Israel - Palestine Discussion | Post Respectfully | Discuss more, tweet less

[The Corinthian]

Shouldn't believe every lie you read. No soldier by that name was killed. And more importantly:

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Fair - have deleted. It's weird as Tim Anderson (you'd think) would be a credible person on twitter.

 

[The Corinthian]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[That_Bloke]

Israel's on a roll when it comes to new settlements in the West Bank.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ilding-in-east-jerusalem-since-gaza-war-began

 

[Kaos]

Israel's on a roll when it comes to new settlements in the West Bank.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ilding-in-east-jerusalem-since-gaza-war-began

Yep, anyone who thinks their aggression is solely driven by a defensive goal of defeating hamas and returning hostages is kidding themselves. West Bank/EJ violence and land grabs have gone up exponentially since the eyes of the world were diverted to Gaza.

 

[Giggsyking]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[berbatrick]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

The diplomatic cables detail pressure being applied to members of the Security Council, including Malta, the rotating president of the council this month. Ecuador in particular is being asked to lobby Malta and other nations, including France, to oppose U.N. recognition.

“We therefore urge you not to support any potential Security Council resolution recommending the admission of ‘Palestine’ as a U.N. member state, should such a resolution be presented to the Security Council for a decision in the coming days and weeks.”

The cable says, “Ecuador would not want to appear isolated (alone with the United States) in its rejection of a ‘Palestine’ resolution (particularly at a time when the most UN member states are criticizing Ecuador over its April 5 incursion into Mexico’s embassy in Quito).” Ecuador finds itself in an escalating conflict with Mexico over its decision to arrest the former Ecuadorian vice president inside the Mexican Embassy.

 

[Dr. StrangeHate]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

If this is true, what is the end game for the Biden administration in this. It seems he doesn't want a two state solution.

 

[VorZakone]

If this is true, what is the end game for the Biden administration in this. It seems he doesn't want a two state solution.

Seems they want normalization to be part of the process?

“It remains the U.S. view that the most expeditious path toward a political horizon for the Palestinian people is in the context of a normalization agreement between Israel and its neighbors,” the cable reads. “We believe this approach can tangibly advance Palestinian goals in a meaningful and enduring way.”

 

[The Corinthian]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[The Corinthian]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[berbatrick]

Seems they want normalization to be part of the process?

It is word salad which somehow assumes that Israel-Gulf/Saudi relations will lead to changes in Israel's relations with the existential threat in its territory.

 

[4bars]

If this is true, what is the end game for the Biden administration in this. It seems he doesn't want a two state solution.

What do you mean? They never wanted that solution. Publicaly they will say as many lies as possible. Behind the scenes they are all for wipping out palestinia from history

 

[neverdie]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

This undermining of the PA, across multiple fronts: what use? It's outrageous to hold Hamas up with one hand and then conceal the other which would hold up the moderate forces but in fact tries to hold them down, giving succor to alternatives within the WB which reject the PA in various ways. And obviously in Gaza, too, but that's so obvious now we really ought not need state it.

 

[berbatrick]

oh no, the good guys are ignoring the norms! the precious rule of law!

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Idxomer]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Kaos]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Whenever people ask why the Palestinians don't resort to a peaceful and diplomatic struggle I always point to situations like this. Frankly its impossible when their efforts are being undermined at every step. UNSC resolution vetos, legislation to make boycotts illegal, coercing Arab nations to pursue friendly relations with Israel (at the consequential expense of the Palestinians), and roadblocks such as this. Its an utterly futile and desperate situation for them, damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Its incredibly unfortunate that factions like Hamas enjoy the prominence they do, but it isn't entirely surprising either considering the situation the Palestinians find themselves in.

 

[berbatrick]

some more information on the UN including potential vote numbers (the vote's failure is guaranteed because of the US' veto)

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[the_cliff]

some more information on the UN including potential vote numbers (the vote's failure is guaranteed because of the US' veto)

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

So the US/UK don't want a 2 state solution then ?

 

[Kaos]

So the US/UK don't want a 2 state solution then ?

They've never wanted one, its always been vacuous lip service to appear as benevolent, impartial mediators, knowing there's been no real chance of it happening.

The only solution they adhere to are ludicrous accords that would give the Palestinians a 'state', but without any tangible benefits of one. No security or trade autonomy, continued checkpoints, the ability for Israel to cut them off without a moments notice etc. But for an actual two state solution where the Palestinians would be given genuine autonomy, and full agency over the occupied territories considered theirs by international law - no chance they'd vote to allow that to happen, not when Israel don't want it to, ever.

It's always been the worst kept secret, but now its brazenly out in the open with them actively lobbying countries to vote against it.

 

[africanspur]

some more information on the UN including potential vote numbers (the vote's failure is guaranteed because of the US' veto)

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Just as the 'UN' partition plan started, so it continues, with the exact same country providing the same destructive cover.

 

[The Corinthian]

some more information on the UN including potential vote numbers (the vote's failure is guaranteed because of the US' veto)

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Our Foreign Sec - Lord Cameron recently said the UK is committed to a Palestinian state. I hope he’s dragged over coals if the UK does end up abstaining.

 

[The Corinthian]

 

[Tarrou]

So the US/UK don't want a 2 state solution then ?

I doubt what the UK wants matters much - UK just does want the US wants. Isn't it pretty clear the US doesn't want it at this point? What have they done over the decades that suggests they want this? Not said, but done.

 

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

So the US/UK don't want a 2 state solution then ?

The US is just doing a little negging. Next they'll send Blinken in a big peacock hat.

 

[Revan]

If this is true, what is the end game for the Biden administration in this. It seems he doesn't want a two state solution.

I think he wants a two-state solution, but one that is accepted by Israel, and that has accepted borders by both sides. Recognizing Palestine as a UN member, while they do not have control over their territory, I guess is not acceptable from the US PoV, because then Israel would essentially be occupying another UN member and would likely be sanctioned to death be it by UN or unilaterally.

Ironically, I think this solution might actually be the best move. Put Israel for once in the defensive, and have there some consequences instead of just lip service. But the US being Israel's ally, I do not think they'll ever accept something that Israel doesn't. And Ehud Olmert was the last Israel leader who (probably) wanted some two-state solution. Netanyahu and Bennett definitely do not want it, at any cost.

 

[Kaos]

I think he wants a two-state solution, but one that is accepted by Israel, and that has accepted borders by both sides. Recognizing Palestine as a UN member, while they do not have control over their territory, I guess is not acceptable from the US PoV, because then Israel would essentially be occupying another UN member and would likely be sanctioned to death be it by UN or unilaterally.

Ironically, I think this solution might actually be the best move. Put Israel for once in the defensive, and have there some consequences instead of just lip service. But the US being Israel's ally, I do not think they'll ever accept something that Israel doesn't. And Ehud Olmert was the last Israel leader who (probably) wanted some two-state solution. Netanyahu and Bennett definitely do not want it, at any cost.

The trouble is I think that's an impossibility. Yes both sides want more than what is feasible, but at risk of conforming to my own biases, I believe its the Israelis who will be more stubborn, whereas the Palestinians are more likely to accept a compromise owing to their desperate situation. In short, I don't think the Israelis will ever accept the UN consensus on internationally recognised Palestinian territory and I believe their goal isn't to secure a lasting peace with a two state solution, but to successfully annex much of the land. The issue is the US is not an impartial mediator and will want to hone Israel's wishes above anyone else, so you could see why they'd go out of their way to actively lobby against this initiative.

If this is successfully blocked at the behest of US/Israel, then I think we can forget about deradicalising the increasingly desperate elements of the Palestinian population who will have it confirmed to them that much of the interntional community isn't interested in taking a fair and diplomatic mediatory stance. The US' credibility will also take an even bigger hit (if it isn't already at an all time low).

 

[Revan]

The trouble is I think that's an impossibility. Yes both sides want more than what is feasible, but at risk of conforming to my own biases, I believe its the Israelis who will be more stubborn, whereas the Palestinians are more likely to accept a compromise owing to their desperate situation. In short, I don't think the Israelis will ever accept the UN consensus on internationally recognised Palestinian territory and I believe their goal isn't to secure a lasting peace with a two state solution, but to successfully annex much of the land. The issue is the US is not an impartial mediator and will want to hone Israel's wishes above anyone else, so you could see why they'd go out of their way to actively lobby against this initiative.

If this is successfully blocked at the behest of US/Israel, then I think we can forget about deradicalising the increasingly desperate elements of the Palestinian population who will have it confirmed to them that much of the interntional community isn't interested in taking a fair and diplomatic mediatory stance. The US' credibility will also take an even bigger hit (if it isn't already at an all time low).

I think that Israel has no plans to go back to 1967 borders, and Palestinians have no plans to accept anything less than that. Furthermore, Israel has no chance of accepting the right of return, while Palestinians won't accept a deal without it. Thus, there is close to impossible that this conflict gets solved.

For what is worth, I thought that prior to Netanyahu, Israel despite being the stronger player, wanted the conflict to get solved more. Barak offered far more than the Oslo accords, and that was not signed by Arafat. 'The secret offer' of Olmert presumably offered 94% of West Bank to Palestinians (in addition to a corridor between it and Gaza) which is very close to 1967 borders, and that was rejected from Abaz. For what is worth, I think that Palestinians should have accepted the reality and understand that the right of return will never happen, Israel is not going to accept 5 million Palestinians in Israel, whose connection to the land is that it belonged to their grandfather or so. And Palestine won't ever get the 1967 borders unless a new world war happen. I think some dose of reality from them is needed, to take whatever they can, not what they want. Cause the eternal alternative is worse.

For what is worth, I also think that Israel should have tried to solve the conflict more than they did. I think that Barak was genuine in wanting to solve it, but he didn't have the charisma of Rabin to convince the public about that. And even if Arafat would have signed, I see no chance that Sharon (who was even worse than Netanyahu in many ways) would have implemented that plan. No idea about Olmert, if it was just for show or he really wanted it to be solved. His offer was the best that Israel ever gave. I think that Netanyahu prefers a Greater Israel apartheid state, than a smaller Israel without the Palestinian problem. Benett is essentially a worse version of Netanyahu, and some of the ministers in Netanyahu cabinet would be glad with ethnical cleansing and would likely be happy with genocide too. No idea about Benny Gantz, what are his plans, assuming that he becomes the next prime minister after the war.

TLDR: I do not think that either Palestinians or Israeli (or at least their leaders) want this to get solved. Or more precisely, they do not want to make a compromise that is acceptable by the other side. While this happens all the times, the issue is that next to China-Tibet and China-Uigur conflicts (both pretty much closed chapters), this is the one where the balance of powers, be it economical, military and political is overwhelmingly in one side's favor. Israel is one of the most powerful countries in the world, Palestine is a group of people without anything except some ideals.

 

[Kaos]

I think that Israel has no plans to go back to 1967 borders, and Palestinians have no plans to accept anything less than that. Furthermore, Israel has no chance of accepting the right of return, while Palestinians won't accept a deal without it. Thus, there is close to impossible that this conflict gets solved.

For what is worth, I thought that prior to Netanyahu, Israel despite being the stronger player, wanted the conflict to get solved more. Barak offered far more than the Oslo accords, and that was not signed by Arafat. 'The secret offer' of Olmert presumably offered 94% of West Bank to Palestinians (in addition to a corridor between it and Gaza) which is very close to 1967 borders, and that was rejected from Abaz. For what is worth, I think that Palestinians should have accepted the reality and understand that the right of return will never happen, Israel is not going to accept 5 million Palestinians in Israel, whose connection to the land is that it belonged to their grandfather or so. And Palestine won't ever get the 1967 borders unless a new world war happen. I think some dose of reality from them is needed, to take whatever they can, not what they want. Cause the eternal alternative is worse.

For what is worth, I also think that Israel should have tried to solve the conflict more than they did. I think that Barak was genuine in wanting to solve it, but he didn't have the charisma of Rabin to convince the public about that. And even if Arafat would have signed, I see no chance that Sharon (who was even worse than Netanyahu in many ways) would have implemented that plan. No idea about Olmert, if it was just for show or he really wanted it to be solved. His offer was the best that Israel ever gave. I think that Netanyahu prefers a Greater Israel apartheid state, than a smaller Israel without the Palestinian problem. Benett is essentially a worse version of Netanyahu, and some of the ministers in Netanyahu cabinet would be glad with ethnical cleansing and would likely be happy with genocide too. No idea about Benny Gantz, what are his plans, assuming that he becomes the next prime minister after the war.

TLDR: I do not think that either Palestinians or Israeli (or at least their leaders) want this to get solved. Or more precisely, they do not want to make a compromise that is acceptable by the other side. While this happens all the times, the issue is that next to China-Tibet and China-Uigur conflicts (both pretty much closed chapters), this is the one where the balance of powers, be it economical, military and political is overwhelmingly in one side's favor. Israel is one of the most powerful countries in the world, Palestine is a group of people without anything except some ideals.

The trouble is all these concessions on the Israeli side sound good on paper, but they're always riddled with stipulations, which by their own admission they themselves wouldn't accept if the shoe were on the other foot. And I suspect they were shoehorned in with the hope and expectation that the Palestinians wouldn't accept them. Essentially it comes down to a simple fact - the status quo only benefits Israel, so it's not in Israel's interest to push for a two state solution as they'd stand to lose territorial control over Palestinian lands, would be forced to stop their settlement colonisation and be expected to finally declare their borders. Which is why I feel its tantamount for there to be international pressure to force their hand, because them along with their US partners aren't going to entertain it by their own accord. Yes the Palestinians will also stand firm in what they (IMO rightly) believe is their right to claim additional territories lost to them, as well as the RtoR, but I still believe they'd be more willing to compromise considering their own dire straits. But that compromise has its limits, namely not conceding the frankly absurd stipulations put towards them in any deal or accord that would given them a 'fragmented state' without the benefits of being a state. Rabin and Arafat came close to a just solution but Israeli terrorists buggered that up, much to the delight of those in the current Israeli cabinet.

 

[Revan]

The trouble is all these concessions on the Israeli side sound good on paper, but they're always riddled with stipulations, which by their own admission they themselves wouldn't accept if the shoe were on the other foot. And I suspect they were shoehorned in with the hope and expectation that the Palestinians wouldn't accept them. Essentially it comes down to a simple fact - the status quo only benefits Israel, so it's not in Israel's interest to push for a two state solution as they'd stand to lose territorial control over Palestinian lands, would be forced to stop their settlement colonisation and be expected to finally declare their borders. Which is why I feel its tantamount for there to be international pressure to force their hand, because them along with their US partners aren't going to entertain it by their own accord. Yes the Palestinians will also stand firm in what they (IMO rightly) believe is their right to claim additional territories lost to them, as well as the RtoR, but I still believe they'd be more willing to compromise considering their own dire straits. But that compromise has its limits, namely not conceding the frankly absurd stipulations put towards them in any deal or accord that would given them a 'fragmented state' without the benefits of being a state.

The Clinton deal accepted by Barak but not Arafat was an ok deal. Obviously, Palestinians after a century of humiliation deserve more, but all things considered it was a good deal. If both sides would have signed it, Palestine would have given a state and had it been accepted to the UN (why would anyone veto if Israel accepts), then even with Barak losing power to Sharon, it would have made things more complicated for Israel if they would have continue the occupation. Suddenly, they would have found themselves occupying not some territories without a definite status, but occupying another country, so the diplomatic pressure would have been far stronger (compare Russia-Chechen war to Russia-Ukraine war, albeit a far from perfect analogy).

While I also believe that Palestinians deserve to get the 1967 territories, the issue is that they won't be able to get them. There is also no chance that they will get the right of return. Morally sure, they deserve it, but in the real world where 'might is right', they won't get either. So in my opinion, they should have tried to get the maximum that they can get, not what they think is theirs. Cause what they think is theirs (and again, I agree that in a just world they should get at least the 1967 land) is not going to happen, no chance whatsoever. 3 generations of Palestinians have had hell lives trying to get that, it will continue like this until there won't be any Palestinians left in Palestine, if they do not make a massive and painful compromise.

Just as digression (and because there are some similarities, and of course, divergences), just one year before the Camp David Summit, Kosovo leadership got offered a very shit deal in Rambouillet conference. After a century of what we perceived as historical injustice, a decade of apartheid, and 18 months of constant killings, beating and torturing (a bit similar to West Bank situation), Kosovo got offered a substantial autonomy, and Serbia will still have forces present. Nothing about Serbia paying the price for what they did, nothing about the right of return of Albanians from other parts of Serbia who were deported a century earlier and their land taken, nothing about the other parts of Serbia that Albanian Kosovans considered theirs, not even independence for the remaining part of Kosovo. It was a worse deal than Camp David, most of Kosovan didn't want it cause it was a shit deal. But recognizing that this is the best we can get, Kosovo leadership signed the deal. Now, luckily, Serbia did not sign it, and then stuff happened, and eventually Kosovo became independent in 2008 (even then with another round of massive comromises), which did not get accepted by Serbia, and there are still massive problems, but in the end, Kosovo is a complete state (unlike Taiwan with much stronger recognition but much weaker economy and importance), and finds itself in all aspects, be it politically or economically better than Palestine. People in Kosovo have a far better life than Palestinians in Palestine, and that wouldn't be the case, if Kosovo insisted to get what is theirs (from their PoV).

My moral of the story is that if you find yourself in an overwhelmingly weak situation against a far stronger party (and let's be fair here, Palestine's adversary is infinitely more powerful than Kosovo's), I think the best bet is to sign the deal, even if it is far worse than what you think it is just. Otherwise, you condemn an another generation (actually more) to a very painful life. So, I think that Arafat not signing the deal was a tragedy. Saudi ambassador to the US back then said that if Arafat doesn't sign the deal, /it won't be a tragedy, it will be a crime'. And indeed, it was.

Rabin and Arafat came close to a just solution but Israeli terrorists buggered that up, much to the delight of those in the current Israeli cabinet.

You say that, but Barak offered even more than Rabin, and Arafat didn't accept it.

 

[langster]

Our Foreign Sec - Lord Cameron recently said the UK is committed to a Palestinian state. I hope he’s dragged over coals if the UK does end up abstaining.

He pretty much got a pass over Brexit which is just as much his fault as anyone elses. I think maybe only Farage is as guilty alongside the utter incompetence and arrogamce of the remain crew. Cameron only called the referendum to save his own skin and to appease party members. He was absolutely 100% sure leave would fail and the UK would remain in the EU. Afterwards he quietly left, went underground for a few years before returning as this new Lord and saviour.


In fairness I've liked a lot of what he has said recently and I sincerely believe his heart is in the right place regarding Palestine. However, he just hasn't fecking learned to read the room properly and yet again he's saying or doing things that will end up backfiring on him and everyone else.

As said above, there is no way the UK will go against the US and it looks like the current fecktards in charge either don't give a shit either way or fall heavily on not endorsing or helping towards a two state solution.

For a so called leading power in the West, we truly are a pathetic embarrassment and nothing more than US Blowfeld's pussy.

 

[Revan]

Yep, no chance that the UK would vote for. At most they will abstain, or probably just vote against in grounds that this type of unilateral decisions do not contribute to the peace and to the eventual permanent status of Palestine, yadda yadda.

 

[Idxomer]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Idxomer]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Sweet Square]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Kaos]

The Clinton deal accepted by Barak but not Arafat was an ok deal. Obviously, Palestinians after a century of humiliation deserve more, but all things considered it was a good deal. If both sides would have signed it, Palestine would have given a state and had it been accepted to the UN (why would anyone veto if Israel accepts), then even with Barak losing power to Sharon, it would have made things more complicated for Israel if they would have continue the occupation. Suddenly, they would have found themselves occupying not some territories without a definite status, but occupying another country, so the diplomatic pressure would have been far stronger (compare Russia-Chechen war to Russia-Ukraine war, albeit a far from perfect analogy).

While I also believe that Palestinians deserve to get the 1967 territories, the issue is that they won't be able to get them. There is also no chance that they will get the right of return. Morally sure, they deserve it, but in the real world where 'might is right', they won't get either. So in my opinion, they should have tried to get the maximum that they can get, not what they think is theirs. Cause what they think is theirs (and again, I agree that in a just world they should get at least the 1967 land) is not going to happen, no chance whatsoever. 3 generations of Palestinians have had hell lives trying to get that, it will continue like this until there won't be any Palestinians left in Palestine, if they do not make a massive and painful compromise.

Just as digression (and because there are some similarities, and of course, divergences), just one year before the Camp David Summit, Kosovo leadership got offered a very shit deal in Rambouillet conference. After a century of what we perceived as historical injustice, a decade of apartheid, and 18 months of constant killings, beating and torturing (a bit similar to West Bank situation), Kosovo got offered a substantial autonomy, and Serbia will still have forces present. Nothing about Serbia paying the price for what they did, nothing about the right of return of Albanians from other parts of Serbia who were deported a century earlier and their land taken, nothing about the other parts of Serbia that Albanian Kosovans considered theirs, not even independence for the remaining part of Kosovo. It was a worse deal than Camp David, most of Kosovan didn't want it cause it was a shit deal. But recognizing that this is the best we can get, Kosovo leadership signed the deal. Now, luckily, Serbia did not sign it, and then stuff happened, and eventually Kosovo became independent in 2008 (even then with another round of massive comromises), which did not get accepted by Serbia, and there are still massive problems, but in the end, Kosovo is a complete state (unlike Taiwan with much stronger recognition but much weaker economy and importance), and finds itself in all aspects, be it politically or economically better than Palestine. People in Kosovo have a far better life than Palestinians in Palestine, and that wouldn't be the case, if Kosovo insisted to get what is theirs (from their PoV).

My moral of the story is that if you find yourself in an overwhelmingly weak situation against a far stronger party (and let's be fair here, Palestine's adversary is infinitely more powerful than Kosovo's), I think the best bet is to sign the deal, even if it is far worse than what you think it is just. Otherwise, you condemn an another generation (actually more) to a very painful life. So, I think that Arafat not signing the deal was a tragedy. Saudi ambassador to the US back then said that if Arafat doesn't sign the deal, /it won't be a tragedy, it will be a crime'. And indeed, it was.



You say that, but Barak offered even more than Rabin, and Arafat didn't accept it.

'OK deal' is a stretch IMO, its a subjective matter, but looking at those deals more closely, particularly the stipulations and you'd see why Arafat was within his rights to be reluctant to sign. The Barak deal in particular would have the Palestinians fragmented into 3 west bank cantons, in addition to a small canton within EJ and one in Gaza, all under Israeli control, with Israel reserving full rights to be able to cut off any one of them. Now to me that doesn't sound it abides with the UN's insistence of I quote - ` the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence of all states in the area`, but rather a legalised occupation in all but name. And to quote Shlomo Ben Ami, who became essentially the architect of the Camp David Proposals in 2000, in regards to the Camp Oslo proposals that preceded them - "the Oslo agreements were founded on a neo-colonialist basis, on a life of dependence of one on the other forever". The point is the Israeli perspective never intended to concede genuine Palestinian autonomy and sovereignty over their territories.

Granted I obviously don't know anywhere near as much as the Kosovo situation as you do considering your background, but from my understanding there was never really any risk of fragmenting or cutting off Kosovo into several cantons, which at anytime could have been cut off by Serbia, nor was there an insistence that Serbia could exercise control over them. And of course the Palestinians never had the benefit of NATO forces bombing those who were at plausible risk of carrying out a genocide.

I take your point about Palestinians having to compromise from a position of weakness, but in reality the groundwork is already there for a fair two state framework. The only thing stopping it in essence is the United States, who remain the biggest obstacle to peace in the region. Instead of playing the bonafide arbiter, they insist on enabling Israel's expansionist agenda, while actively sabotaging any diplomatic initiatives to bring about a productive peace process and recognition of a Palestinian state.

 

[Revan]

'OK deal' is a stretch IMO, its a subjective matter, but looking at those deals more closely, particularly the stipulations and you'd see why Arafat was within his rights to be reluctant to sign. The Barak deal in particular would have the Palestinians fragmented into 3 west bank cantons, in addition to a small canton within EJ and one in Gaza, all under Israeli control, with Israel reserving full rights to be able to cut off any one of them. Now to me that doesn't sound it abides with the UN's insistence of I quote - ` the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence of all states in the area`, but rather a legalised occupation in all but name. And to quote Shlomo Ben Ami, who became essentially the architect of the Camp David Proposals in 2000, in regards to the Camp Oslo proposals that preceded them - "the Oslo agreements were founded on a neo-colonialist basis, on a life of dependence of one on the other forever". The point is the Israeli perspective never intended to concede genuine Palestinian autonomy and sovereignty over their territories.

Obviously, 'ok' means in the context where Palestine had basically nothing and are getting screwed in daily basis. By no means it is a great deal, as in 1967 borders with full sovereignity. But they were getting almost all the lands in the West Bank, the entire Gaza, and parts of the Jerusalem. There were also mentioned peacekeepers being sent there (similar to Kosovo for example).

Now, they definitely would not have gained full sovereignty, but it would have been a giant step towards it. The settler activity would have immediately halted. Providing that Palestinians would not have fecked up (i.e., choosing terrorist organisations to govern them), with time passing they would have gotten more and more sovereignty. Israel was ready to leave West Bank and Gaza (they left Gaza later anyway), and the main thing they cared was their security. So, I think (naive as I might be), that if that happened, and Palestinians would not have attacked Israel, with time they would have gained more and more sovereignty, until getting full one.

I take your point about Palestinians having to compromise from a position of weakness, but in reality the groundwork is already there for a fair two state framework. The only thing stopping it in essence is the United States, who remain the biggest obstacle to peace in the region. Instead of playing the bonafide arbiter, they insist on enabling Israel's expansionist agenda, while actively sabotaging any diplomatic initiatives to bring about a productive peace process and recognition of a Palestinian state.

They are in a massive position of weaknesses. 'Eventually the justice will prevail' or 'God will help them', unfortunately, neither will happen. They will either have to agree to a very shit deal, or no deal at all, which means getting beaten and de-humanized in daily basis, and every few years getting killed in the thousands. These are the only two deals they have, so I do not agree that it was wise to not choose the shitty deal, which default to chosing infinitely worse deal.

And of course, they are not the only people who have had historical injustices. We already mentioned the Tibetians and Uigurs, whom despite deserving so, do not have their own state. IIRC, you are ethnically Kurd, and the same goes for them. My point is that getting states, for most part has nothing to do with 'deserving to have a state', it is a complex geopolitical thing, that has much more to do with alliances, power, and doing the strategic things at the right time. Unfortunately, I think that Palestinians had many chances to choose the strategic thing to do but never did so (unlike for example Tibetians, Uigurs or Kurds who never even had the chance of Palestinians).

With regard to the bolded, the US is an ally of Israel, they are not a bonafide arbiter, I do not think anyone ever thought so. Their interest lie with Israel, and it is very unlikely this will change. I do not think that anyone pretends otherwise. But the US, are well, the most powerful country in the world, like it or not. And Israel, even without the US, has enough deterrance to ensure that nothing happens without them agreeing to it.

Granted I obviously don't know anywhere near as much as the Kosovo situation as you do considering your background, but from my understanding there was never really any risk of fragmenting or cutting off Kosovo into several cantons, which at anytime could have been cut off by Serbia, nor was there an insistence that Serbia could exercise control over them. And of course the Palestinians never had the benefit of NATO forces bombing those who were at plausible risk of carrying out a genocide.

I do not want to digress this even more, but I just took an example that despite the similar historical injustices, the deal offered to Kosovo was as bad (autonomy, not independence), in many ways worse than the one to Palestinians (in some better of course). Somehow, despite being unpopular, the Kosovan leadership accepted it, knowing that the other option was no-deal which means continuing the suffering. Of course, things then massively diverged since then, with Serbia not accepting that deal, eventually meaning that Kosovo became independent a decade later (and still not a member of the UN, 25 years later). But had Kosovan leadership not accepted the shit deal, not only there wouldn't be an independent Kosovo now, but likely there wouldn't be Albanians in Kosovo at all.

With Palestinians leaders not accepting the shit deals offered to them, in many ways mean that there won't ever be a Palestine. I think most people nowadays understand that it is unlikely that the two-state solution is ever going to happen.

 

[Idxomer]

oh no, the good guys are ignoring the norms! the precious rule of law!

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Idxomer]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Idxomer]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date