Enforced 2 state solution?

[AdamRyan]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68137220

David Cameron today:

"As that happens, we - with allies - will look at the issue of recognising a Palestinian state, including at the United Nations," he told the Conservative Middle East Council. "That could be one of the things that helps to make this process irreversible."

I don't often say this about Conservatives, but well done Cameron. I think this is a good idea. There is no need for Israel to dictate the 2 state solution, especially when they explicitly say Gaza is not their responsibility (I.e. its stateless).

We'll see. The Saudi Arabian government have already said they will, I think Jordan and Egypt will too as it stops the endless "Egypt used to own Gaza, they should let the Palestinians seek refuge" carping.

I don't know what Qatar will think but I imagine they'll be broadly supportive.

Agree totally!! All a nonsense, they know that it's always been the Arab states that have refused the 2 state option and chosen war. And they lose every time so round it goes again.

Cameron was responsible for Brexit, he made the pledge on the referendum and arrogantly assumed the country would vote to remain.
The first time I've been pleased about not being in the EU is the decision we can take about where our overseas spending goes as we would have had to keep funding UNRWA via the EU.

@WatTyler not only is your statement incorrect, but you have been told more than once, that using the term 'The Arabs' in the context that you do where you lump the many different Arab states as one, is offensive. Yet you persist, why?

Does Israel want a 2 state solution? And the pesky Palestinians keep foiling their plan to create 2 states?

Well they did in 1948 and have repeatedly agreed to it in the past so maybe once Hamas is "removed".

But it's all irrelevant when the Arab states won't support it, definitely not by the governments of the palestinian territories. The current situation suits them very well, as horrendous as is it. The unquestioning funding will end and the UN will be uncovered when everyone finally sees it for what it is.

A 2 state solution would have to be forced upon the Palestinians because apparently there is no desire whatsoever for one from them.
Whilst not necessarily scientific, there is "The Ask Project" that gathers opinions from all side about a wide range of aspects of living in Israel and OWB.

Asking Palestinians their thoughts about complete Israeli withdrawal from OWB and a 2 state solution makes depressing watching.

6

Well they don't now. And ignoring that fact is irresponsible, given the ongoing ethnic cleansing and genocide.

Would recognition of a Palestinian state have defined borders? I think it sounds sensible as a step. I'm not sure that what the parties have or have not accepted in the past really matters too much, because things change, the current situation is awful for everyone and things have been in limbo too long.

Firstly, stop using the term "The Arabs" as it is a pejorative , bordering on being racist. Do you say the Blacks to refer to Afro Caribbeans in the UK or wherever you live?
Secondly, of course Palestine existed prior 1948. Don't rewrite history.
Finally, whilst I dislike Cameron, I agree with him but it is obvious why pro Israelis wouldn't.

@Auvergne63 I see MN have deleted that post for racism, thank goodness!

Having read the article now, it's clear to me that David Cameron is NOT talking about enforcing a two State Solution.

Doing so would not work given the low levels of support for it albeit higher than other options. Support on the ground must be there.

Cameron is talking about recognition of a Palestinian State alongside the Israeli State in the context of a long term deal which also includes a guarantee Hamas cannot launch attacks on Israel. He also indicated the removal of Hamas from any power with a renewed Palestinian Authority.

Britain has long supported a two-state solution, where Israelis and Palestinians could live side by side in separate countries. But Lord Cameron is suggesting Britain could give formal, diplomatic recognition to a Palestinian state not as part of a final peace deal, but earlier, during the negotiations themselves.

I think he's suggesting a Palestinian state is recognised separately to any peace deal.

Maybe I used the wrong word in the title - imposed might have worked better to describe a process where the UK and allies including the UN recognise the Palestinian state before a deal is finalised.

@ConnieCounter

"Well they don't now. And ignoring that fact is irresponsible, given the ongoing ethnic cleansing and genocide."

The current government are taking a hard line while there are still hostages. Most Israelis support a long term peaceful solution which can only be 2 states. Did you not see the protests in Israel against Netanyahu before October 7th?

Cry all you want, there is no genocide.

Ethnic cleansing? Over 20% (2 million) of the Israeli population are "Arab/Palestinian". If this was the purpose, it would have been far easier to do this from within. i.e. Iraq, Yemen and Sudan, along with the majority of the Arab League states that expelled Jews after the formation of the State of Israel. This is what Palestinians fear, being given a state and having to live there rather than destroy Israel. The whole aim is the destruction of Israel.

@fizzybootlace That's an unscientific claim - how do you know what Palestinians fear and desire? I think they would likely welcome living without checkpoints, raids, and other aspects of occupation. Even if it's a smaller area, logically it would be preferable to being frightened your 2 year old might get accidentally shot in the head by an army sniper. I'm not sure what recognition of a state would achieve, but once the validity of the claim is established it might move discussion along re: borders, settlements etc.

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean about Iraq, Yemen and Sudan? Can you say a bit more?

@AdamRyan They are examples of ethnic cleansing that are happening within countries either right now or very recently.

Still don't understand how it's relevant to the Palestinians fearing being given a state?

"I think he's suggesting a Palestinian state is recognised separately to any peace deal."

On the contrary, Cameron is quite simply saying that recognition of a Palestinian State is very much part of the long process of negotiations leading to a final deal.

It isn't separate from it in the same way a renewed Palestinian Authority isn't. It's all part of the same overall picture that addresses political and security concerns in tandem.

Not separately.

"Maybe I used the wrong word in the title - imposed might have worked better to describe a process where the UK and allies including the UN recognise the Palestinian state before a deal is finalised."

"Impose" is much the same meaning - "to establish as something to be obeyed or complied with; enforce".

Cameron isn't suggesting imposing or enforcing anything, especially as he knows the respective populations must buy in to whatever is agreed in long negotiations.

Support on the ground amongst ordinary people is a very important part of the process itself. It isn't separate from it in any way.

He's talking about diplomatic encouragement in both directions, including the removal of Hamas from power in Gaza and their ability to attack Israel.

It was in direct response to the accusation of ethnic cleaning.

Well we will have to respectfully disagree as that's not how I interpret his comments and neither of us are DC or heard what he said!
Looks like it's being controversial though

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron-theresa-villiers-palestine-criticism-2880320

Hamas' stated aim is the liberation of Palestine and formation of a state, that's what they were elected on so I think Cameron is right to suggest there needs to be an irreversible pathway to that first. It removes a lot of Hamas' raison d'etre and makes it easier to get rid of them.

Is it relevant what you think most Israelis want? No. The government doesn't want two states so that's all that matters.

In my opinion it is a genocide, but thanks for your flippant remark on that matter.

You misunderstand what ethnic cleansing is, so I'm not sure how to respond to that part of your message. If you can't see that Israel is ethnically cleansing Gaza at the moment I can't really help you.

Regarding your comment on the aim being the destruction of Israel, I think the whole aim is actually the destruction of Palestine. And if you look at the actions of both sides in recent decades, it's clear who's destroying who.

@ConnieCounter

"Is it relevant what you think most Israelis want? No. The government doesn't want two states so that's all that matters."

As I said, current government rhetoric. It's a war, there are hostages.

"In my opinion it is a genocide, but thanks for your flippant remark on that matter."

The ICJ has spoken as I am going to suggest they know a little more about it than you.

"You misunderstand what ethnic cleansing is, so I'm not sure how to respond to that part of your message. If you can't see that Israel is ethnically cleansing Gaza at the moment I can't really help you."

It's you that doesn't understand ethnic cleansing. No one has been removed from Gaza or the West Bank. I don't recall asking for your help.

"Regarding your comment on the aim being the destruction of Israel, I think the whole aim is actually the destruction of Palestine. And if you look at the actions of both sides in recent decades, it's clear who's destroying who."

The aims of Hamas and the Palestinian authority are very clearly documented.

I think the problem with this is that once they recognise the state of Palestine, funding changes and people who live there will no longer be considered refugees. As a result there is a very real risk the people who live there will be financially even worse off than they are now.

Sounds like an attempt at winning over votes before the election later this year rather than actually trying to make life better for Palestinians.