Can you speak more to your perspective? The only way I can understand your take is to say that the West Bank is rightfully Israeli and therefore its residents should be citizens with voting rights. Are you opposed to an independent Palestinian state?
The west bank isn't independent. If a citizen there commits a crime, they are sent to an Israelite court. Their infrastructure and policing are done by Israel. Their elected officials are completely powerless, they cannot change anything.
Their vote cannot affect the government that governs them. They are israeli citizens with no say in the state that controls them.
Not OP, but I am for either giving the Palestinians the same rights as Israelis in a 1 state solution or a an independent Palestinian state but since Israel doesn't seem interested in that it's a cheap talking point because Israel will just crush the Palestinians under its boot until economic sanctions are applied similar to how it was done re South Africa.
"Yitzhak Rabin presented the Oslo II Interim Agreement to the Knesset on October 5, 1995, in his final speech to the legislative body. As he spoke, he boldly laid out what he believed to be the future of the Jewish state, boasting that “The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six-Day War.” He also described his vision of a Palestinian “entity” he described as “less than a state.”
You can't expect people under brutal military occupation to suddenly start loving their occupiers while under that occupation.
You have to end that occupation, period. That means ALL illegal Israeli settlers in the West Bank need to move off the settlements too btw.
If after an independent Palestinian state is established on the pre-1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital, all of West Bank and all of Gaza and then Israel faces violence from that state, then you'll have support of many you don't right now.
You can't occupy people forever, or because one of their leaders rejected a deal once etc.
>> You can't occupy people forever, or because one of their leaders rejected a deal once etc.
Turkey, which has for all intents and purposes occupied the (ancestral lands of) the Kurdish people for many years, would like to disagree.
Turkey, btw, which has occupied the ancestral lands of the Kurdish people, alongside the ancestral lands of the Ionian and Pontiac Greeks, Assyrian and Cappadokian Christians and Armenians, whom it has ethnically cleansed and genocided.
Sure you can occupy people forever. Or until you massacre every last one of them who won't leave (what is now) your land.
But Israel was not the one that rejected two state solutions offered by UN in 1948, USA in 2000, and by Israel in 1990s, 2008 etc. It was Arab countries, and Palestinian leaders.
Why was Palestine not a state before 1967 with Gaza and West bank as territory?
How many times have Palestinians offered to recognize and make permanent peace with Israel?
Responding to your edit
>> If after an independent Palestinian state is established on the pre-1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital, all of West Bank and all of Gaza and then Israel faces violence from that state, then you'll have support of many you don't right now.
Huh, why did they not accept it in 2000 then? Why launch the second intifada? Why ask the "right to return"? Why call for the destruction of the entirety of Israel as a "white settler colonial state"?
It's questionable that the Western dominated UN of 1948 had any authority to make such a proposal and that it was fair in terms of how the territory was to be divided.
> Why was Palestine not a state before 1967 with Gaza and West bank as territory?
Because it was occupied by Egypt and Jordan and before then by the Brits and before then by the Ottomans....
Are you making an argument that the Palestinians were occupied since forever so why not occupy them forever?
> Huh, why did they not accept it in 2000 then?
The 2000 deal was a deal for 'less than a state' that's why, see my previous post.
The West Bank is occupied by in substantial fraction by Americans, not even Israelis, who choose to live in the West Bank, from where Palestinians were exiled by the IDF, under Israeli protection. How is that anything like Afghanistan nation building?
Countries with bantustans that they technically don't claim as part of their territory, but in practice completely control without giving the population any rights, are not normally considered democratic. See for example South Africa.
The reason why South Africa and many intellectuals consider Israel to be an apartheid state is not because of the treatment of Arabs that were allowed to become Israeli citizens after the Nakba, but because of the occupation of the West-Bank. The West-Bank is not rightfully Israel land, but has been de facto under Israeli occupation for 50 years. The situation there is very comparable to SA Bantustans; the people there have no rights, have no nationality, and are brutally suppressed by the Israeli government and fascist settlers. Ghaza is basically an open air concentration camp.
The status quo is apartheid. The options to change that are one multicultural state, a two-state solution or genocide.
