Skip Navigation
Asklemmy @lemmy.ml bartolomeo @suppo.fi

Realistically, how can Palestine gain it's freedom?

We know what happens with peaceful protests, elections, and foreign interference (and more foreign interference), so how can Palestine gain it's freedom? Any positive ideas are welcome, because this situation is already a humanitarian crisis and is looking bleaker by the day.

Historical references are also valuable in this discussion, like slave revolts or the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, although hopefully in the case of Palestine a peaceful and successful outcome can be achieved, as opposed to some of the historical events above.

98
98 comments

  • Within Israel, the vast majority of people don't particularly care about any kind of manifest destiny style reclamation of the West Bank or Gaza, and if that were the only issue, I genuinely don't think there would be a significant problem.

    What essentially everyone does care about, however, is repeatedly having rockets lobbed at them. When people feel under threat, reason starts to fall away, people begin dehumanizing the "other", and you get the massive mess we have today. The fact of the matter is that Israel will never accept any situation where its people are under threat. No matter what you think about what acts are or aren't justified or your opinion on how various parts of the history played out, none of that changes this basic reality.

    Palestine is not going to be able to militarily eradicate Israel. There is precisely zero chance that Israelis allow themselves to be subjected to a second diaspora and they'll fight to the death to prevent this, and that's to say nothing of external players like the United States. Again, whether you think this is a good thing or a bad thing, it is a true thing.

    On the flip side, Israel is perfectly capable of essentially eradicating the Palestinians, though this would subject it to massive international condemnation that would also have huge economic impacts. You're already beginning to see whispers of this as the world increasingly sees Israel's response in Gaza as being excessively harsh. The most they could do is a slow and steady degradation of Palestinian society while encouraging them to "voluntarily" leave, which is arguably what the strategy has essentially been under Likud with settlements and the like.

    So, what's required for a peaceful co-existence? Firstly, you need a mutual acknowledgement from both leaders (and also, a legitimate Palestinian leadership in the first place) that the other side exists and has a right to do so, ie, Palestinians giving up on the idea of eradicating Israel and Israelis giving up on the idea of fully annexing and ethnically cleaning Palestinian lands. This is not a trivial thing. The Israeli far-right, though they're not dominant, are growing and believe they have a divine right to the West Bank, with the Arabs being seen as little more than animals in the way. The extreme Palestinian side is that all Israelis are essentially foreign invaders and should be forcibly removed or killed. Both of these positions must be completely taken off the table.

    Secondly, Israel will not engage unless it is confident that its security will not be threatened, which will in practice mean that Palestinian authorities must be de-militarized beyond what's necessary for basic local law enforcement. Again, this might seem unfair, and hell, it probably is. But the fact of the matter remains that Israel is the side holding the guns here, so you either play by their rules and try to find some positive outcome, or you flip the table and enjoy the complete loss, but with some moral satisfaction. Similarly, there would probably need to be some kind of border controls for imports that Israeli authorities can inspect for covert weapons shipments, since it's a known thing that Iran does regularly try to bring weapons into Gaza. Ideally, this would be some kind of bi-national force with Palestinian cooperation.

    If you reach these points, then you still have other very big questions to deal with, like precise borders, land swaps, the question of Jerusalem, how to connect Gaza and the West Bank, any right of return for displaced Palestinians both recently and during the Nakba, and plenty of other things I'm sure I'm forgetting about. But ultimately, if you have a Palestinian and Israeli leadership that are actually interested in peace and accept the existence of the other, and both agree to cooperate on matters of security and prioritizing that peace above and past grievances, no matter how legitimate, that gives you a real foundation you can build from.

    I wouldn't get my hopes up though.

    • What essentially everyone does care about, however, is repeatedly having rockets lobbed at them. When people feel under threat, reason starts to fall away, people begin dehumanizing the "other", and you get the massive mess we have today. The fact of the matter is that Israel will never accept any situation where its people are under threat.

      I get what you mean, but the current situation has continued since even before the rocket attacks. Gaza was blockaded before rocket attacks even became a thing (setting aside the second Intifada because that's its own thing). What I mean is: Israeli's feeling under threat is probably a factor, but it's not the main issue.

      and also, a legitimate Palestinian leadership in the first place

      True enough, but let's remember that it's Israel that engineered a situation where they can claim Palestine has no legitimate leadership. You're not wrong about the fact, but I just wanted to make the cause clear.

      • For sure, I'm not at all trying to portray Israel as blameless here, because they are not.

        I think the blockade does have some basic level of merit, at least in principle (it can't really be doubted that Hamas does import weapons and materials with Iranian backing), but it's critical that those kinds of controls only go as far as they're needed and no further. However, the Israeli government has never really cared about not going to far, so Palestinians have no real reason to trust that they're being treated in good faith, violence comes to feel like the only real option, and onwards the mess rolls along.

        Along with Palestinians needing to accept that Israel is going to exist in some capacity and that it will not accept any deal that doesn't ensure its security, Israelis need to accept that if they don't take every step towards keeping peaceful paths available and fruitful, then people will turn to violent ones. Israel can of course easily win a conflict of violence, but it doesn't have to be this way

    • The extreme Palestinian side is that all Israelis are essentially foreign invaders and should be forcibly removed or killed.

      That's essentially the reality of the situation, though. The land was populated by Palestinians before Europe and the rest of the Middle East NIMBY'd their remaining Jewish populations to Israel.

      • Maybe if it was the 1940s this would be a bit more accurate, but at this point, we're a couple generations removed from the original mass displacements. Most Israelis today were born there.

        Like I said, the way towards progress lies with both sides finding a way to get over historical grievances of who started what and who's to blame for this and that and instead accepting the fact that they're both here now and need to find a way to exist with each other.

      • That’s essentially the reality of the situation, though. The land was populated by Palestinians before Europe and the rest of the Middle East NIMBY’d their remaining Jewish populations to Israel.

        This is all kinds of wrong.

        Zionism was a Jewish movement. Antisemitism was not NIMBYism, that's a pretty horrible thing to say, it was persecution, pogroms, attacks, the holocaust, a constant stream of hate and oppression. Zionism was certainly not a movement of the Europeans and Middle Easterners who persecuted us. It was our movement. Zionism was not just an escape, but also a long held dream of the Jewish people that coalesced as it became plausible in late Ottoman policy. It was finally possible for Jews to buy land in, and immigrate to, Israel, so many of us did.

        We are not foreign to Israel. It is our indigenous homeland. As the rest of the world rejected us, we no longer felt safe as strangers in strange lands. We considered the possibility of having our own nation on borrowed land from the Russians, or from the Germans, or in Alaska. We didn't care for those ideas because of how stupid they were. We wanted a homeland in our homeland. If you don't understand Jewish indigeneity in Judea, maybe you're not ready to talk about complex topics.

        As for the Palestinian ties to the land—Palestinian nationalism barely existed before Jewish people started returning to Israel. Arabs in the various Ottoman Sanjaks or whatever division there was at the time were mostly traveling merchants or pilgrims; there was, of course, a small permanent population, which included Jews (always, despite various efforts to remove them or ban them), Christians, and Muslims, but that population expanded dramatically starting in the mid-late 1800s on all fronts. The Arabs then either continued to call themselves Syrians, Egyptians, Jordanians ("Jordan" and "Palestine" were part of the same colony, I hope you know), or they subscribed to some conception of pan-Arabism. The word "Palestinian," to the extent was used at all before the ~1960s, was used largely to refer to whoever happened to be in Palestine (like "New Yorker," not referring to a race of some kind), or specifically, in Europe, to refer to Jews. Palestinian nationalism largely gained traction in the 1960s as a political movement, and even then, many leaders were committed to pan-Arabism but treated Palestinian identity as a useful political fiction; Zuhair Moshen in particular, as a leader of the PLO, pushed these ideas, and in much of the politics between the West Bank and Jordan through that period. Of course, since the 1940s, Palestinian identity has taken on new meanings, but many of these meanings are young, and the vast majority of these peoples' ties to the land start between the 1800s and 1948—a beat before similarly-shaped spikes in the Jewish return.

        Palestinian nationalism is now used in other Arab countries to keep Palestinian Arabs oppressed; Jordan revoked their Jordanian citizenship, Lebanon refuses to grant them basic rights, UNRWA refuses to resettle them across multiple generations.

    • Thanks for the detailed and thought out response. I can't help but notice that it's built on a foundation of autocracy and Israeli exceptionalism i.e. Israel holds all the guns so they call the shots and they have the singular privilege of having non-hostile neighbors while every other country in the world except the U.S. should respect negotiations and international law, and many have hostile neighbors but that's ok. I can't blame you, though, because the narrative is thus constructed: Israel alone has the right to security, Israel alone has the right to self-determination, Israel alone has the right to self-defense, etc. Why doesn't Palestine? The narrative says "because they lob mortar shells over the fence" which is a pure double standard (Israeli exceptionalism). History must be erased to maintain the narrative, like the invasion of Akka among many others. When a country has such a consistent history, it's rational to believe that they will continue annexing Palestinian lands, so it's very important that the narrative removes the Palestinian right to self-defense as well as erasing Israel's colonial history. The truth is different, though.

      • I'm speaking solely to the facts on the ground.

        Regardless of anyone's thoughts on the matter, Israel does hold all the guns here. Rights and privileges mean as much as the paper they're printed on. In a perfect world, Israel and Palestine would exist side by side as peaceful partners, each with fully fledged institutions and militaries and all that jazz. But unless Israel is confident that a Palestinian military won't have its destruction as its primary goal, it will not allow that to happen, no matter how much pontificating about rights and narratives and double standards anyone does. I'm not trying to talk about who's "right", whatever that even means. I'm talking about the actual situation and what will actually happen, regardless of anyone's opinions on the matter.

        When a country has such a consistent history, it’s rational to believe that they will continue annexing Palestinian lands

        And an Israeli would say that Palestinians have a consistent history of attempting to murder Israeli civilians and so it is rational to never allow them to build up any military power, and thus the circus goes round. My point is that no amount of moral superiority means very much if you don't have actual power to go along with it, and Palestinians simply do not. If the goal is actually to develop a real peace rather than avenge any sins of the past, both sides will have to give up on prior grievances and decide that they care more about the lives of their children than their own pride. It's hard to imagine the situation being much worse than it already is (though I'm sure it'll find a way)

  • The simple answer is, realistically, Palestine can't do it alone without help. Some other country will have to step up and get involved.

    Currently, even the countries who don't necessarily back Israel aren't interested in helping Palestinians, including major Muslim countries in the Middle East.

    It could have something to do with the history of Jordanian Civil war, which was a war between the King of Jordan and the Palestine Liberation Organization. Islamic countries like Jordan and Egypt haven't exactly been stellar friends to the people of Palestine ever since. (Whether that position is justified is up to you to decide, I am not here to argue whether it is good or bad.)

    So unless things change somehow, they will likely not gain their freedom.

  • Realistically? Unless the international community (or the Muslim world) have a change of heart, the Hamas way of "get Israel to broadcast their atrocities to the world as loudly as possible) seems to be the best bet currently. A direct war of liberation is impossible because of the blockade, but at this rate the international community might actually give Israel the Apartheid treatment in two or three decades.

  • Probably give them Madagascar. I'm sure that will solve it. /s

    It will really take a global effort. I don't think Palestine and Israel can be disentangled at this point. It's really just about accountability for the Israeli government at this point and increasing Palestinians presence in governing.

  • There's no realistic solution right now. The stronger will always dictate the term of the possible solution and the weaker won't accept that and will keep fighting.

    • I'm afraid that sounds about right. Have to rely on the generosity of the oppressor.

  • The support of Israel in the USA becomes a partisan issue.

    We are already seeing division within Democrats for supporting Israel, with younger people mostly anti-Zionism. Likely with the next Democratic President and possibly because of Israeli meddling in supporting Republicans, the USA drops its veto of Palestinian statehood. At this point, Israel likely gets very cagey and may try to start a war to expel all Palestinians, but that act of aggression will be met with a response.

  • Realistically?

    They can't. Not without a major change in American politics, which is unlikely given the amount of lobbying power that Israel has, and the grip that Evangelicals have on right-wing political power in the US. Anti-BDS (boycott, divestment, sanctions) laws intended to prevent people from protesting Israeli policies by cutting funding to the country have passed in nearly all states. We can see, with the way that current events are unfolding, that even expressing support for the Palestinian people is resulting in people being labelled as antisemitic.

    (For reference - Evangelicals support Israel as a Jewish apartheid ethnostate because they believe that the Jews need to control Jerusalem and Israel in order for Jesus to return. It has nothing to do with Evangelicals liking Jews, which they mostly don't. If you don't want to believe that, I can certainly help you find sermons from megachurch pastors saying precisely that, but I generally try to avoid listening to that trash.)

    We're very slowly starting to see that kind of change now, with the way that the youngest generations in the US as more supportive of the Palestinian people. But it's not likely to mean much, since by the time they have enough political power to do anything, Israel will have completed genocide.

  • Realistically, it can’t.

  • There really is no other solution than stopping the attacks and trying to establish diplomatic connections.

  • Seems very unlikely. The most likely way is if Israel gets annihilated, which would require also destroying the US military capacity. Absolute horror and possibly ww3 is the only way.

    I think they probably have to leave. They've been treated horribly, but there is no hope on the horizon as far as I can see. Israel is cursed, Gaza is cursed.

  • By not killing civilians maybe. By engaging in actual normal warfare if it insists it cannot achieve success peacefully. By not encouraging persecution around the world or siding with nations such as Russia and North Korea. By respecting human rights within its borders. Can't be too much to ask.

    • What is "normal warfare?"

    • How could they engage in normal warfare?

      Edit: also, does killing civilians make a whole country fair game to be attacked violently or something?

      • Let me put it this way, how many of us are anti-nuclear-arms? I'm sure most of us are. Nuclear assault is seen as the epitome of abnormal warfare as it kills people who have nothing to do with a conflict, and nuclear war, defined as when the two nations start throwing nuclear weapons at each other, is seen as absolutely unnecessary escalation under any circumstances considered normal as well as no better just because someone fired the first shot. If there is no distinction between "normal" and "abnormal" warfare though, surely nuclear attack wouldn't be off the table.

        Other forms of warfare follow this logic. Biological weapons attack indiscriminate people and spread in a population and even cross borders. Arson spreads and doesn't care what it consumes. Landmines like those still littering previously war-torn nations, including those we discuss here, are not programmed to factor in political or religious allegiance. Such things are akin to boxing out of a ring and are highly condemned. If Palestine and its allies don't change its stance on how warfare is supposed to work, then if they did become fully independent, it would be a shameful new existence, built on national character flaws that would haunt and define any who call themselves Palestinian patriots.

        When the Ismaili Muslims were still around in the 1100's, their mode of warfare was simply to have spies sneak into a fortress and eliminate the leader, sparing the people who do the dirty work, with the intention that the heir would yield, like how in chess you wouldn't eliminate the other pieces besides the king if you don't have to. It was called fedai warfare and this was the world's most peaceful form of open warfare and perhaps more normal than what we call normal. What a leap we took in modern times, where nobody is safe and nothing is off the table.

      • Targeting civilians is bad.

        Terrorists, including those who target civilians, are combatants, and are valid targets. They remain valid targets when they use schools, hospitals, mosques, churches, and residential areas as bases for combat operations. This is pretty clear in international law.

        Israel still must not target civilians, and must take reasonable measures to minimize civilian casualties of war. We've seen Israel, in at least some contexts, take quite extreme measures to warn civilians, help evacuate civilians, and carefully target munitions to minimize civilian death despite Hamas and PIJ using those civilians as human shields.

        The raw numbers are still gruesome... unless you compare them to other instances of urban warfare, in which case the numbers are actually lower than many would expect. The civilian death ratio, as far as we've been able to estimate (since Hamas does not estimate), appears to be lower than usual.

        Civilian deaths are tragic. It would obviously be much better if Hamas had not started this war, or if they would agree to the ceasefire Israel offered, or if they weren't so committed to war in general. But they are. They frequently condemn even the concept of peace, and insist that they will repeat the October 7th attack as often as they can. There is no avenue to peace while they remain in power.

        So the war will continue. And we will continue to hope that Israel does its best to minimize harm to civilians.

  • Killing every Zionist, whose ideology is dependent on the suffering of palestinians.

    As long as Zionists rein free West Asia will never be safe from their sadistic cruelty.

    You cannot reform Nazis without violence.

  • Realistically I think the only option for Palestinians to keep the West Bank and Gaza is for the us to enforce a 2 state solution (basically guarantee the safety of both nations from attack).

    Part of the issue with Gaza is Israel is scared if they stop policing the border/sea/air they will be armed by Iran and then attack, some third party has to ensure their defense in order for them to stop.

    It isn’t an ideal solution in any sense of the word but at least it could relieve the suffering of the Palestinians and give them the ability to self govern in the places they have left.

  • Here's my take on it:

    1. Get rid of all extremists and violent factions internally (extremely hard, of course).
    2. Engage in intense diplomatic lobbying, and be patient. If step 1) has been achieved, I think it would be extremely hard for Israel to resist the pressure, but maybe I'm too naive. Right now, it's extremely easy to dismiss the Palestinian cause because of terrorism. What happened at the beginning of the conflict isn't going to help.

    • Hamas exists because the PLO was gaining too much political power for Israel to keep stonewalling them; Hamas was funded by far-right Israeli politicians specifically to prevent the PLO from doing all of what you describe.

    • Thanks for sharing your take. It seems like a lot of people think Palestine needs to do stuff but Israel doesn't. I'm not sure if it's a double standard, racism, Israeli exceptionalism or what.

      What happened at the beginning of the conflict isn't going to help.

      Do you mean the Palestine Civil War?

      • It seems like a lot of people think Palestine needs to do stuff but Israel doesn’t. I’m not sure if it’s a double standard, racism, Israeli exceptionalism or what.

        In my case, it's none of that. It's your question: "how can Palestine gain its freedom".

        Now let's be crazy for a moment and imagine that both sides collaborate to fix the issue. I think it would be mostly the same for Israel: get rid of the lunatics, realize that Palestinians are fairly close relatives, work on forgiveness on both sides, and work on a fair two-state solution or even better a single-state solution.

    • maybe I’m too naive

      Yes you are. Who is gonna do this "diplomatic lobbying"? The US? Some EU country? Most of the mightiest economic and military powers on earth materially support Israel's genocide, whether it's economically or militarily, because they have important geopolitical interests in keeping Israel going to maintain influence on the west Asia region through it. Don't expect them to stop anytime soon, especially not because you asked them to.

      No genocide has ever stopped because other countries asked it, that's literally not a thing. Whether it is the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa, the civil right movement in the US, the independence movements in Vietnam, Algeria, Haiti, etc or even the genocide of Jews and Slavs by Nazi Germany, every oppressive system, from "simple" economic discrimination to outright genocide of entire populations, that were successfully stopped were stopped by resistance movement who didn't hesitate to use violence and warfare when necessary.

      Hamas and the other organisations operating in Gaza have a lot of problems and religious extremism and bigotry is certainly a problem, but the thing is, they are the ONLY peoples doing something on the ground about the genocide and stopping Israel from putting their bloody boots on Gazan soil and create settlements there. Calling for dismantling is the materially equivalent to calling for the end of all Palestinian resistance, because regardless of what you think of them they are the resistance. The Palestinians have literally no one else to defend them.

      Your call for disbanding them is nothing more than rambling of a spoiled, probably white (sorry for assuming), westerner who who has never experienced them mildest form of discrimination, and want to oppose the Palestinian genocide but who, instead of working with what is available and trying to make it better, has decided to whine that the idea of supporting hooded AK-47 wilding openly Muslim Arab don't make them feel comfy enough. Sorry, but the Palestinians have other more important things to give a fuck about than making you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

      And you are rationalizing this position together with you circle jerk by repeating ad nauseum the insane, unsubstantiated smearing of the resistance peddled by peoples who want to keep the genocide going.

      You are also naïve to think that the solution you are proposing would solve anything at all of even change your position on this issue.

      Let's assume this happen, Hamas and the other resistance groups are disbanded and a group with whatever aesthetic makes you comfortable is created. What do you think would happen then? That they would win the heart of you spoiled lot and everything will be good? No. Let me tell you what would happen. As soon as this new group start to take actions, the Israeli and western propaganda machine are gonna start getting to work slandering and smearing this new group, accusing it of every sin just like they did with Hamas, and you peoples are gonna swallow it all like you always do and start asking to dissolve this new group too.

      You are one of the "white moderates" that Martin Lutter King Jr denounced: Just like you are today against Hamas and the Houthis for "being terrorists", if you were alive and/or following the events back then, you would have been against Nelson Mandela for "killing innocent whites peoples", you would have been against MLK and Malcolm X for "disturbing the peace and organising illegal and violent protests", you may not like it but this is the position you are defending right now regarding the genocide of Palestinians.

      • Supporting a negative peace which is the absence of tension is really a coward's modus operandi.

  • Here’s a decent framework in my opinion.

    • I feel like he totally misunderstood the concept of a Palestinian "right of return." They're not asking for a right to return to a future Palestinian state, that isn't a controversial thing, they would obviously be in control of their own immigration policy. They want a right for millions of Palestinians to "return" to Israel.

      Israelis view this not only as an unacceptable danger, but as a move that would end Israeli democracy; an instant majority of Muslim voters, many of whom were raised to believe that Israeli civilians should not be allowed to live, would turn Israel into, you know, the rest of the Middle East. Ban alcohol, ban homosexuality, ban apostasy, ban building synagogues or churches, do everything else every other Muslim-majority country does.

      This was one of the major sticking points at Camp David. And this guy just totally missed it.

    • Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

      a decent framework in my opinion

      Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

      I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

    • I dont feel that a two state solution would actually fix things. Creating a Palestinian state would be incredibly difficult, it’s why attempts to do so have failed. Israel would object to all but the most disfavorable terms for the Palestinians, and as seen in the past, Palestinians will object to disfavorable terms.

      Forcing a two state solution on them will not work either, wherever state lines have been drawn in the past there has been conflict because of those borders.

      A Palestinian state would also give some legitimacy for Israel to create conflicts with them, and due to their hyper-militization and incredible intelligence capabilities (much less, the capabilities of the USA helping them out) would certainly make any conflicts with the fledgling nation. There will be no peace when there is official means for the two sides to fight amongst them selves, especially when adding religion, border disputes, and Israel’s history of oppression.

      Ideally, as an anarchist, I’d love a no state solution, as it would be impossible for state mechanisms to oppress any group of people with no state. But I think that is not geopolitically feasible because states like states, and creating a stateless society would harm the legitimacy of states themselves.

      Realistically, I think a one-state solution is necessary, but not in the sense of making it an ethnostate for any one group. We would need to follow in the footsteps of attempts to do similar tasks, be it the de-apartheidization of south africa, as well as from the horrors America did in the wake of reconstruction and their colonial expansion, abd various other former setteler-colonial countries. And we should certainly learn from the mistakes of the past. Speaking as an American, with an American-centric view, I think the best way forward is decolonization.

      Israel is rightfully concerned by becoming the minority, they’ve done unspeakable evils to Palestinians, and many Israelis think they are beyond forgiveness, that they are too far gone. Combine that with a long history of minority jewish groups being oppressed by many states all over the world, and their anxiety on this is very understandable.

      However, as long as there is oppression, there will not be peace. Putting a minority group on par with a majority group gives an unequal advantage to the minority, but letting the minority group get trampled is just as bad. I think that in order to protect the religious rights, the state must be secular, and it must have inalienable rights enshrined to everyone equally.

      I think the only way to lower tensions is for Palestinians to forgive Israelis, and the only way for that to happen is for Israel to make up for their crimes. State leaders should be prosecuted, war criminals should be prosecuted, and Israel should fund the repairs needed to provide housing to Gazans, and Palestinians who fled. Palestinians should be able to return to their homelands, and if their homes still exist, they should return to them. If this involves kicking out an Israeli, the state should fund housing for them.

      This isn’t a complete plan by any means, and I don’t want to insinuate that it is. This is just my statist idea on how peace could be achieved, even if I believe that a stateless anarchist revolution would do waaaay better.

      Free Palestine. FTRTTS

  • Violence is the only option, even if you don't like it. Ask Nelson Mandela.

    Alternatively, like in Canada, have your people become the majority and give them Independence, and forget about the destruction of the natives.

    Liberation will never be given to you by your oppressor.

  • Stop being a bunch of antisemitic terrorists

  • Leftist government in Israel (like Rabin) would help

    China having more global influence than USA would help

  • Palestinians have to kill Hamas to gain their freedom. Unfortunately, Israel blockades weapons from Gaza, so the Palestinians have no chance to fight for their own freedom.

  • I mean, the Olmert proposal was an opportunity. The 2005 Israeli withdrawal from Gaza was an opportunity. It doesn't seem that "freedom" was good enough for Palestinians back then.

    Netanyahu has been winning because Israeli attempts at peace never seem to work.

    • The Olmert proposal where Israel wanted to keep 10% of the West Bank (not that we know much about the proposal or why it failed, but from that point it's a no-go)? And what opportunity in 2005 they fucking blockaded the place as soon as they left.

      • The Olmert proposal where Israel wanted to keep 10% of the West Bank (not that we know much about the proposal or why it failed, but from that point it's a no-go)?

        No, the actual Olmert proposal. It involved land swaps for about 6.3% of the West Bank (to help minimize the number of Israelis who need to be forced out of their homes), giving East Jerusalem to the Palestinians, supporting the establishment of a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as the capitol...

        Abbas didn't feel like negotiating from that starting point. Because he either didn't want peace, or didn't think he could swing it politically (with a Hamas-dominated Palestinian Authority). A not-one-inch even-with-land-swaps even-with-this even-with-that policy is not conducive to peace.

        And what opportunity in 2005 they fucking blockaded the place as soon as they left.

        No, the blockade started in 2007. You're missing the two years where Gaza was totally free and Hamas used that freedom to ramp up rocket fire, kill their opponents in Fatah, and gain a majority in the PA.

    • How much land do you think Ukraine should cede for peace? How much control should Russia have in Ukraine's government in exchange for ending the occupation?

      These are honest questions, I would like to know what you and others think.

      Also, are you aware of Palestine's proposal to respect the 1967 borders, which Israel rejected?

      • How much land do you think Ukraine should cede for peace?

        For a war Russia started? With no justification? None. Not even land swaps.

        How much control should Russia have in Ukraine’s government in exchange for ending the occupation?

        As much as it takes for Russian civillians to be safe, which is to say, again, none. Ukraine does not have a history of massacring Russian civilians, they haven't repeatedly stated that they'd repeat attacks on Russian civilians ad infinitum after any hypothetical ceasefire.

        Also, are you aware of Palestine’s proposal to respect the 1967 borders, which Israel rejected?

        Which proposal?

You've viewed 98 comments.