Gaza might become an international protectorate after the war, the EU has said, adding that neither Palestinian group Hamas nor Israel should ever rule there again.
Yes, very much yes. Hamas has signed permanent ceasefires before and followed them until it became clear Israel had no intention of upholding its end of the deal. Basically Hamas is currently rebelling against the blockade. Lift that and the whole Gaza side ends. Of course they’ll just ramp up their activities in the West Bank instead because those people are also being genocided, so something needs to be done there too.
The genie is basically hitting you and begging to be put back in the bottle.
Here is a list of peace offers which would grant the Palestinians a country of their own, they refused all of them
1937 - Peel commission, rejected
1947 - Partition resolution, rejected
2000 - Camp David, rejected
2001 - Taba, rejected. Arafat starts the second intifada and a year later changes his mind.
2008 - Olmert offer, rejected
Hamas have tried to agree to boundaries Despite media attempts to portray it as a new Hamas charter, it is not. The new ‘policy document’ accepts the creation of a Palestinian state in 1967 borders, but still rejects Israel and claims its territory. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-39775103
Here are some other noteworthy peace meeting or proposals from Israel to the rest if the Arab world, which were rejected
1919: Arabs of Palestine refused nominate representatives to the Paris Peace Conference.
You should check before you copy paste, so lemme just:
Everything before 1949: The idea that Israel had a right to Palestinian land is itself wrong. A two-state solution is the most realistic solution now, but before the war it should’ve been one state encompassing all of Palestine. A two-state solution necessarily meant that a number of Palestinians would be condemned to expulsion or a life of apartheid (which both happened and are happening in post-war Israel). And anyway this was more than 70 years ago; almost nobody who remembers that is alive today.
The UN resolutions are things Israel objects to. How do these even belong on a list of peace offers from Israel when Israel actively rejects them (particularly the 1949, since it calls for the right of return of Palestinian refugees).
The 1978 offer from Sadat was Yasser Arafat’s greatest mistake and part of what led Palestine to the current situation, no argument there, but calling it an Israeli offer is disingenuous at best and misinformation at worst.
1994: Bruh negotiations were progressing until Rabin got fucking assassinated by a Zionist terrorist, at a time where the Israeli right was actively calling for his assassination. How you (or well, the guy who wrote this) managed to blame this on Palestine is beyond me.
2000 and 2001 (they’re the same thing): The then-Israeli foreign affairs minister stated he wouldn’t have accepted the offer if he were in Arafat’s place. It was that bad.
The Olmert offer was mostly behind closed doors so nobody actually knows what was going on (both sides blame each others for not following up on negotiations), but from what we do know the offer included keeping an unacceptably large part of the West Bank (about 10% by the Palestinian calculation).
Are you seriously buying Netenyahu wanting peace? The guy who supports settlements and goes on and on about how a Palestinian state must not be allowed to exist? LMFAO. Give me an example of one of those offers, if you will.
2014: The American envoy stated that the blame for the failure of the negotiations (not an offer, since Israel didn’t actually offer anything) lied squarely on Israel, and specifically Netenyahu. That’s how uncooperative Israel was.
And about Palestinian offers: How do you expect Palestinians to offer peace? “We want peace with these terms” “No”. It’s Israel who holds all the power; they’re the only ones who can offer peace.
So with that, if anyone was actually buying this shit, this is why this is complete and utter nonsense.
Rebelling against a blockade by slaughtering civilians is still awful and terribly misguided though. It’s hard to see how someone who exclusively wants to fight for freedom and fair conditions would ever consider that an acceptable idea.
Rebelling against a blockade by slaughtering civilians is still awful abd terribly misguided though.
Yeah, true enough, but oppression breeds extremism and Gazans (and West Bankers) have seen a lot of oppression. It’s not necessarily rational, but yeah, when your already horrible life is destroyed because an Israeli airstrike bombed your house and killed your family, most people will be out for blood. If Palestinians get freedom, Hamas and similar organizations will probably be reduced to fringe organizations instead of resistance movements with large amounts of public support. We’ve seen it in the Troubles.
Correct.
Palestine should be allowed to exist without needing a Star Wars level rebel terrorist group to rage against Israel’s cruelty.
Fuck Hamas, but they only exist because of Israel.
Now the only question is if we can get that genie back in the bottle if we correct our mistake, stop funding Israel, and let them fade away into dust.
Yes, very much yes. Hamas has signed permanent ceasefires before and followed them until it became clear Israel had no intention of upholding its end of the deal. Basically Hamas is currently rebelling against the blockade. Lift that and the whole Gaza side ends. Of course they’ll just ramp up their activities in the West Bank instead because those people are also being genocided, so something needs to be done there too.
The genie is basically hitting you and begging to be put back in the bottle.
And the occupation only happened because of several wars of aggression against Israel.
And? Collective punishment is a warcrime.
Here is a list of peace offers which would grant the Palestinians a country of their own, they refused all of them
1937 - Peel commission, rejected
1947 - Partition resolution, rejected
2000 - Camp David, rejected
2001 - Taba, rejected. Arafat starts the second intifada and a year later changes his mind.
2008 - Olmert offer, rejected
Hamas have tried to agree to boundaries Despite media attempts to portray it as a new Hamas charter, it is not. The new ‘policy document’ accepts the creation of a Palestinian state in 1967 borders, but still rejects Israel and claims its territory. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-39775103
Here are some other noteworthy peace meeting or proposals from Israel to the rest if the Arab world, which were rejected
1919: Arabs of Palestine refused nominate representatives to the Paris Peace Conference.
1920: San Remo conference decisions, rejected.
1922: League of Nations decisions, rejected.
1937: Peel Commission partition proposal, rejected.
1938: Woodhead partition proposal, rejected
1947: UN General Assembly partition proposal (UNGAR 181), rejected.
1949: Israel’s outstretched hand for peace (UNGAR 194), rejected.
1967: Israel’s outstretched hand for peace (UNSCR 242), rejected.
1978: Begin/Sa’adat peace proposal, rejected (except for Egypt).
1994: Rabin/Hussein peace agreement, rejected by the rest of the Arab League (except for Egypt).
1995: Rabin’s Contour-for-Peace, rejected.
2000: Barak/Clinton peace offer, rejected.
2001: Barak’s offer at Taba, rejected.
2005: Sharon’s peace gesture, withdrawal from Gaza, rejected.
2008: Olmert/Bush peace offer, rejected.
2009 to 2021: Netanyahu’s repeated invitations to peace talks, rejected.
2014: Kerry’s Contour-for-Peace, rejected.
Not gonna link Trump’s imbecilic peace plan as an example.
Here is a list of peace offers
the Palestiniansthe governing body of palestinians offered to Israel -None
You should check before you copy paste, so lemme just:
Everything before 1949: The idea that Israel had a right to Palestinian land is itself wrong. A two-state solution is the most realistic solution now, but before the war it should’ve been one state encompassing all of Palestine. A two-state solution necessarily meant that a number of Palestinians would be condemned to expulsion or a life of apartheid (which both happened and are happening in post-war Israel). And anyway this was more than 70 years ago; almost nobody who remembers that is alive today.
The UN resolutions are things Israel objects to. How do these even belong on a list of peace offers from Israel when Israel actively rejects them (particularly the 1949, since it calls for the right of return of Palestinian refugees).
The 1978 offer from Sadat was Yasser Arafat’s greatest mistake and part of what led Palestine to the current situation, no argument there, but calling it an Israeli offer is disingenuous at best and misinformation at worst.
1994: Bruh negotiations were progressing until Rabin got fucking assassinated by a Zionist terrorist, at a time where the Israeli right was actively calling for his assassination. How you (or well, the guy who wrote this) managed to blame this on Palestine is beyond me.
2000 and 2001 (they’re the same thing): The then-Israeli foreign affairs minister stated he wouldn’t have accepted the offer if he were in Arafat’s place. It was that bad.
The Olmert offer was mostly behind closed doors so nobody actually knows what was going on (both sides blame each others for not following up on negotiations), but from what we do know the offer included keeping an unacceptably large part of the West Bank (about 10% by the Palestinian calculation).
Are you seriously buying Netenyahu wanting peace? The guy who supports settlements and goes on and on about how a Palestinian state must not be allowed to exist? LMFAO. Give me an example of one of those offers, if you will.
2014: The American envoy stated that the blame for the failure of the negotiations (not an offer, since Israel didn’t actually offer anything) lied squarely on Israel, and specifically Netenyahu. That’s how uncooperative Israel was.
And about Palestinian offers: How do you expect Palestinians to offer peace? “We want peace with these terms” “No”. It’s Israel who holds all the power; they’re the only ones who can offer peace.
So with that, if anyone was actually buying this shit, this is why this is complete and utter nonsense.
Did you just try to disprove everything shirtly after and before ww2 as “well uhm the land isnt theirs tho”?
Did you fail highschool?
Rebelling against a blockade by slaughtering civilians is still awful and terribly misguided though. It’s hard to see how someone who exclusively wants to fight for freedom and fair conditions would ever consider that an acceptable idea.
Yeah, true enough, but oppression breeds extremism and Gazans (and West Bankers) have seen a lot of oppression. It’s not necessarily rational, but yeah, when your already horrible life is destroyed because an Israeli airstrike bombed your house and killed your family, most people will be out for blood. If Palestinians get freedom, Hamas and similar organizations will probably be reduced to fringe organizations instead of resistance movements with large amounts of public support. We’ve seen it in the Troubles.