Two state solution

[Babybearissleeping]

Can someone please explain to me why palastinians are against a two state solution? Or is it just Hamas that don't want this?

I know it's not a simple solution to implement but seems the only solution to me.

I think if Israel withdraws to 67 borders there will be little reason for fighting. Withdraw all control, give the Palestinians a state, give back Golan heights and I expect it could well be peaceful. How does continued brutal occupation, control and appropriation of resources help relations?

No, that ridiculous cliché falls flat on its face.

PIRA was an illegal organisation on both sides of the border and remain so today, so they're clearly terrorists and not so-called "freedom fighters". 🤦‍♂️

If you believe that 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter', then you are arguing that something being terrorism, is really just a matter of opinion. One perspective.

If a person also thinks that States can be involved in "state terrorism", then you need to pause and reflect on how your terrorist/freedom fighter idea, somewhat undermines your accusation regarding "state terrorism".

If 'terrorism' is, as some like to try to say, really just a matter of opinion, then any accusation about state terrorism is just an expression of your opinion. If it's just an opinion, then other opinions are available and just as valid. It would seem that some advocates of the "state terrorism" school of thought, have a bit of a problem.

As I said, two State solutions can work and are not axiomatically doomed to failure.

@DownNative How do you propose it should work? Interested to know your opinion on it please
whether I agree or not would be a entirely different matter
But it's good to see different views on it and also opens up scope for further discussion

It would look like what's happened previously when illegally held lands were given back by Israeli settlers to their rightful owners. I don't understand why this is a difficult concept for you to understand.

People pack up and find houses for themselves that aren't stolen from other people? Maybe they could buy a house legally like everyone else on earth does? In 2005 they were given several hundred thousand dollars in compensation. Maybe they could buy a house with that if a similar scheme was put in place by Israel and their financial backers.

Israel is vulnerable, but a lot of that is because they have terrorised the Palestinians for decades. If you harass, steal houses, attack, shoot, imprison without trial and ethnically cleanse people for decades on end they're not going to like you and that's a breeding ground for terrorism. That's why I suggested they consider stopping that behaviour.

It would certainly improve their own security by some measure and would encourage more moderate Palestinian leaders to be elected. It's time the Palestinians had elections. Both authorities they have are letting them down, but they also show that they can't really win with Israel. If they put up and shut up like in the West Bank they lose. If they break out and fight back they still lose.

The majority of Irish people on both sides of the border, including the majority of Catholics in Northern Ireland saw the IRA as terrorists - not freedom fighters. People who murder their neighbours hoping to achieve some kind of political goal are terrorists. Only the uneducated or the overly educated fail to grasp this really simple point.

If Gaza was allowed to profit from oil and gas reserves, Israel could become a valued customer. Similarly, if Syria and the West Bank were allowed to control their water Israel could buy from them, instead of taking by occupation. Trade, business, and other partnerships could sweeten relations and pave the path to peace. But that's only possible between equal partners, not by force.

Withdraw all control, give the Palestinians a state, give back Golan heights and I expect it could well be peaceful

Would you bet your own life on this, and your family's lives? I wouldn't.

Not when all the evidence points the other way (going back to 1948, before Israel had done anything).

@statsfun It's not 1948 anymore and a lot of suffering under the bridge. Time for good faith attempts at a fair and humane solution. People don't want to live under occupation, to have no control of their resources, to be banned from using roads and entering villages, to be held at checkpoints with sick children, to have their homes raided at night, to have their water rationed, to have their children shot, to be kicked out of their homes, to be unable to travel freely, to be held without charge or legal representation, to have their towns raided and burned or any other forms of oppression. Give them their own space, let them have control of their lives and their land. Secure Israel's own territories and begin equal trade relationships. I'm sure that seed will grow into peace.

I think you are delusional. Israel tried to give back control of Gaza in 2005 and they elected Hamas who have since decided to spend the billions of aid given to them to build rockets and weapons to murder Israelis rather than rebuild. Hamas have been clear they don't want to agree to the 67 borders. they want Israel destroyed - red line. that's the only thing they will agree to.

The brutal occupation doesn't help anyone at the moment. it's hate breeding hate. but i also recognise that you call on Israel to compromise but not the other side? And if Israel does withdraw to that line....what guarantees do they have that the PLO or Hamas won't continue to launch rockets for those new locations which could easily reach pretty much all of Israel

@Bells3032 Gaza is occupied according to the UN, who have way more authority than MN posters. So no, Israel did not give up control of Gaza. Israel is destroying Hamas, apparently, so they won't figure in the government of the potential 2 state this thread is discussing. I expect 50 odd years of occupation has been a significant compromise for Palestinians, and any 2 state agreement would involve further compromises, no doubt. If you remove the occupation and boost prosperity and hope, people have little reason to fight. Most people want to get on with their own hopes and dreams and will support moderate government, if they are allowed to have one.

I think everyone would prefer to see a properous Gaza. it is no benefit to Israel to keep this going - think of the cost of the army, the iron dome, loss of tourism. If you can get Palestinians to agree and to put down their arms and stop lobbing rockets over I am sure most Israelis would agree to it too. but they put their own safety first - who wouldn't.

I have my own issues with the UN and what they chose and don't chose to take action and comments on. E.g the the SG didn't make any statement on the October 7th until October 24th and even then it was yeah yeah the 7th October was bad but think of the Palestinians!!

Some major untruths here.

Israel weren't being the nice guy handing back Gaza in 2005. They've been blockading the place ever since and the people have been living under effective occupation, without freedom to work, move and without having control over basic infrastructure.

Also, Hamas have in the past said that they'll accept 1967 borders.

I would say it's greatly in Israel's interest to keep it going. More Palestinians dead (remember "a dead Arab is a good Arab?") means more chance they have to take over fully. Ben Gvri says they will wholly take over the West Bank, regardless of international law.
The idea that Hamas "put down guns" and everyone lives a happy life is severely myopic, not to mention ignoring of the continuous human rights violations that the Palestinians have suffered over decades.

And we need to put it in bold that Israel don't want a two state solution, they have said this blatantly.

Because they don't trust that it won't be turned into a launching pad for more rockets and terrorists. There's no trust on either side. that's the problem. neither side trusts the other to disarm. so there can never be peace. I don't think that's simple at all. there's no simple solution to this. I was arguing that myself as contrary to the PP who said if Israel just withdraws to the 1967 borders there will be peace. there will not be. it isn't as simple as that.

Also claiming that Ben-Gvir speaks for all of Israel is like claiming that all of the UK wants to be rid of all immigrants because that's what Nigel Farage said. He's an extreme right politician whose faced charges of hate speech. Sadly he's the minister for National Security in barely functioning (if functioning at all) Government. He does not speak for all Israelis more than Hamas speaks for all Palestinians. If you're going to separate one side from their leaders you should separate the other too.

Sorry for mentioning 1948, ketchup07070. You're right that a lot has happened and changed since then.

I'm trying to stick to what the situation is now, and understand whether there is a realistic way to create a 2 state solution, which satisfies the many legitimate concerns on both sides. I was just feeling a bit hopeless about it, and hoped someone might have some insight!

The one I can't see a way past is the one Bells metions: what guarantees do they have that the PLO or Hamas won't continue to launch rockets for those new locations which could easily reach pretty much all of Israel

I don't see how this can practically be solved.

I simply don't think it's reasonable to expect Israelis to just hope for the best: open themselves to attack and just trust that nobody will take advantage. Would you, if it was your family, your country, that risked annihilation? Maybe in a generation, if they achieve many small steps of trust along the way and ongoing peace over many years. But not today.

So what happens today?

Toothyfruity suggests steps at the individual level. Shutting down settlements in the West Bank, and giving houses to Gazans. I know that property ownership is a huge point of contention - often with several people feeling they have genuine claims for ownership due to property sales and long use. But this does seem like it's something that could be in the gift of the Israeli government. (perhaps with a contribution from surrounding countries where Jewish people lost property after 1948 - or perhaps a cost Israel would just be willing to pay for peace)

Would it be sufficient for Palestiniams though? If the West Bank was still controlled by Israel as a demilitarized zone?

And are there any constraints from Israel? Are they worried that they would lose control of the territory if it was entirely filled with Palestinians but with security controlled by Israel?

What does it actually look like for Israel to control the security? Checkpoints and import control, certainly - to keep it demilitarized. Pretty much what the situation was in Gaza I suppose, but actually even more controlled by Israel, since that didn't work.

Is that sufficiently different from the current situation to satisfy the Palestinian people so that those small steps towards trust and peace could actually be achieved?

@statsfun I'm about to go out, but you know Hamas and other militant groups already fire rockets. There's a saying about the definition of insanity being doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results. Shooting kids and journalists, raiding houses, arming settlers, all those kinds of measures have been done repeatedly over decades. Even crushing an American woman under a bulldozer. It ain't working. Why not try something else?

Why not try something else Because if you give up your ability to protect yourself when you're surrounded by people who are actively trying to kill you, then you and your whole family are likely to die.

I don't think that complete withdrawal to 67 borders seems like a realistic solution for Israel.

I'm trying to see if there's a solution they can accept. Everyone wants a different future.

Correct, @Itllbefine6!

@statsfun So secure the borders? Put surveillance around that can see things like bulldozers coming through the fence. Have buffer zones.

The lack of impartiality in the UN casts serious doubt on their involvement and the likelihood of Netanyahu’s government co-operating with them. The UN has a huge anti-Israel bias (Remain calm! I’m not claiming antisemitism!)- in 2022 alone it passed 15 resolutions critical of Israel as opposed to 13 resolutions for the rest of the world. 6 of those were critical of Russia, who had actually invaded Ukraine, North Korea, Afghanistan, Myanmar, Syria, Iran and the US scored just one resolution each.

Since 2015, the UN General Assembly has adopted 140 resolutions critical of Israel, versus 68 resolutions critical of all the other countries in the world.

When they passed the resolution on the 27 Oct calling for a humanitarian ceasefire, Canada’s amendment to this, calling to “unequivocally reject[ed] and condemn[ed] the terrorist attacks by Hamas that took place in Israel starting on 7 October 2023 and the taking of hostages” failed.

All this enables Netanyahu to claim he isn’t bound by UN resolutions because their objectivity is so seriously compromised. As he’s clearly not a reasonable person, it simply fuels him and his ministers to deny and distract from even the most valid critical resolutions rather than co-operate in any way.

If we’re making sweeping statements, we should probably also put in bold that Netanyahu and his compatriots don’t want a two state solution and have said this blatantly, please don’t attribute their actions and rhetoric to “Israel” as that is a country with over 9 million people in it who are not a monolith.

Didn't work on 7th October.

67 lines are 11 miles from Tel Aviv, 10 from Barsheba, 21 from Haifa and 1 foot from Jerusalem

I don't think that's a realistic.thing to expect Israel to accept.

@statsfun Well, clearly surveillance did not spot the bulldozer on 7th Oct. but I'm sure they have the resources to develop a system that will. If you think a 2 state is impossible, that only leaves one state - since clearly getting rid of Palestinians is morally abhorrent and illegal. Do you think 1 state is best option?

I can't see a good solution at all!

As I said before, I'm hoping someone better informed will have some insight that gives me more hope!

It's not because of lack of trust, it's because Israel have rejected every proposed solution, in particular dismantlement of illegal settlements and leaving occupied East Jerusalem. They want a two state solution only if it doesn't involve any compromise or following international law on their side.
Yes Ben Gvir isn't doing anyone any favours, but unfortunately he's a minister so his plans rather than the the everyday people are the ones that will go ahead. I'm not at all trying to conflate him with the "people" but the reality is that he is in power. He knows Israel can do what it wants without any consequences.