hamas is open to a two state solution.
-
What is the meaning of "from the river to the sea"
You are trying to change the topic so hard.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/5/2/hamas-accepts-palestinian-state-with-1967-borders
Why was it turned down, Geneva? Care to elaborate?
Because Israel is a Nazi esque apartheid.
Wow. What an insightful response. I stand by what I said earlier: You guys have no idea what you're talking about.
-
Yeah those radical Palestinians, not wanting half their home cut off for colonizers.
You could say the same to most modern states. Colonisation is wrong, but mistakes were made and recognised. It's impractical to deport people back to their ancestors' homeland. You can't expect white Americans and South Africans to return to Europe, or black people in the Americas to return to Africa. That's like trying to abort an already born baby. Go far back enough, and we all came from Africa and you might as well say all humans should vacate the rest of the world and return to Africa.
Countries who support Palestine also support two-state solution. Israel is there to stay and Palestine has the right to exist. It's simple as that. Frankly, any one who does not support two state solution are radicals. That goes for Israeli, Palestinians and outsiders who don't support two state solution. Someone mentioned Hamas 2017 charter, but it still doesn't recognise Israel's right to exist. And if Hamas really want a two state solution, they would not have taken hostages, many of whom are foreigners with no dog in the race. Is this really the act of freedom fighters? Had resistance fighters in World War 2 killed civilians? Last time I asked this rhetorical question to someone, the person said it's justified as price of freedom. If your answer is yes, then you are a radical and need time to think about your life.
Most people, specifically outsiders who don't even live in the region and feeling safe behind the rule of law, too opinionated on Israel and Palestine issue, don't really have a clue when they are prodded down to the kernel. They consume information from what I would call "fast food" sources and from biased ones, and thus adopt radical stances. Two state solution IS the solution.
Go far back enough, and we all came from Africa and you might as well say all humans should vacate the rest of the world and return to Africa.
You confusing migration with the colonialism. Colonialism disempowers indigenous peoples from determining how the land they lived on should be used.
Israel took the land and removed the people of that land from the land. Two states do not remediate the harm or re-empower the indigenous people to have a role in determining the use of the land. The extermination of the Israeli population is not the solution, but flooding the region with colonists in three separate ways and leveraging those people to steal more and more land was both explicit and implicit.
Have you ever looked at the two state solution map? It is insane.
Precisely why radicals on both sides need to stand down and recognise each other to create separate states. It's already too late to remove Israel as a state. Right now what should happen is Israel stop colonising West Bank and Gaza, while Israel has to allow Palestine their own state and thrive in peace.
When you're born in a country you're only a colonizer if you start conquering more territory.
The other centrist option is the zero state solution. Just glass the Levant and let any survivors fight it out mad max style while the rest of the world refuses to have any interaction with them. Unlike the two state solution, neither side had to trust, cooperate, or develop empathy and respect for the other. It's extremely expedient: any one of a handful of leaders could implement this solution within just a few minutes. And nothing says "this peace is permanent" like a charred radioactive hellscape.
My "lose lose" zero-state solution benefits over 8 billion people who will never again have to endure on the nightly news the bitching and posturing of these two mutually genocidal tribes.
Why would you bother spending all that time to write a whole paragraph of nonsense.. At least make it funny
But that is funny. Granted, I go for deadpan and maybe Lemmy isn't into satire, but it's worth at least a smirk.