Towards a sustainable peace

The issue of removing all settlements is that some have been there years now and grown adults were born there.
Plus when Jordan took over the west bank the indigenious Jewish population and any other Jewish people (I think Christians too but can't remember at the moment) where ethic cleansed from the west bank. Not one left there, all killed or had to flee to Israel. In the 60s when Israel took over the west bank 70k Jewish people returned to their houses and land. This means that not all the Jewish people in the west bank are settlers. Some are the people that returned or there offspring. So a lot more people than the original 70k

I guess there’s no reason why they would have to leave but they’d be living in Palestine rather than Israel 🤷‍♀️(if the two state solution was implemented I mean).
What was the plan for the two state solution back in 1948?.
Were people going to migrate from one place to the other or stay where they were or what?

Edit:
Also you mention Jewish people returning to West Bank as they had been living there prior to 1948 but I don’t think many of the Arabs displaced in the 1948 got to return to their homes as that was/is now part of Israel?

I definitely think that more settlements in the west bank should be stopped straight away. That any violent settlers should be removed the moment they act illegally. That anyone with a long history of violence towards the arabs should be removed straight away.

Unfortunately there is a however here. The issue of removing all settlements is that some have been there years now and grown adults were born there.
Plus when Jordan took over the west bank the indigenious Jewish population and any other Jewish people (I think Christians too but can't remember at the moment) where ethic cleansed from the west bank. Not one left there, all killed or had to flee to Israel. In the 60s when Israel took over the west bank 70k Jewish people returned to their houses and land. This means that not all the Jewish people in the west bank are settlers. Some are the people that returned or there offspring. So a lot more people than the original 70k

Then there is the issue of terrorism. When Israel moved Jewish settlements off Gaza and the IDF left too terrorism got worse. When the IDF left southern Lebanon the terrorism got worse as well actually. This suggests that at least one or a coalition of Arab states need to police the west bank and Gaza until such time the economy can get better, employment is better and things are more stable in general. An stable country will be a breeding ground for terrorism no matter what else has happened.

The state of Palestine is something we're striving towards, not something anyone is trying to get back to as it has never existed before

The idea of Israel and of Palestine came about at the same time (the two state solution). I don’t think you can really argue one can exist but the other can’t.

And what’s the alternative? A one state solution? That will never work.

The settlements are a problem but is any Israeli government going to be forcibly remove its own citizens? How do you reverse the settlements in reality?

Hasn’t that already happened with Gaza? Some of them did have to be forcibly removed iirc.

The main problem is the instability in the Palestinian territories which leaves it open to groups like Hamas taking hold. The Palestinian people would need to be convinced that terrorism is not their only option and the citizens in Israel would need to be sure they are not going to suffer constant terrorist attacks.

They would both therefore need governments/leaders who are willing to negotiate. That’s the biggest stumbling block at the moment as neither will do any such thing.

@Humdingerydoo , I'm talking about the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Land that is internationally recognised as Palestinian land. Where Palestinians lived and were (and continue to be) forcibly evicted. Which should be returned to Palestinians.

It's not misrepresenting history to say that land in the West Bank, within the agreed borders of that, has been taken, often by force or the threat of force, and settlements and outposts have been constructed there. It's not even really history, given that this is an issue very much in the present.

Give it back to who? Jordan? Or do you teach your 2 year old to give something back to a third party?

The state of Palestine is something we're striving towards, not something anyone is trying to get back to as it has never existed before. It's a new concept. One that I am personally all for, but let's not pretend the land was occupied from the Palestinians. It wasn't. It was occupied from what later became known as Jordan. It's part of what makes the whole situation so incredibly tricky. People misrepresenting the history really doesn't help.

Settlers should be removed like they were from Gaza in 2005. However, I agree with you that it probably won't work in big settlements so I guess there will have to be some kind of land swap like you suggest.

They should. I mean settlers are being supported by IDF in Palestine. IDF should be forced to remove the settlers rather than helping and supporting them on their acts.if IDF can arrest Palestinians then they can arrest as well settlers.

also are you aware that Israel a few weeks ago set some money for creating new settler areas in Palestine land?

I would suggest that the 'settlers' either remove themselves or be removed on the orders of the Israeli government. They invaded and occupied land that didn't and doesn't belong to them. They should give it back.

My not-quite-2 year old DC understands that if they take something that doesn't belong to them, they should give it back. This isn't a hard concept.

Ideally, there should be legal proceedings against 'settlers' where there is evidence of theft of property and land and violence.

There may be some exceptions where for specific reasons it would be more appropriate to re-designate territory (eg if there's a humanitarian reason why a settlement or part of that settlement can't be removed without disproportionate harm to innocent civilians now living there). In those situations, I would suggest that Israel and Palestine 'swap' land of equivalent size and use/value.

When people are talking about occupation, I think what people are referring to is the occupation of land that was recognised as belonging to Palestine, as Palestinian sovereign territory, which was then taken by 'settlers' and forces supporting them. Unsurprisingly, people aren't happy about that.

To draw comparisons with Ukraine... When the USSR dissolved, borders were established to say "this bit here is Ukraine and this bit here is Russia". Russian forces invaded parts of Ukraine and said "this is ours now". That's occupation. In Palestine, borders were established (not to everyone's happiness, but they were established) to say "this bit here is Palestine and this bit here is Israel". People with weapons came into parts of the West Bank and said "this is ours now". That's occupation.

If you agree that sovereign territory should be respected, do you agree that Palestinian sovereign territory should be respected? Or does that not count?

@mids2019 I don't think a one state solution would work
There is an AMA by an Israeli citizen active right now and some of her recent posts talks about this. I don't agree 100% with everything but I think she does try to be fair in seeing things from both sides and she has explained some of what you have asked quite well

Fab. But equally from the other perspective, taking the points you've made:

1. defined borders, absolutely. They already are pretty defined, so Israel needs to withdraw it's seekers from the west bank, leave east Jerusalem and withdraw from Gaza.

2. Jerusalem under the defined borders is a shared city. Either it can be both states capital, or neither if we want to treat them equally.

3. agreement from Israel that Palestine has a right to exist as an independent state, and that they are not there enemy.

4. both countries will have a right to prioritise security and border defences if they wish. Any defences need to be in their own territory. Israel must no longer 'mow the grass' and the rockets must stop.

5. Israel can't interfere with an independent Palestine any more than Palestine can interfere with Israel. Israel must have no say about what goes across Rafah, or elsewhere via plane or ship (it can no longer prevent a port or airport or control its waters or air). They're just be free movement between Gaza and the West bank.

What a fabulous girl. I hope she survives this horror in Gaza.

Yes so while Israelis haven't been living under occupation, they have still been living under constant threat and terror. So it's not as simple as "Israel leaves Palestinian territories and there will be peace". There is literally no evidence for that in history as Israel has always been under attack, even when Palestinian territories belonged to Egypt and Jordan. Before Hamas existed. People seem to forget that, which is why it has all become so polarised.

Not trying to get in to a debate with you about it, just wanted to remind posters. A lot seem to have forgotten.

@Humdingerydoo yes there has been a history of violence by both sides perpetuated against each other.

i hope Netanyahu goes soon and a less extremist new PM is in power who would be more open to agreements with a new non-terrorist government in gaza and make live easier for Palestinians and therefore for Israel citizens as well. I don’t think with 2 extremist in power in both countries peace will be ever achieved

Sorry for butting in, but while I agree with you that it applies to Israel too I just wanted to remind you and everyone else on this thread that Israel has been living with a constant threat from the Palestinian territories. Suicide bombers, stabbings, shootings etc. This was also the case already before 1967. Before any occupation. Suicide bombers were probably a later additions but there were plenty of other types of bombings before 1967. So trying to say the fault is all Israel's occupation is just not accurate.

Even in the midst of the war Netanyahu has approved illegal settlements to house a further 1700 settlers. Part of the settlements will be built in East Jerusalem.
Knowing that it will hinder the chances of the Palestinian dream of having East Jerusalem as their capital of a future Palestinian sovereign state

You will find your second paragraph applies to Israel too
If you really want peace you can't keep seeing this as one sided as what Palestinians need to concede to, to be able to live peacefully on their own land. It is the Palestinians in the territories that have been living under a brutal Israeli occupation for decades, not the other way round.

so We both agree that for this autonomous country to exist Israel shouldn’t have any saying on it and remove any restrictions about who enters in the country / checking as well what enters in the country / will allow water collection / will allow airports and ports (and not destroy them like in the past) , will allow them to have an army ? Israel will have no saying at all? Because Israel’s pm is already saying that they’ll be the ones reviewing the security of the new Palestine …

What I’m talking about is that there will be no blockade in Palestine imposed by Israel like there was before 7-10? Good luck to be honest trying to achieve that. It’s the ideal scenario but I can’t see it happening and Israel being happy about it

Thank you I will have a watch