It absolutely does not. The violence will continue with both sides dishing it out and feeling completely justified in doing so because of what was previously done to them.
Or one side accepts a two state solution and stops using its proxies to attack Israel. Unfortunately, there have been eight attempts to give the Palestinians their own state and its been rejected every time. In the 90's, Bill Clinton gave them practically everything they asked for and was still rejected.
The only condition they will ever accept is when Israel ceases to exist.
Which begs the question - who's really initiating and continuing the violence? Israel has offered peace. HAMAS and its proxies like Hezbollah have rejected it every time. It should be obvious there's only one side who wants peace and one side who only wants war.
Unfortunately, there have been eight attempts to give the Palestinians their own state and its been rejected every time.
Can we have a source for that claim? I do not know how you would arrive at the number eight and how any offer would qualify as giving the Palestinians all they asked for. The Oslo process was probably the best shot but did not even come close to resolving the conflict. A lot of the contentious issue were just deferred to be figured out within five years and that simply never happened.
1st Rejection - The suggested split was heavily in favor of the Arabs. The British offered them 80% of the disputed territory, the Jews the remaining 20%. Yet, despite the tiny size of their proposed state, the Jews voted to accept this offer. But the Arabs rejected it and resumed their violent rebellion.
2nd Rejection - Ten years later, in 1947, the British asked the United Nations to find a new solution to the continuing tensions. Like the Peal Commission, the UN decided that the best way to resolve the conflict was to divide the land. In November 1947, the UN voted to create two states. Again, the Jews accepted the offer and again, the Arabs rejected it.
Only this time, they did so by launching an all-out war. Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon and Syria joined the conflict. But they failed. Israel won the war and got on with the business of building a new nation. Most of the land set aside by the UN for an Arab state, the West Bank and East Jerusalem, became occupied territory. Occupied not by Israel, but by Jordan.
3rd Rejection - 20 years later, in 1967, the Arabs led this time by Egypt and joined by Syria and Jordan, once again sought to destroy the Jewish state. The 1967 conflict, known as the Six-Day War, ended in a stunning victory for Israel. Jerusalem and the West Bank, as well as the area known as the Gaza Strip, fell into Israel’s hands.
The government split over what to do with this new territory. Half wanted to return the West Bank to Jordan and Gaza to Egypt in exchange for peace. The other half wanted to give it to the region’s Arabs, who had begun referring to themselves as the Palestinians, in the hope that they would ultimately build their own state there.
Neither initiative got very far.
A few months later, the Arab League met in Sudan and issued its infamous three-NOs, no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel. Again, a two-state solution was dismissed by the Arabs.
4th Rejection - In 2000, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak met at Camp David, with Palestinian Liberation Organization Chairman Nasser Arafat, to conclude a new two-state plan. Barak offered Arafat a Palestinian state in all of Gaza, and 94% of the West Bank, with East Jerusalem as its capital. But the Palestinian leader rejected the offer.
In the words of U.S. President Bill Clinton, “Arafat was here 14 days and said no to everything.”
Instead, the Palestinians launched a bloody wave of suicide bombings that killed over 1,000 Israelis and maimed thousands more, on buses, in wedding halls, and in pizza parlors.
5th Rejection - In 2008, Israel tried yet again. Prime Minister Ehud Omar went even further than Ehud Barak had, expanding the peace offer to include additional land to sweeten the deal. Like his predecessor, the new Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, turned the deal down.
The first two do not count, Israel did not even exist. They had nothing to offer, they wanted to take some of the land from the Arabs for their own state. They owned less than ten percent of Mandatory Palestin that they had purchased from Arabs and the United Nations decided to give them more than half of the land - admittedly including a lot of desert - for their own state. None of the Arab nations and obviously not the Palestinians agreed to that. Ben-Gurion took the offer and established the state of Israel, not because he considered it fair - he said he would be mad if he was a Palestinian - and not because he was satisfied, he saw it as a step to eventually take over all of Mandatory Palestin.
I can not say much about number three but your quote says that it did not get very far, so I am not sure why this is on a list of rejected offers if there was not even an offer, only considerations.
The way Camp David is described also does not match reality. They failed to agree on several points and therefore there was never an offer that could be rejected. One point of contention was the right to return for the Palestinians expelled by the Israelis. You can not say one side blocked it, the Palestinians wanted more than what Israelis offered, they could have accepted less or the Israelis could have offered more.
Number five, the realignment plan, that was a proper offer, but the characterization in your quote is still misleading. Israel unilaterally proposed to withdraw from most of the Westbank and permanently annex six percent of it containing the major settlements. There was also some other stuff including some land swaps included. I am not sure if the reason for the failure are welk known, you find claims about rejections, claims about just not accepting, that story about not being allowed to look at the map before agreeing, ... And given that it was an unilateral offer, I am not sure that it addressed all points deemed relevant by the Palestinians, for example what happens to the refugees. I would love if someone could provide additional insights.
> They owned less than ten percent of Mandatory Palestin that they had purchased from Arabs
If relations between the two sides hadn’t deteriorated to the point of civil war then the split would never have been proposed in their first place. Left alone the Jews living in the mandate probably would have continued living there as a minority like they were in many Arab states.
The Palestinians fear of Zionism has turned into a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The Palestinians fear of Zionism has turned into a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Nothing mystic or prophetic at all about it.
Palestine is in the situation it is in due to the calculated policies of the various colonial powers and their "post-colonial" successors -- perhaps better described as "modern great power chauvinist states".
And due to its own mistakes of course (as with any society, especial). But these are generally overshadowed by interventions (far) beyond its control, emanating from these aforementioned interventionist powers. One can dissect the various aspects and subaspects of this dynamic, but that's the long and short of the situation.
In any case, "prophecy" as such has nothing to do with the current status quo.
> The first two do not count, Israel did not even exist. They had nothing to offer, they wanted to take some of the land from the Arabs for their own state.
The Palestinian state also didn’t exist. Palestine was under British rule at the time, and prior to that they were ruled by the Ottomans, and prior to that they were ruled by Arab Caliphates and Christian crusaders, and before that the Romans.
That’s what makes the anti-Israel movement hypocritical. There have always Jews in Palestine, and in fact they predate the Arabs by centuries. And a Palestinian state would be just as much a modern creation as Israel is. The only way to legitimize a Palestinian state and delegitimize an Israeli one is a completely arbitrary set of rules. A two state solution is the only one that makes any sense of any kind.
Sure but even though I myself used the term state in my comment, I do not think that states are what matters. What matters are the people living in the region, it is their right to decide what should and should not happen, whether they are formally organized as a state or not. At the time of the Balfour Declaration the Jews were a five to ten percent minority in Mandatory Palestine. In the end it should have been the decision of the people living there - state or not - whether they want to accommodate the Jews that desired to settle there and even more so should it have been their decision whether they want the land split into two states.
The Israelis illegitimately took have of the land from the Palestinians with force and then occupied the other half when they resisted. Similar things happend all throughout history and they can not be undone. The people of Israel will not be forced back to where they came from just as we will not send all Americans back to Europa, Africa, and Asia to give the land back to the native Americans.
But the Palestinians deserve better than the status quo, they are the ones that were treated unjust. Israel should go out of its way to make good on past wrongs, if it does not hurt them, they are not doing enough. Israel now has a right to exist, they do not have to accept existential threats, but they owe the Palestinians a lot.
> The way Camp David is described also does not match reality. They failed to agree on several points and therefore there was never an offer that could be rejected.
You mean Arafat's refusal for to even define infinite "right of return" or participate in any way with the Summit? While every historian (including his Arafat's wife he told to hide in Paris) said he was preparing for the second intifada?
Also its widely known that the Summit was the closest they have ever gotten outside Taba. Its a hilarious statement to think there was no "offer".
I did not say there were no offers but that there was no agreement. Both sides made offers but none was accepted by the other side. To stick with the right to return issue, the Palestinians demanded a wider right to return than Israel was willing to accept, Israel offered a more restricted right to return than the Palestinians were willing to accept. But such a failure to agree can not be easily blamed on only one party, each party could have moved their offers closer to the other side. Only if one party is obviously unreasonable in their demands or refuses to even negotiate, then you might be able to put the blame on one side.
And let me add a note on the language. At least I but probably also others easily fall into a pattern of saying that Israel makes offers and that the Palestinians reject offers and have demands. This certainly reflects the power imbalance but it also has different connotations - making offers sounds much more positive than having demands and rejecting offers. I guess it would be better to talk about proposals and accepting or not accepting them. Both sides have made proposals and they have not been accepted by the other party sounds much more balanced than saying Israel made offers that got rejected by the Palestinians while Israel dismissed demands made by the Palestinians.
> In November 1947, the UN voted to create two states. Again, the Jews accepted the offer and again, the Arabs rejected it. Only this time, they did so by launching an all-out war. Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon and Syria joined the conflict.
You are glossing over a TON of important events between January 1947 and May 1948. Primarily the destruction of Palestinian towns and rampant slaughter at the hands of the Zionist Haganah and Irgun militias. Israeli attempts to memory-hole the Nakhba have failed.
^GDF cites many western and Israeli sources in this video
Also, between what you list as the 3rd Rejection (1967) and 4th Rejection (2000), you are omitting that the pro-peace settlement Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated......by the Israeli far-right.....who are pretty much the same people now running Israel into the ground on a path of violence.
Sure, I have no doubt that there are a lot of reasonable people that wish to settle the conflict and that have proposed ideas to reach that goal. But if I sit down and write a peace agreement, that is worth nothing, and if does not get implemented, that is not an rejection.
Israel could act unilaterally, they could decide to withdraw from the Westbank and then just do it, no need to make an offer or agreement and have it accepted by the Palestinians. The obvious drawback of that is that you have no idea how it will be received by the other side, will they be satisfied and the conflict ends or will they keep fighting because they are not satisfied?
So you probably want an agreement between both parties that codifies what both parties will and will not do if accepted. With that it is no longer about accepting an offer but reaching an agreement. If your offer is good enough, it might become an agreement without further negotiation, but as you want to offer as little as possible while getting as much as possible, this seems unlikely to happen. There will be a back and forth of offers and counteroffers and they will all be rejected until you reach an agreement that is acceptable by both parties or until you get stuck because of irreconcilable differences.
But even if you reach an agreement at the negotiation table, that does not mean you have succeeded. The agreement must also be accepted by the affected people on both sides and you have to be able to implement it. Agreeing to stop attacks is worth nothing if the people performing the attacks do not support the agreement and keep fighting and you do not have sufficient power to prevent this.
Long story short, what I want to say is that making an offer and complaining about getting it rejected does not make much sense. If you can act unilaterally, just skip the offer and do it, if both parties have to be involved, you have to reach an agreement and getting offers rejected during the negotiations is an expected part of the process. And unless one side has completely unreasonable demands, a failure to reach an agreement can not easily be blamed on one side alone, both parties have the ability to move their position towards the other side.
Long story short, what I want to say is that making an offer and complaining about getting it rejected does not make much sense
No one is complaining about it, they're pointing to the many generous and heartfelt attempts made, that were rebuffed, along with repeated statements that Israel should not exist.
This shows how unreasonable others are being, and how reasonable and open to resolving things Israel has been.
With the support of the United Nations and violence Israel took half of the land from the people living in Mandatory Palestine and displaced hundred thousands of them. And then occupied the rest of the land when they were fighting back. And terrorized and killed quite a few of them in the course of it. They better make a generous and heartfelt attempt to make good for that.
And with that I can just ask a similar question as before, where are those attempts that failed for unreasonable reasons? And I mean attempts that actually had a chance of getting implemented, backed by sufficient power to follow through if an agreement could be reached.
[...] along with repeated statements that Israel should not exist.
A good part of the people in power in Israel - not all of course - would similarly prefer if there was no Palestinian state, from Ben-Gurion who hopped that Israel will eventually encompass all of Mandatory Palestine to Netanyahu who rejects a fully sovereign Palestine.
Every country on the planet, every single piece of land, has people on it who displaced others. Yes, this includes the Palestinians too, they've displaced others, you just need go far enough back. Historical displacement is irrelevant, and only the oldest among us even remember a time when there was no modern Israel.
Israel belongs there too, Jews have lived in the region forever, and Jewish run states have existed for thousands of years in the region.
It's this simple. Israel exists, and is going nowhere.
People need to deal with it, drop historical hatred, and make peace.
Well you can't compensate a dead person, but you can compensate a living person. There is the cut-off from historical perspective. In this spirit, a single state allowing right of return and equal (voting) rights is a workable solution.
Thing is, Israel currently is an apartheid state, so the status quo is not acceptable.
In addition, tens of thousands of civilian casualties within the country, and ignoring ICJ rulings which Israel have signed up to, indicate effectively a rogue government, needing change.
There is a question over what defines Israel as a state, there's no reason why Palestinians and Jews should not be able to live together, with a shared government, but that's not the case here, and that seems to be because Israelis are taking land, making asymmetric laws, allowing anyone with 'Jewish' heritage citizenship regardless of their actual location, and so on. The issue is basically Zionism and the fact that Zionism effectively mandates ethnic cleansing, not Judaism.
Incidentally it does work. It's just horrible. Nagasaki / Hiroshima are a fine example of forced capitulation. Now I'm not suggesting nuking anyone but the best way this ends, with the lowest future body count is someone wins decisively at this point.
Who said I have a solution? The violence will continue, I just want my country (America) to stop involving itself by providing material/financial/etc support to Israel. I think this is likely to happen once baby boomers are fully aged out of the political process (because the synthesis of christianity and zionism are far less popular with younger generations.) I do not propose a resolution to the conflict but do anticipate America distancing itself from the conflict.
I don't disagree but if America distances itself now it will lose credibility, something which is somewhat low on the international stage at the moment. It has however done wonders for the defence industry here in Europe now we can't trust a traditional political ally. (This is not a criticism of the US, but a criticism of the UK and EU who should have military and political independence)
I think you miss that people tend to become less idealistic and further right as they get older. The "boomer" generation is just replaced by more of the same people. It's never going to change.
Defense of Taiwan is very important for the sort od reasons you're talking about. The defense of Israel though? That's a net negative which causes America a great deal of reputational harm around the world. With regard to Europe taking their own defense industry seriously again, I think that is ultimately a good thing for the American public, and in any case isn't caused by the trend of younger Americans disliking Israel. Rather, it is caused particularly by a certain baby boomer presidential candidate who simultaneously suggests that America shouldn't oppose Putin invading Europe AND that America should instead triple down on support for Israel.
As for people going "further right" as they get older, the younger American generations disliking Israel isn't a right/left thing. Young right and young left both dislike Israel, for their own reasons. Churches in America, particularly white evangelical churches from whom support for Israel is the strongest, are in a precipitous decline. They look like nursing homes now, younger generations aren't coming back and the boomers in those churches are in a panic over it.
You’re rewriting history to suit your point of view. The Japanese state was uninterested in capitulating after the nuclear bombs. It’s the declaration of war by the Soviets and rapid invasion of then-Manchuria which led the Japanese to accept unconditional surrender. They trusted the West to keep the emperor more than the Communists.
You’re making an exclusionary argument to discredit mine and use the rewrite history point. Come on. My point stands as do your secondary points. But that was a principal contributing factor.
GP's actually true that the nukes wasn't the decisive factor but the Soviet invasion was. The popular narrative that American nukes ended it is merely the most useful version.
The bomb was not a principal contributing factor. We're talking about fascist ideologues hellbent on every man, woman and child dying to stall an invasion of their homeland. Of course the thing they feared most weren't new types of bombs, which did not change their situation. The thing the feared most were those horrible communists.
Correction, the best way this ends now is that Bibi lives to a nice old age and dies of natural causes and not in prison. This is not the Empire of Japan. This is a poorly funded proxy war being kept just below a boil so certain members of Israel's political class are not found to be criminals.
I agree there to some extent, but believe me it's not going to be all roses if you change the leadership. It will just be different actors. And in the transition time, things will get worse. I think you are chasing the wrong solution.
