I’m well aware that there are numerous legitimate grievances among the Palestinian people, among but not limited to those in the West Bank and Gaza.
There are legitimate concerns about racism and discrimination even for Arabs in Israel, but the courts have consistently come down against such actions. There are problems for those Palestinians who live in refugee camps in other countries, many of which have adopted laws designed to keep them living in the camps, and even made it illegal for them to find work outside of the camps. Other nations, like Lebanon, have a history of treating them very roughly and just a couple years ago, the Lebanese army shelled the hell out of refugee camp. IIRC they weren’t using surgical strikes either. Palestinians in the West Bank do not have freedom of movement even within the West Bank itself. Many have family/friends in Jordan but are unable to visit them most of the time due to the Jordanian border policies. There are valid demands that they have increased water rights, that Gazans have increased fishing rights. Fatah is corrupt and Hamas are theocratic thuggish genocidal lunatics. Much of the aid/money which is sent never get into the hands of the people. Unemployment is massive and they are unable to import/export freely. Ironically as well, one of their main trading partners has always been Israel, and due to security restrictions they are unable to travel and work in Israel without great difficulty and delay. Even ambulances have trouble traveling freely, largely due to the fact that there is a history of ambulances being used to smuggle weapons/bombs/terrorists.
Etc, etc, etc. That’s just a smattering off the top of my head.
Of course they have valid demands. They want a sovereign state with viable agricultural and water rights, with open borders so that they can travel to see family in Jordan or Egypt, Israel or wherever, or simply vacation. They want open airspace and a national airline. They want the ability to send fishing boats as deep into international waters as they see fit. They want a decent standard of living and a viable economy. They want the ability to visit their holy sites and don’t want security checkpoints on their land or, for that matter, to have to be treated as possible enemy combatants at every checkpoint in Israel proper. They want to have sovereign control and ownership over the land they are living on now. Which, of course, has legal but not necessarily pragmatic problems. For roughly 400 years, the vast majority of land in the region was Miri or waste land, that is, land which could not be privately owned and which tenants could only ‘rent’ by continuously cultivating it. This system was kept by both the British and Jordanians when they were the sovereign powers in control of the land. So legal claims to property rights fall short, but it is obvious that a pragmatic solution must be reached. I have gone on record, numerous times in the last week or two unless I miss my guess, as stating that Clinton’s Bridging Proposal would be a very good goal to shoot for (with modifications in Final Status negotiations), as after land swaps and periods of increasingly scaled back Israeli control to guarantee a smooth transition, it gave (what would become) a sovereign PA roughly 97% of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. I’ve gone on record as saying that the US should apply its economic influence to attempt to get all settlement expansion stopped. I’ve gone on record as stating that there is a pragmatic necessity to provide funds Palestinians who were dispossessed, largely because any Palestinian territory itself must have viable social services as soon as possible, but also because it would be a good gesture to settle bad blood and the Final Status of the refugees. I believe that it would have to be negotiated because, as pointed out above many didn’t even own the land they were living on. A unilateral decision of how much they were owed would be silly, and most evenhanded folks recognize that. Israel no more gets to determine what the refugees should get than does Abbas or Haniyah, or the Saudis or whoever. But a negotiated settlement allows an agreed upon value to be set and paid rather than simply declared by fiat.
[…]
I want there to be a viable two state solution with peace security, prosperity and a high standard of living for both sides. And I want it ASAP.
[…]
I have seen (some) good signs from Fatah in the West Bank however, as they recently controlled their populace and didn’t permit violent protests to develop ‘a stone’s throw’ away from Israeli troops. Although that in and of itself has produced resentment, it does seem that Fatah is actually interested in a peaceful government with sovereignty. Oh, to be sure, it still spews the same rhetoric. But while Hamas’ rejectionist position is proven by its actions, Fatah’s rejectionist rhetoric (might be) falsified by its willingness to achieve domestic calm so as to be a viable negotiating partner for Israel. Even children who are radicals would have a hard time continuing in that vein if their home was peaceful and prosperous and, especially, if the PA was active in cracking down on terrorism and genocidal incitement.
I believe that the best way to marginalize Hamas is to have a sovereign West Bank which can demonstrate to them the ‘carrot’ of peaceful relations, and provide a glaring object lesson as to what path works, and what leads to misery and bloodshed for both nations. I believe that the sooner we get a viable two state solution, the sooner the citizens in Gaza will start slitting some Hamas throats. And the sooner there is a viable pair of states who can coexist in peace and prosperity, the revenue from tourism alone will help the Palestinians’ economic and social interests immensely.
I’m not unaware of the complexities of the situation, I just find myself having to debunk counter-factual claims much more often than talking about Where We Go From Here. Anybody can check out, for instance, my disagreements with DSeid. He and I disagree on some fundamental points, like the effectiveness of his ‘snapping turtle’ strategy of defense. But I have never known him to be anything other than scrupulously honest and accurate, and he mythbusts both traditional Zionist and anti-Zionist positions that aren’t factual. Because he’s able to see nuance and keep his position grounded in fact rather than myth, he and I can disagree (and even contradict each other on factual points with valid cites and see those points conceded) . I’d be more than happy to discuss pragmatic solutions to this conflict which has gone on far too long. But that is hampered by constant myth busting, or people who simply argue to support their agenda, or who distort the facts to score rhetorical points, or what have you.