@ScrollingLeaves "Palestine has been offered a two state solution many times and refused"
From 2000 into early 2001, Israel offered successively better deals that would have given the Palestinians more than 90% of the West Bank, all of Gaza and a shared capital in Jerusalem. Arafat, being offered what anyone rational supporter of a two state solution would have considered acceptable, responded by destroying the negotiations and starting the 1st intifada.
Arafat could not make a deal. Both American and Israeli negotiators-as well as Arab participants and observers - confirm this reality.
Anwar Sadat‘s daughter was a witness to all of this, and said Arafat had spit on her father’s grave. Apologists for Palestinian leadership will claim that the deal would’ve left them with a country that was like “Swiss cheese.“ That is incorrect
.
By late 2000 and certainly by 2001 at Taba, the proposals for Palestinian territory were primarily swaths of uninterrupted land. “Maps” showing otherwise are either entirely fictitious or represent very early offers. They also were essentially (and repulsively) going to be allowed to have an “Jew free“ state.
It was the failure at Taba Summit 2001 (in Egypt) in particular which was instrumental in moving Israel’s population substantially to the right. It became apparent to many that there would be no two states solution acceptable to Palestinian leadership, and that their only “acceptable” solution is a one state solution where the Arabs control the entire area from “the river to the sea.“
The two state is in a coma, though the current situation is also untenable, and I don’t believe there will be a two state solution until such time as the entire region is stable (which includes Syria, Iran and the elimination of the threat of Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis and a paradigm shift occurs that incentives Palestinians and Israelis to accept, not just peaceful but cooperative relations.
Time is not on the side of two states solution. I think it’s theoretically possible, but I don’t see the mechanism in place now for its creation.
The PLO was founded several years before the Six Day War during which Israel asserted complete control over the West Bank and Gaza.
What was the PLO trying to liberate prior to 1967? Additionally, though Egypt and Jordan both eventually made a cold peace with Israel, they refused to take back sovereignty over the West Bank (Jordan) and the Gaza Strip (Egypt).
The actual proper peace would have been for Jordan to take the West Bank back in return for normalized relations - but that was forbidden by the promises made to the Arab League.
At some point, the Arab states have to be held accountable for these intentional acts to create an occupation nightmare and the Israelis have to be accountable for being foolish enough to turn a military occupation into a colonial project.
Put bluntly, I think that Israel still has every right to militarily occupy the West Bank but loading it with “settlers” was a tragic error on the part of Israel.
We cannot dial back the clock and make Jordan accept what it considered its sovereign territory (the West Bank) for peace nor can we undo Israel’s mistakes in turning a military occupation of necessity into a colonial project.
No easy answers.