Map of Palestine land, according to this most is controlled by Isreal, and if people want to travel approval is needed

[birdsofweather]

This short came up when I was watching other things - if the information in this short is true, which, looking at the comments, it seems to be, it is just incredibly sad. We really need a proper two state solution negotiated under which the Palestinian land is controlled by a Palestinian government - and an equal and fair split of land. Looking at how the dispute started after the Balfour Agreement and the Mandate for Palestine, the world really should do the moral thing, step in and get negotiations started. Trying to help the situation Gaza is like applying an inadequate sticking plaster - if with goodwill and political pressure an agreement for two states is agreed then the problems Israel fears go away, and Palestine can start to rebuild. Most of the Arab world will support a two state solution now.

I refer to "moral" thing to do because the likes of Charlie Kirk - who is in a position of influence - keep raising the "moral" question but missing the point. The issue isn't just moral - it is necessary for civilisation and prosperity that we agree a two state solution as soon as possible.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/m0NzTwLPHgM

If anyone thinks that the information in the short is wrong, please say.

The information is correct, but it should be enough to answer your question.

If Israel had any interest in a two state solution, why would they be so ruthlessly occupying the West Bank in the first place? The current Israeli government is dominated by fundamentalist Zionists who believe absolutely in Israel's right to rule the whole of Palestine, and supported by a Trump administration for its own geopolitical interests.

As they already have the power, why would they give it up?

Talk of a two state solution is for the birds. It’s not even being discussed. It’s gone too far and with Trump around there isn’t the faintest glimmer of hope.

How do you think Israel came to be occupying the West Bank?

Why was there no interest in a two state solution when Jordan and Egypt were illegally occupying the West Bank and Gaza from 1948 to 1967?

I think Trump is our best chance of a 2 state solution. Problem is the narratives over the history of the area and what was and was not agreed in the early 20th c widely differ. There is zero chance of peace unless there is a 2 state solution and Trump wants peace. I am just not sure he understands the history of it all yet...

Well. Yes, I see your point. Unless they don't have the power...
Netanyahu has said today/yesterday that he has no intention of agreeing a genuine 2 state solution, so I can definitely see where you are coming from! But I think Trump will change his mind. I am sure of it. Positive thinking and all that.

Look up how the problem started, conflicting promises made to Arabs and to Jewish people, the request from a Rothschild in 1917, leading to the Balfour Agreement and the Mandate - you can look up both agreements - and look up the horrendous fighting between the British, the Arabs and the Israelis and all the various political decisions and influences, and the events of the 1930s, then what lead to Britain handing it over to the UN who basically said the only solution here is a 2 state solution. And they were and are correct. The Arab world has agreed to this recently. Look at each of the wars between the UN being handed the area and the present day. Not just at one or two events after 1948. Two state solution which is genuine is the only way the fighting will stop.

Trump thinks he can bully people into accepting peace agreements. You can’t. He doesn’t have any interest in human rights, he isn’t a unifier, he’s an agitator. He’s unpredictable and untrustworthy. He admires tyrants like Putin and speaks about imperialist goals like taking over Greenland.

He’s not even talking about a two state solution. That absolutely will not happen at that point in time.

I think that Trump does in fact genuinely want peace, and cares about preventing useless death, but he is getting a range of advice from different lobby groups, and unless he happens to know the full history of the conflict around Palestine - 100 years or so - which most people don't - he will sway with the wind until he has a good grasp of it. I agree with you he can be bullish and mercurial though, and will sometimes say things which cause offence.

The Israel lobby is powerful in many areas in the US. You also have younger advisers who don't understand the history who still talk about things like moral superiority - that Israel has the same values as the west and therefore is superior - almost like colonial talk from 100 years ago. Nightmare.

Really difficult situation. Everyone needs to keep their heads, realise the influences behind Israel wanting wider control, seeing the consequences of not having respectful agreements with neighbours who are now modern - no longer dealing with the same groups Balfour dealt with.

Is my opinion, ha.

The Palestinians have rejected a two state solution for years. Israel is prepared to share the land if they can live in peace. Have you noticed the Hamas slogan ‘From the river to the sea’. It doesn’t mean two states. Let’s not forget how this started almost two years ago. How would you feel if Glastonbury had been attacked? Women gang raped and set on fire, babies placed alive in ovens.People taken hostage to be tortured. Let’s not pretend Hamas are nice people. The biggest laugh of all is ‘Gays for Palestine’. As for the position of women under Hamas. Need I say more?

It is true that there are some hardliners who are extreme and this applies to both sides. The two state solutions since the 1940s have not been genuine two state solutions and this is why they have not been acceptable to the Arab side. NB Hamas is funded by Arab states who want a two state solution - there would be significant pressure on them to agree if Israel also agreed to negotiate in good faith.
The people who chant "river to the sea" often have no idea what it means. Both sides have extremists. Both sides have people who want to eradicate the other. Only education will improve that. It is not a reason to not pursue 2 state solution at the world leader level.

The current Israeli government are not committed to a two state solution. Before the war polls showed that similar percentages of Israelis and Palestinians civilians wanted a two state solution. I can only imagine that each side has become more extreme now though.

There is no evidence of babies being burnt in ovens. The attacks on completely innocent Israeli civilians by Hamas was a horrific atrocity that caused great suffering. 37 children died in cold blood and by making things up like this you end up discrediting real stories of what happened. For what? To justify the deaths of other innocent children. It’s disgusting.

I’ve well aware of the history before 1948.

You seem to have glossed over the Arab revolts and riots, massacres and attacks on Jews, which lead to the partition plan. Jews also participated in violence but from my reading of history, with no pre standing bias, that seemed to be from a defensive stance, rather than offensive.

I mean Arabs sold land to Jews then the tenants of that land were unhappy when the owners claimed their property? Whose responsibility was that?

It is well documented that Arabs from surroundings countries such as Egypt, Syria and Lebanon migrated into the region due to the infrastructure building by the British, and economy and healthcare created by the Jewish immigrants, there were better living conditions, higher wages and better healthcare.

The majority of recently migrated Arabs had no more claim to the land than the recently migrated Jews. A two state solution was an equitable solution for all but the Arabs refused to accept it despite being allocated the larger area of liveable land and have continued to reject it.

I don’t understand your argument of a two state solution stopping the fighting now, after what the Palestinians did on Oct 7th, when a two state solution has been offered for over 80 years and nothing stopped the Arabs from accepting it then as it didn’t stop them up to Oct 7th!

theettingerreport.com/arab-migration-shaped-palestinian-society/

“So far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country [Palestine] and multiplied till their population has increased."
— Winston Churchill in 1938

"The Arab immigration into Palestine since 1921 has vastly exceeded the total Jewish immigration during this whole period."
— Franklin Roosevelt in 1939

I am not really sure where to start. I don't think you do know your history pre 1948 and I am not sure you have read any of my posts other than the one to you. My school history book from the 1980s does not accord with anything you have said and I went to a school which was 50 percent Jewish and so I think it was accepted history at the time - changes to narrative since then are going to be down to incorrect information, propaganda, all sorts of things - narratives in some respect will also vary in relation to what has happened since then, depending on who is reporting. I think criticism both sides is valid but no, it can't be said that Isreal was the victim from the beginning and on the whole has acting in a defensive way. I am not defending either side but ... actually I am tempted to set out in chrono order everything which happened - which is not contested - because it is so different from what you have said.

I don’t understand your argument of a two state solution stopping the fighting now, after what the Palestinians did on Oct 7th, when a two state solution has been offered for over 80 years and nothing stopped the Arabs from accepting it then as it didn’t stop them up to Oct 7th!

The two state solution in the last 5 decades at least has not been accepted because there has never been an equal and equitable two state solution on the table. It is fairly obvious that if the major players support and agree to a two state plan (and most countries in the world have said clearly that this is the case) and Israel is also brought to the table, then it will stop the fighting. Look at who funds who. The countries which fund support the two state solution. It is Israel which is not agreeing to it.

The two quotes - no idea what context the comments were made so can't comment but do an independent google about how many Palestinians and Jewish people there were in 1917 and then how that changed up to 1948, 1948 to present day, etc. There are numerous not contested graphs. In 1917, over 95 percent of the population were Arab and this had been the case for hundreds of years. Also read the Mandate and the Balfour Agreement.

I can tell you with absolute certainty that some of the information being given to justify the Israeli stance in videos and documents is not correct, as in, factually and historically not correct. For example, the Mandate is often misquoted. It is there for all to read, for all who have eyes to see.

Maybe you could have just pointed out where what I stated was incorrect in my post?

What would have been a fair and equitable two state solution 77 years ago?

How long do you think it’s reasonable to quibble over a small area of land while generations of people are destroyed by war, poverty, and terrorism?

You seem to be ignoring that the Arabs did not and will not accept any Jewish state on the land, from the river to the sea?

I think I did do that and I have already answered the questions you have asked, if you read all my posts. The two quotes I have searched for since posting and I think they might be fake, as I have googled and only found reference to them in editorials - if you think they are genuine please could you link the primary sources?

To answer your questions in a different way, this is a very clear video giving the history up to 1948, which you can watch and which will explain things really clearly, better than I have. In terms of fact checking you can look up the Balfour Agreement and the Mandate for Palestine online - both are still available in their original formats and are short and easy to read. You will hopefully see the problem, understand the feelings of both sides and realise that this is not just a piece of small land.

If you then search on youtube for Melanie Phillips and the Palestinian Mandate you will see that what she is saying is not reflected in the actual Balfour Agreement and Mandate for Palestine - and this is another key problem - there are huge differences in narratives between the two sides - it is important to listen to both sides but also to fact check hard facts such as terms of agreements.

If after you have done this you want to know more about the history 1948 to the present day, please ask, I will set out the known "facts" as objectively as possible.

Just to reiterate again (I have said this in previous posts) most of the Arab world and the world in general do support a two state solution which is fair and equitable - they voted for this in November 2024. To some extent this is a "we are where we are" situation and in the present day a two state solution which is equal and fair in all respects and allows both countries to have control over security and have fair split of resources is acknowledged to be the only path to peace. In terms of what normal people think, there is a myriad of views, as ever, both sides, ranging from educated to extreme.

If Israel had any interest in a two state solution, why would they be so ruthlessly occupying the West Bank in the first place?

What? You mean a 2 state solution like the 1947 partition plan? That was rejected?

Anything to deflect from Palestinian leaders absolutely failing the Palestinian people for decades by preferring to pick repeated fights in the region and not just with Israel either!

Even PA President Abbas admitted Arab leaders were wrong to reject the 1947 UN Partition Plan.

Reject then fight ad nauseum is a terrible, tplan as Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman pointed out as they have no real power in the region & should accept a deal. Rejection is a tactical response to a situation they don't have a strategic ability to achieve.

You don't get better deals long after rejecting the best deal there ever was on the table (1947 UN Partition Plan) as all subsequent deals can never be as good. They won't get a 2 state solution now. Its too late and they've gone too far.

They were also given a state, Gaza, in 2005 when the Israelis withdrew and left them to it. The people elected Hamas in 2006 and here we are.

Quote from wiki: "The Palestinian Arab leadership rejected partition as unacceptable, given the inequality in the proposed population exchange and the transfer of one-third of Palestine, including most of its best land, to recent immigrants."

If Palestinians were interested in a two state solution why do they chant to the river from the sea??

Correct, this myth and historical revisionism is like saying

"Hey Palestinians, silly you not accepting the plan by Europeans (Balfour, Sykes-Picot) unilaterally made without the legal authority to give away 50+% of your land to recent immigrants from Europe. We're not going to pay you for it, you've just got to give it away"

No one would accept that and who can blame them?

Also although Zionists (Modern day Israel did not exist in 1947) "accepted" the Partition plan publicly. Privately they always planned to expand, as seen in quotes from as early 1890s like this one from 1918 where Zionist leadership are discussing the morality of "transferring" the Palestinian people. Yitzhak Avigdor Wilkansky, felt that, for practical reasons, it was:

"impossible to evict the fellahin [Palestinian Arab peasants], even if we wanted to. Nevertheless, if it were possible, I would commit an INJUSTICE towards the [Palestinian] Arabs. There are those among us who are opposed to this form the point of view of supreme righteousness and morality. . . .[But] when you enter into the midst of the Arab nation and do not allow it to unit, here too you are taking its life. . . . Why don't our moralists dwell on this point? We must be either complete vegetarians or meat eaters: not one-half, one-third, or one-quarter vegetarian." (Righteous Victims, p. 140-141 & America And The Founding Of Israel, p. 71)

Before the war a similar % of Palestinians and Israelis were pro a two state solution.

I would imagine hearts have hardened towards this since though. On both sides.

Oops that scuppers that narrative doesn’t it!

Although I’m not sure Palestinians in Gaza do actually chant that do they (?), just the Jew hating useful idiots in the West.

Many of the people who chant it don't understand what it means. The 144 or so world leaders including much of the Arab world who voted in favour of it at the UN at the end of 2024 don't tend to wander around chanting "from the river to the sea".

The 144 or so world leaders including much of the Arab world who voted in favour of it at the UN at the end of 2024 don't tend to wander around chanting it, for sure.

"useful idiots" is very disparaging. Most of the protesters want some sort of humane, moral, practical resolution for both sides, and though they may not all understand all the issues properly, they shouldn't be referred to as "useful idiots".

"The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable… therefore, Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty. —Likud Party Platform, 1977"

Oops, it looks like the right wing Israeli Party is also fond of the term.
The party formed by Menachem Begin, famous for his leadership of the Irgun, a pre-state Jewish terrorist group that engaged in terrorist attacks against both British forces and Palestinian civilians.

All the pro-Palestinians who don’t call for Hamas to surrender and release the 50 hostages, including at least 20 dead bodies, they are holding after almost 2 years are very useful to Hamas don’t you think?

They are also idiots (being very generous) because what has Hamas actually done for the Palestinians over the last 20 years, other than start a war getting thousands of them killed?

I don’t think it’s disparaging at all to call them useful idiots.