I think a two-state solution would be the best possible solution, and I also see no hope for it in the foreseeable future.
Imagine for a moment that, when Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in 2005, it also fully and unconditionally removed all restrictions on Gazans’ access to the sea, freedom of movement, and so on.
Does anyone think that, under those ideal circumstances, the Gazan authorities would have taken the opportunity to plant the seeds for a future Palestinian state that could live side-by-side with Israel? I see no evidence to support that. I think they would have gone in the same direction that they did, which was to lay hundreds of miles of tunnels for military purposes, turn water pipes into missiles, and, ultimately, launch the attack that they knew would bring a crushing Israeli response.
When the Israelis are done pulverizing Gaza, what’s going to make the next withdrawal any different?
“Two states” is not the solution, for the simple reason that the problem has never been the number of states. There are Muslims who want all Jews completely gone, and there are Jews who want all Muslims completely gone. Those people are the problem, and they won’t stop being the problem just because the Others are now on the other side of a border.
The solution to the Middle East violence problem is simple, easy, and impossible. All that needs to happen is for people to stop killing each other. Whether that happens in one state, two states, or ten states is irrelevant. And it’s not going to happen, because apparently people like killing each other too much.
Agree with this. Israel will not allow the Gaza territory to to be controlled by anyone other than Israel from now until whatever. Israel will also not concede control over the West Bank to anyone other than Israel. You MAY get them to share some power in the West Bank, but that seems unlikely in the current environment, for a few years anyway. Israel seems to just want the Gaza population to go away, and they want someone else to come-up with an answer. But I cannot envision the land that Gaza once stood upon ever being controlled by anyone other than Israel going forward.
Another reason there won’t be peace is because the Palestinian leadership is full of grifters making fortunes off of international aid. They live in mansions in Qatar and elsewhere with billions in stolen money, while Hamas takes a lot of what’s left and uses it to build tunnels and rockets. The poor Gazans get the dregs.
Yasir Arafat’s daughter is worth billions. Is it any wonder he never wanted peace? Death was far too lucrative.
There are about a million bad incentives keeping the Palestinian issue alive. So long as they are there, there won’t be peace. Or Israel has to provide enough disincentive to overcome the money train.
A two state solution would merely involve the Palestinians agreeing to a formalized version of the proscription and oppression they are experiencing now in the West Bank and possibly Gaza, and renouncing their Right of Return. I don’t see that happening.
Arafat almost completely sold out the Palestinians in the Oslo negotiations save that one lingering issue, the Palestinians’ Right of Return.
I hear people say this all the time but what does it actually mean? Who is it in that region who benefits from the conflict? How do they benefit? In what way would any of the nearby countries suffer any kind of detriment from Israel and Palestine making peace?
Iran is engaged in a cold war with Saudi Arabia through proxies throughout the Middle East. If Saudi Arabia and Israel find their interests aligned, then the currently tripolar Middle East becomes bipolar, and with both the sides that aren’t Iran already aided by the US, this would leave Iran marginalized.
The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is a major wedge between Saudi Arabia and Israel. If it is resolved, there is very little keeping Israel and Saudi Arabia from taking the geopolitically wise course and aligning against Iran. (In fact, they were already doing this before Oct 7, which is a major reason why Iran sponsored Hamas decided to take such drastic action.
Clearly there would need to be a major marketing campaign to get majorities of either side on board. Recent years have seen declines in support on both sides. The biggest support comes from Israeli Arabs.
But some of that is I think because few see anyone to work with on the other side so few bother to promote the idea. My WAG is that in hypothetical world that a deal was reached those partners to would have made themselves apparent.
Again this fantasy relies on all of international pressures, incentives, and security arrangements. It also anticipates that leadership is due to change all around, Bibi getting kicked off the stage and Abbas aging out.
Well, there are muslim nations/orgs that declare all Jews must die- “Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes,” I am sure there are some Jewish radicals, but they dont control the government.
You know and I know that this is the Palestinian people’s money. These millions didn’t belong to Yasser Arafat, they belong to the Palestinian people. Besides, the fact that these millions were embezzled or arrogated four or five years ago doesn’t mean that it is hopeless or too late to set the record straight.
I do mean pressure at government levels on all players to bring all to the table. This includes pressure from the US on Israel and from various Arab nations on Palestinian leadership.
Paired for each with some, I don’t know what, suitable incentives, and a believable plan that assures security while trust is very gradually gained.
Is that still the case, is there any movement? I’m not following this closely enough. Has the citizenry in either or both territories softened to the idea or have the recent events cemented their recalcitrance?
Ok ive solved it. Offer all Palestinians US citizenship, at a rate of say 500.000 a year, part funded by stopping aid to Israel. Rest of the West can also take in Palestinians prorata to population and/or wealth.
Conflict over in 10 years.
The only difference between Israel right-wing Netanyahu and the revisionist Zionists and the “left”-wing Labor Zionists—the two largest political factions in Israel—is that the Revisionists are more upfront about their efforts to appropriate occupied lands in Palestine, whereas the Labor Zionists have merely given lip service to a two-state solution. Ytzhak Rabin, Prime Minister under the Labor Party, expanded settlements, demolished Palestinian homes and constructions, and displaced Palestinians by the thousands in occupied Palestine all the while he was negotiating the Oslo Accords in the early 90’s. The Oslo Accords ensured Rabin’s stricture that the Palestinians be given “an entity which is less than a state.” The term “Palestinian state” does not appear anywhere in the Oslo Accords. This is as close as any Zionist leader, came to being serious about peace.
Abbas is merely the continuation of the prisoner self-administration that Arafat, in his greed for some kind of power in exchange for selling out the Palestinians, had agreed to through the Oslo Accords.
Accepting that as an anti-Zionist your take is that Israel is the oppressor, maybe even evil:, and assuming you could convince an overwhelming majority of others of that:
Pressure that is solely the unilateral, no matter how intense, will not be effective while Israel believes (well having lived it knows) that a unilateral move on their part will increase their security risks. Nor does it seem likely any unilateral action by them other than dismantling the state and all Jews moving out bring any halt to hostilities. The thought process expressed above by @InfraBlue is too widely entrenched.
