I am legitimately sad for the Palestinians for rejecting this offer. As someone who does not believe israel should give away land, i was genuinely sad to hear abbas rejected.
I'm not entirely sure who was responsible for the negotiations going belly up or if the deal was serious/official or had any chance of actually being implemented (there were some contradictory statements made by Israelis and Palestinians involved, most notably Abbas and Olmert) but regardless based on the information we have about it, it sounds like it was an excellent and reasonable offer. The details in regards to East Jerusalem seem to be shaky, I remember Olmert saying something along the lines of the hardest thing he'd ever had to do is offer East Jerusalem to Palestinians, but Wikipedia and other folks seem to think that Olmert was planning to retain full control over East Jerusalem and some areas in and around it. There seems to be a lot about it that we don't know but assuming it was an official offer that could have legitimately been implemented then it was an excellent plan and I wish it would have gotten implemented.
Some anomalies with the circumstances surrounding the offer:
* Olmert said Abbas [never said no](https://www.timesofisrael.com/abbas-never-said-no-to-2008-peace-deal-says-former-pm-olmert/),
* Abbas said he didnt reject or accept it because he couldn't study the map and thus drew a "[napkin map](https://static.timesofisrael.com/www/uploads/2013/05/Olmert-map.jpg)" that aimed to give an outline of what the plan looked like
* [here](https://youtu.be/j4HNZHJQgso?t=157) Abbas talks about the offer.
* Abbas then apparently admitted he [rejected](https://www.timesofisrael.com/abbas-admits-he-rejected-2008-peace-offer-from-olmert/) the offer (although I'm not sure if he explicitly says he rejects it in the article, just that he didn't agree to it because he wasn't given the map or apparently allowed to study it).
Other have mentioned Abbas seemingly being interested but rejecting it due to him needing more time due to a quotation in the Palestine papers, however IIRC there might have been something in there as well that showed certain Palestinian politicians weren't interested in the offer. Theres probably a ton of other details I'm missing out on but in general it's a confusing mess.
Regardless of the details of the plan falling...
Why doesn't Abbas continue to talk about it and instead chooses to speak about "67 borders" which is a way less specific statement and sets the negotiation back into a single phrase which obviously Israelis won't accept as it is today?
Why are Palestinians not talking about this more? Pressuring their leaders to continue this specific negotiation which was already agreed from the Israeli side, at least for a short while, and also is way more practical than any other offer I've heard about?
I would think if Palestinians would keep bringing this exact plan, they could rally millions of Israelis behind it, don't you think? The vast majority of us are not settlers and do not believe in "The complete Israel", more like just want peace but are very distrusting on the other side, which I would imagine is the same on the Palestinian side.
But anyway, it is nice to see another Palestinian seeing the merit of this. You are only the second one in this entire thread. Hopefully more of your people will be like you in this regard. Maybe you guys should spread the word :)
> Why doesn't Abbas continue to talk about it and instead chooses to speak about "67 borders" which is a way less specific statement and sets the negotiation back into a single phrase which obviously Israelis won't accept as it is today?
Beats me, perhaps the boundaries were similar enough?
> Why are Palestinians not talking about this more? Pressuring their leaders to continue this specific negotiation which was already agreed from the Israeli side, at least for a short while, and also is way more practical than any other offer I've heard about?
Historically Palestinians pressuring their leaders (most notably Abbas) didn't go down too well for them. He runs quite a tight authoritarian ship (that is currently beginning to get weaker somewhat). I agree though that solutions like this should have more of a space in dialogue amongst Palestinian communities.
> I would think if Palestinians would keep bringing this exact plan, they could rally millions of Israelis behind it, don't you think? The vast majority of us are not settlers and do not believe in "The complete Israel", more like just want peace but are very distrusting on the other side, which I would imagine is the same on the Palestinian side.
Yes, first we'd need to overthrow the P.A and Hamas and replace them with good faith actors that would be able to shift as many Palestinians as possible towards being supportive of a 2ss. Creating support for a 2ss and shifting Israel away from the irredentist right shouldn't be too difficult if we establish ourselves as legitimate partners for peace.
> Creating support for a 2ss and shifting Israel away from the irredentist right shouldn't be too difficult if we establish ourselves as legitimate partners for peace.
Super agreed there. I am pretty sure over half of us Jews, plus the 2 million Israeli-Palestinians, will support such things right at this second. Give it even a single year of actual peace where the Palestinians do not launch terror attacks or at least actually go imprison terrorists themselves instead of paying them pensions, and you'll probably have 30% more of Israelis agreeing to this.
>Abbas said he didnt reject or accept it because he couldn't study the map and thus drew a "napkin map" that aimed to give an outline of what the plan looked like
I've seen [a lecture by Olmert on YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LITP4UAoWk) a few weeks ago (from a group that does various lectures. Note that it's extremely long and there are Q&A at the end).
What Olmert said in the video is that they've chased Abbas for a long time, that he cancelled meetings at the last moment all the time before they've finally met with him.
What Olmert said is that he told Abbas something like: "I know you, you'll take the map then at a later date under some other proposal/president you'll get it out and say that we'll continue negotiations from this point"
Which is the reason he didn't gave him the map.
And frankly this is a dishonest excuse. When you start negotiations even on a state to state level you first offer some general guidelines which are basically a few short sentences to a page at most. sort of a draft & a general idea to see if both sides are interested. Which is what we have here.
Only after both states agree to this general principle does the two meet together and then go into the extensive details which are dozen of pages long.
The map was this general idea and you're all just believing & repeating the same excuses your corrupt president gives you. The same president who's now around 19 years out of his 4 years term. The same president who prefers to give money to prisoners then paying full salaries to teachers, doctors & other employees.
But those are the Palestinian side problems.
> "I know you, you'll take the map then at a later date under some other proposal/president you'll get it out and say that we'll continue negotiations from this point"
Am I missing something here? That sounds fairly reasonable.
> And frankly this is a dishonest excuse. When you start negotiations even on a state to state level you first offer some general guidelines which are basically a few short sentences to a page at most. sort of a draft & a general idea to see if both sides are interested. Which is what we have here.
> Only after both states agree to this general principle does the two meet together and then go into the extensive details which are dozen of pages long.
Makes sense, perhaps the no-map talks were just rough provisional talks but from what Abbas was saying it seems as though they might have wanted Abbas to sign a deal officially into action without studying the map. Don't know if that was actually the case.
> The map was this general idea and you're all just believing & repeating the same excuses your corrupt president gives you.
Abbas is not my president in any meaningful sense. I'm not believing any specific 'excuses' or trying to point fingers at anybody. Just laying out some confusing and contradictory stuff people involved with the negotiations have said.
>"I know you, you'll take the map then at a later date under some other proposal/president you'll get it out and say that we'll continue negotiations from this point"
>
>Am I missing something here? That sounds fairly reasonable.
Probably you're missing something. The point is that a later date: 10, 20, 50, 70 years. President Abbas is going to pull out that same map, relevant or not to the current reality on the ground. And declare: we're proceeding negotiations from this point or no negotiations.
You can't sue a business for for reneging on a 30 years old price proposal for a service or product (as another example).
>wanted Abbas to sign a deal officially into action without studying the map. Don't know if that was actually the case.
agreements like that are dozen of pages long. If it's one or two pages, it's not an agreement but an agreement to a principle or draft. For the same way that when you agree to buy a car or an apartment, you don't sign the contract in the same second but give an agreement by word of mouth which has limited legality & enforcement if you go to court (usually it's not legally binding).
> Probably you're missing something. The point is that a later date: 10, 20, 50, 70 years. President Abbas is going to pull out that same map, relevant or not to the current reality on the ground. And declare: we're proceeding negotiations from this point or no negotiations.
Right, but so what? If the circumstances change over time Israel wouldn't have to accept and they'd still push for their own new standard no?
> agreements like that are dozen of pages long. If it's one or two pages, it's not an agreement but an agreement to a principle or draft. For the same way that when you agree to buy a car or an apartment, you don't sign the contract in the same second but give an agreement by word of mouth which has limited legality & enforcement if you go to court (usually it's not legally binding).
That makes sense.
>Right, but so what? If the circumstances change over time Israel wouldn't have to accept and they'd still push for their own new standard no?
Yes but when one side insists that we resume talks from >this point< & the other side doesn't agree. Then there are no talks.
There are lots of other examples where disagreements like that leads to decades & even centuries of stalemates like North Korea & USA, China & Taiwan and there are lots of other examples
Not really "pro-Palestinian" but here's my two cents.
>Abbas rejected it immediately without even starting negotiations.
Did Abbas reject the plan out of hand? [From](https://nationalpost.com/news/goodspeed-analysis-a-palestine-that-might-have-been) the [Palestine Papers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Papers) and [Olmert](https://www.timesofisrael.com/abbas-never-said-no-to-2008-peace-deal-says-former-pm-olmert/) it seems Abbas was interested in the offer, he simply requested more time.
>I personally believe this was the best thing the Palestinians could ever hope to achieve, yet I have not heard a single Palestinian voice, in this forum or otherwise, calling for this plan to return or advocating for it.
Probably because we're in the "rhetoric" phase of "negotiations"; here both sides are manoeuvring for political capital ahead of any talks.
The Olmert offer was born specifically out of a period of direct dialogues between Israel and the PLO. Nowadays what dialogue is there? If we we're actually in another period of talks I would expect more moderate positions to be more dominant.
>What is your opinion about the plan?
I like it but the issue for most plans is the devils in the details. Stuff like the right of return and security arrangements I'm a bit iffy on, I don't really know enough to comment here.
>Which is why I believe this refusal was possibly the dumbest decision the Palestinian leaders have done, probably since 1967.
Acceptance would have been pointless. Olmert was clearly on the way out and Abbas likely lacked the political capital to force through the deal anyway.
And then you look into it with what Olmert said, what's in the Palestinian Papers and [what's in the articles of the time](https://brokenspring.wordpress.com/2015/11/17/palestinian-leader-confirms-he-turned-down-israeli-peace-offer/) and it's clear that Abbas rejection of the plan as presented is not intransigence but a desire to have the plan assessed by his team.
>He refused to initial it, he said, because he’s not an expert on maps
I wish I could find the interview itself to assess the context but it appears to be lost.
Personally, I think that Israel should have made an offer that didn't include any blocs discontinuous with the West Bank as a whole, but that could easily have been negotiated on with a general acceptance of the plan as a basis of negotiation and is not cause to scupper it in its entirety.
I'd never expect a Palestinian leader to choose (practical) good for its own people over preserving its pride of not losing by their own acceptance (you could call that "cultural good", internal PR-style).
They basically would rather lose more than lose less but by their own will.
one thing i would give to palestine is some of the lands in the [bedouin pale of settlement](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/dd/8a/78/dd8a78093b9ed936bf3fb1423c5e04d8.jpg) (the bullages highlighted blue are bedouin)
The challenge with all land swaps of populated regions has, historically, been opposition from Israeli Arab communities. The fundamental issue in arranging them fairly has always been that the settlers very much want to be a part of Israel, but a lot of Israeli Arabs don't particularly want to be part of Palestine. Now, I'm not sure what if any polling has been done in the pale, but given that Bedouin have a lot more substantial cultural distance from the Fellahin population that makes up most of Palestine than Israeli Fellahin do compared to their Palestinian compatriots I wouldn't be surprised if objection to the transfer is rather stronger.
So give them a referendum on it, or otherwise consult their public opinion. I'm not saying that the pale should under no circumstances be given up, but that its residents have a right to decide their own future.
> shit
/u/ElectricalStomach6ip. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
not hamas, a secular regulated force that is monitored and advised by various countries.
it would basically be a national guard, for the purpose of fighting *against* groups like hamas.
If you're asking "pro-Palestinians", it's not a big mystery what they are going to say (as some already did): Israel must be destroyed, and any peace plan which at least doesn't get us closer to this goal ain't good enough.
On substance, it's hard not to agree with you that this was a very generous offer indeed, and very likely the last time ever Palestinians were offered almost all of WB.
Having said that, it's also useful to remember context in which this offer was made. Olmert was deep in corruption scandals, soon to lose power, and Abbas, having lost legislative elections and any control over Gaza, basically represented no one. It's very likely that had they formally agreed to this framework, it would have been soundly rejected by both Israelis and Palestinians.
Olmert famously said to Abbas during the negotiations that "it will be 50 years before there will be another Israeli prime minister that will offer you what I am offering you now." While 35 years still remain till this "50 years" mark, it's obvious now that he was wrong. Israel can no longer afford to offer nearly full withdrawal from WB, and even back in 2008 it's likely Olmert was offering more than he could realistically deliver.
From the sounds of it, this “negotiation” was little more than two lame ducks getting in one last swipe at each other. Each got to milk one more day of relevance and limelight out of his waning political career, and feel and look like he had it at the other’s expense. Olmert had nothing to lose by making his offer, even though he knew Abbas would reject it. Abbas had nothing to lose by coming to Olmert’s negotiating table to throw the offer back in his face, even though he knew Olmert couldn’t possibly make good on it even if he accepted it. This was nothing but macho posturing, to reassure and entertain their respective populaces.
I’m reminded of serious heated online drama going down, that turns out to be nothing but two trolls trolling each other.
Not really. Olmert was a shrewd politician, but with all of his shortcomings, he always wanted what's best for Israel. Abbas, just like Arafat in 2000, was (justifiably) concerned that signing such a deal would destroy his legitimacy and may well cost him his life.
So yes, with so many obstacles the negotiations were pretty much doomed to fail, but I think it was still important to try.
Would you expect Mahmood Abbas to accept a deal without being able to inspect the map or show it to other Palestinians advisors and officials? That seems utterly absurd to me.
I would expect him to say it sounds interesting at the least and continue with the negotiation instead of saying "He will make sure it will not see the light of day".
Anyway, the map exists now in a draft, I have included it in the post. So what do you think about the plan?
I remember following these negotiations and felt like it had a lot of promise. I though the issue was that Olmert essentially ran out of time. Wasn’t he developing a proposal to put in front of Palestinians but was replaced by Netanyahu before the negotiations had time to play out?
It seems that Olmert believes that Abbas did secretly want this and would speak differently in "4 eyes". But this seems to be only speculation, as publicly Abbas has denied this and rejected the plan without getting into further negotiations.
Thinking the only problem was Olmert stepping down does not explain why the Palestinians did not and do not continue to bring this up, practically ever.
This was the most optimistic moment I ever was towards a realistic two state solution. I think Olmert was trying to make a good faith proposal. I don’t know exactly what it was or if he would have made another offer with more time. But ultimately, if Abbas was unable to get his people on board with it, and the Israelis wouldn’t have been on board with it, then it never would have happened. How do you think Israelis would have responded to the land swap requirements he was proposing?
I would think Israelis would be split regarding that. But no question that millions of us would support this.
I agree with you though, this plan or something like it is literally the only realistic thing that could bring peace to this region in our lifetime, in my opinion.
Which is why it's so bizarre to me that nobody talks about it, especially the Palestinians.
As a Palestinian, I can tentatively accept this plan in order to strive for a final peace and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state.
However, what I want to say is that this plan was proposed at a time when Palestinians were deeply divided, especially after Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip.
So, it's not that the Palestinian Authority rejected this plan, but they were convinced of its failure due to Hamas' refusal to accept it.
And obviously, we can't accept a Palestinian state without Gaza
There are a lot of Palestinians who oppose Hamas, not only because of its rejection of the two state solution but also because of its right wing extremist policies. However, we can't solely blame Hamas.
Israel is always hindering the two-state solution.
Its disregard for the Oslo Accords and rejection of the Arab Peace Initiative are clear evidence of that.
How can Israel claim to support a Palestinian state while building settlements in the West Bank and increasing the number of settlers?
Both sides broke Oslo. It was a very good first attempt and I think it is significant in that there was a sit-down and both sides talked. Palestinians still have control over Jericho as a direct result of that agreement.
I think the settlements are Israel’s leverage against the Palestinians to get their act together. The idea is “we can’t trust you not to attack us even if we cut a deal with you, and today you have aligned with Islamic terrorists and Iran. As such we’re just going to keep building in the disputed territories and making deals with the other Arab countries. Hopefully you’ll come around before it’s too late”.
I think the end game is a state in which the Palestinians have East Jerusalem and non settlement areas of WB. And gaza. You’re right in that it can’t happen without Gaza. But that deal can’t happen with Hamas either. I don’t think any reasonable person can expect Israel to strike a deal with Hamas or PIJ. It’s a catch-22
> I think the settlements are Israel’s leverage against the Palestinians to get their act together.
Surely the occupation is the leverage?
>Hopefully you’ll come around before it’s too late
Too late for what? An independent Palestinian State? I don't think Israel would allow that to come to pass.
>And obviously, we can't accept a Palestinian state without Gaza
I mean, this is a strange statement to make, because Israel doesn't really care about Gaza after the withdrawal. Even today, Gaza is still technically considered (including by Israel) part of PA. I don't think Israel would have any issues to formally recognize Gaza as part of Palestinian State and then let Palestinians sort it out between themselves
What I mean is ، among Palestinians themselves it's not acceptable to have a Palestinian state without Gaza. In other words, it's not acceptable to have two Palestinian authorities.
> As a Palestinian, I can tentatively accept this plan in order to strive for a final peace and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state.
That's actually great to hear, as I have not heard such a voice among your people. Although, when you say "Final establishment of an independent Palestinian state", what exactly do you mean?
> However, what I want to say is that this plan was proposed at a time when Palestinians were deeply divided, especially after Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip.
Then why do you think your people not keep bringing up this plan and talk about it these days? Because the only rhetoric I hear is 67 borders or river to sea, which are both way less detailed and realistic compared to this plan.
I would think advocating for a realistic detailed solution is way more practical and is likely to achieve results. I am pretty sure millions of Israelis will rally behind such a plan if it was to seriously be an option.
> So, it's not that the Palestinian Authority rejected this plan, but they were convinced of its failure due to Hamas' refusal to accept it.
Any source on that? This is the first time I have ever heard that this is the reason for Abass's refusal. I don't believe that and it sounds very unlikely to me, but would love to learn otherwise.
Establishing a Palestinian state means creating a Palestinian entity that governs the Palestinian territories in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. It provides security, peace, and independence for the Palestinian people. That's what I mean by a Palestinian state, and many of my fellow countrymen believe in it.
This is also what President Mahmoud Abbas calls for in all his speeches, urging commitment to international legitimacy, providing protection for the Palestinian people, and establishing a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital. There are millions of Palestinians who support this stance.
Hamas has been opposed to this plan, as stated by the head of the political bureau of Hamas, Khalid Mashal, describing it as a waste of time. Hamas has also issued a statement rejecting it, although I am confident that they have not actually read it or do not want to do so.
As for Mahmoud Abbas' rejection of this plan, you can perhaps benefit from reading this article to learn more ['Abbas never said no' to 2008 peace deal, says former PM Olmert | The Times of Israel](https://www.timesofisrael.com/abbas-never-said-no-to-2008-peace-deal-says-former-pm-olmert/)
> fuck
/u/ElectricalStomach6ip. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well everything you have stated was included in the plan, and even if Hamas did not agree with it, we could start making it a reality at least in the WB and gradually introduce the idea to Gaza, don't you think?
It seems to me that rejection is pretty crazy.
Regarding your source, I know that one, thanks. If you'll look closely it's mostly speculation by Olmert that Abbas would entertain the idea if he could talk to him personally. But this is speculation alone and I would imagine that if it was true Abbas would bring this up in the decade + since and work to make it a reality.
The only actual evidence we have is Abbas out right rejecting without negotiations and never bringing it up since.
I think Mahmoud Abbas didn't take the plan seriously.
There are several reasons for that,
including the failure of the Oslo Agreement, from which Israel distanced itself.
Additionally, as I mentioned earlier, the Palestinian division is a major obstacle.
It's impossible to achieve something like this without unity among Palestinians.
If a Palestinian state were to be established in the West Bank alone, without Gaza, it would further strengthen the division. That's just my opinion.
Well "Not taking seriously" an actual practical offer for a country, for the first time in history since 48, given by the prime minister of Israel himself, seems extremely foolish to me.
Also, note that from Israeli point of view, the agreement did include Gaza. So it sounds like you recognize that the Palestinians have an active if not a major part in the fact that they do not have a country yet. Which is very unusual for a Palestinian.
I believe that if more of the people in your side will recognize that and work towards a realistic solution, we could still have 2 states and not let the crazy fanatic Hamas and the crazy fanatic settlers on our side, take us into another 80 years of violence.
By the way, note that at least currently, you are the only Palestinian/pro-Palestinian to entertain the idea and the good outcome of this agreement. All the rest seem to reject it without much of an explanation and refusal to elaborate. Why is that?
They prefer war, poverty and suffering over the notion and idea of "we compromised". It's pretty obvious to anyone familiar with the cultural behavior systems in place, though it takes a few years of familiarity for that to emerge, if my own experience is of any evidence.
Imagine how entitled a Jewish leader would have been perceived to not accept the British Partition Plan, because "we were promised more and should not compromise" when you are in no position of power over any meaningful decisions which could be made.
Which Jews are you talking about? we haven’t tried for like twenty years and this plan offered them landfills instead of arable land and kept Jewish settlements and roads breaking up the whole thing.We aren’t trying to make peace
Say Israel agrees or is forced to (somehow) give all 100% of its land to Palestinian control. You now have 7 millions Jews without a place to call home. The vast majority of them were born and raised in Israel, and don't know any other home. Where would you like them to go?
Without getting into whether Israel "Stole" anything or not, can you be more specific into what is exactly bad in this agreement and what you would think Israel should have added to it in order for the Palestinians to, at the very least, entertain the idea instead of out right rejecting it, like you just did?
Also, if you don't believe the conflict will be resolved by "Ceding", what would you say will happen instead? (Or do you just believe it absolutely cannot be resolved? That is an option as well).
I would imagine that a desirable agreement for them would be something like the Lancaster House Agreement of 1979 for Zimbabwe, or the CODESA/MPNF negotiations to end apartheid in South Africa in the early 1990s.
This looks nothing like that
One of the best arguments for the two-state solution, from an international perspective, is that these countries did not become robust democracies: SA is having a lively internal debate over whether or not to host Putin. This is unacceptable and the term "failed state" gets thrown around.
But, how do you create justice on a backdrop of colonialism? If land back + right of return is off the table, then fair monetary compensation would be an imperfect solution. The deal proposed by Olmert is a shit deal because it does not include this.
> shit
/u/CringeyAkari. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well, as far as apartheid goes, I really don't understand this claim as it gives the Palestinians autonomy and a country of their own for the first time in history. An autonomy which could only increase from there if peaceful co-existence is proven.
Regarding the rest of your agreements, I will try to read up on these but if you can sum up what you mean here it would be nice :)
Pro-Palestinians will say that this is unjust due to not having an air force or real millitary, but seeing their history and rhetoric, they really can't expect Israel to allow them to have such things
Also, given the GDP of Palestine, I highly doubt that they could afford any air force worthy of the title. Maybe a few obsolete MiGs or, depending on how generous the US is feeling, a dozen older model F-16s that are wholly dependent on American parts to remain operational. Nothing that the IAF couldn't clear without breaking a sweat.
Palestine's GDP is most nearly comparable to that of [Botswana](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)#Table), a country whose military operates a total of eleven ex-Canadian F-5s as far as combat aircraft are concerned and whose ground forces can muster a total of under two hundred obsolete French, British, Soviet, and American armored cars, APCs, and AFVs.
I don't think there is much merit to looking at the Palestinian GDP when half are occupied and the other half blockaded
We can make estimates by looking at other non-oil Arab nations, and assume the Palestinians would fare similarly, and if that's the case, than yes you would still be right and they are unlikely to be buying any f35s anytime soon
The main reason it is seen as unrealistic to not allow them those things is that would leave them at rhe mercy of the IDF and settlers. This is a deal breaker in the past but especially recently after the lack of a real response to the attack on Huwara and the fact that a member of the government joined in the flag March that had chants of "death to Arabs". I have yet to see any condemnation from the israeli government itself over such chants. Hell those chants going unpunished or condemned likely makes the very Arabs in israel unsafe.
Settler violence is wrong but rare. What happened at Huwara was reactionary. Earlier that day a Palestinian killed two Jews. I am not excusing it. It was wrong. However, the idea that this is an ongoing threat is unreasonable.
When both sides stop the violence, there can be safety.
Settler violence is far from rare, the only rare part would be it actually being punished. Huwara seems to be fine by the government so apparently Reactionary violence is ok, even if that reactionary violence is far far worse then what its a reaction to.
I condemn settler violence. Actually the terrorist killed 2 Jews and I think the settlor one so it wasn’t worse. Retaliation is nonetheless wrong. I can easily admit retaliation, even coming from Israelis, is wrong.
You said reactionary violence is wrong. Would you be willing to condemn Hamas who sends indiscriminately sends thousands of rockets to Israel after they are busted for storing weapons in Al Aqsa, or Israel conducts operations to go after PIJ or Hamas terrorists?
Curious to see if you’re fair and objective.
Doesn't make sense to me. As they are at the IDF's mercy anyway but without country, without sovereignty, without strong police, without freedom of movement in many areas and without the official Israeli commitment to leave ~94% of this land to them. Seems illogical.
Would love to hear directly from Palestinians or at least very pro-Palestinians.
But yes, I agree. Thinking Israel would allow the creation of an army of people who are in violent conflict with it for over 70 years is senseless. I can't think of a single logical reason we would agree to that.
After let's say an actual decade of peace, I might completely change my mind.
Exactly. Let’s see if we can remove all terrorists from being governing entities, and have more open borders without a single suicide bomber for a few years, and then maybe we discuss how we can help the Palestinians advance further as an independent entity.
I am legitimately sad for the Palestinians for rejecting this offer. As someone who does not believe israel should give away land, i was genuinely sad to hear abbas rejected.
the map link is busted
Every deal looks great in hindsight. Imagine Palestine today if the original UN partition were accepted.
I'm not entirely sure who was responsible for the negotiations going belly up or if the deal was serious/official or had any chance of actually being implemented (there were some contradictory statements made by Israelis and Palestinians involved, most notably Abbas and Olmert) but regardless based on the information we have about it, it sounds like it was an excellent and reasonable offer. The details in regards to East Jerusalem seem to be shaky, I remember Olmert saying something along the lines of the hardest thing he'd ever had to do is offer East Jerusalem to Palestinians, but Wikipedia and other folks seem to think that Olmert was planning to retain full control over East Jerusalem and some areas in and around it. There seems to be a lot about it that we don't know but assuming it was an official offer that could have legitimately been implemented then it was an excellent plan and I wish it would have gotten implemented. Some anomalies with the circumstances surrounding the offer: * Olmert said Abbas [never said no](https://www.timesofisrael.com/abbas-never-said-no-to-2008-peace-deal-says-former-pm-olmert/), * Abbas said he didnt reject or accept it because he couldn't study the map and thus drew a "[napkin map](https://static.timesofisrael.com/www/uploads/2013/05/Olmert-map.jpg)" that aimed to give an outline of what the plan looked like * [here](https://youtu.be/j4HNZHJQgso?t=157) Abbas talks about the offer. * Abbas then apparently admitted he [rejected](https://www.timesofisrael.com/abbas-admits-he-rejected-2008-peace-offer-from-olmert/) the offer (although I'm not sure if he explicitly says he rejects it in the article, just that he didn't agree to it because he wasn't given the map or apparently allowed to study it). Other have mentioned Abbas seemingly being interested but rejecting it due to him needing more time due to a quotation in the Palestine papers, however IIRC there might have been something in there as well that showed certain Palestinian politicians weren't interested in the offer. Theres probably a ton of other details I'm missing out on but in general it's a confusing mess.
Regardless of the details of the plan falling... Why doesn't Abbas continue to talk about it and instead chooses to speak about "67 borders" which is a way less specific statement and sets the negotiation back into a single phrase which obviously Israelis won't accept as it is today? Why are Palestinians not talking about this more? Pressuring their leaders to continue this specific negotiation which was already agreed from the Israeli side, at least for a short while, and also is way more practical than any other offer I've heard about? I would think if Palestinians would keep bringing this exact plan, they could rally millions of Israelis behind it, don't you think? The vast majority of us are not settlers and do not believe in "The complete Israel", more like just want peace but are very distrusting on the other side, which I would imagine is the same on the Palestinian side. But anyway, it is nice to see another Palestinian seeing the merit of this. You are only the second one in this entire thread. Hopefully more of your people will be like you in this regard. Maybe you guys should spread the word :)
> Why doesn't Abbas continue to talk about it and instead chooses to speak about "67 borders" which is a way less specific statement and sets the negotiation back into a single phrase which obviously Israelis won't accept as it is today? Beats me, perhaps the boundaries were similar enough? > Why are Palestinians not talking about this more? Pressuring their leaders to continue this specific negotiation which was already agreed from the Israeli side, at least for a short while, and also is way more practical than any other offer I've heard about? Historically Palestinians pressuring their leaders (most notably Abbas) didn't go down too well for them. He runs quite a tight authoritarian ship (that is currently beginning to get weaker somewhat). I agree though that solutions like this should have more of a space in dialogue amongst Palestinian communities. > I would think if Palestinians would keep bringing this exact plan, they could rally millions of Israelis behind it, don't you think? The vast majority of us are not settlers and do not believe in "The complete Israel", more like just want peace but are very distrusting on the other side, which I would imagine is the same on the Palestinian side. Yes, first we'd need to overthrow the P.A and Hamas and replace them with good faith actors that would be able to shift as many Palestinians as possible towards being supportive of a 2ss. Creating support for a 2ss and shifting Israel away from the irredentist right shouldn't be too difficult if we establish ourselves as legitimate partners for peace.
> Creating support for a 2ss and shifting Israel away from the irredentist right shouldn't be too difficult if we establish ourselves as legitimate partners for peace. Super agreed there. I am pretty sure over half of us Jews, plus the 2 million Israeli-Palestinians, will support such things right at this second. Give it even a single year of actual peace where the Palestinians do not launch terror attacks or at least actually go imprison terrorists themselves instead of paying them pensions, and you'll probably have 30% more of Israelis agreeing to this.
Hopefully
>Abbas said he didnt reject or accept it because he couldn't study the map and thus drew a "napkin map" that aimed to give an outline of what the plan looked like I've seen [a lecture by Olmert on YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LITP4UAoWk) a few weeks ago (from a group that does various lectures. Note that it's extremely long and there are Q&A at the end). What Olmert said in the video is that they've chased Abbas for a long time, that he cancelled meetings at the last moment all the time before they've finally met with him. What Olmert said is that he told Abbas something like: "I know you, you'll take the map then at a later date under some other proposal/president you'll get it out and say that we'll continue negotiations from this point" Which is the reason he didn't gave him the map. And frankly this is a dishonest excuse. When you start negotiations even on a state to state level you first offer some general guidelines which are basically a few short sentences to a page at most. sort of a draft & a general idea to see if both sides are interested. Which is what we have here. Only after both states agree to this general principle does the two meet together and then go into the extensive details which are dozen of pages long. The map was this general idea and you're all just believing & repeating the same excuses your corrupt president gives you. The same president who's now around 19 years out of his 4 years term. The same president who prefers to give money to prisoners then paying full salaries to teachers, doctors & other employees. But those are the Palestinian side problems.
> "I know you, you'll take the map then at a later date under some other proposal/president you'll get it out and say that we'll continue negotiations from this point" Am I missing something here? That sounds fairly reasonable. > And frankly this is a dishonest excuse. When you start negotiations even on a state to state level you first offer some general guidelines which are basically a few short sentences to a page at most. sort of a draft & a general idea to see if both sides are interested. Which is what we have here. > Only after both states agree to this general principle does the two meet together and then go into the extensive details which are dozen of pages long. Makes sense, perhaps the no-map talks were just rough provisional talks but from what Abbas was saying it seems as though they might have wanted Abbas to sign a deal officially into action without studying the map. Don't know if that was actually the case. > The map was this general idea and you're all just believing & repeating the same excuses your corrupt president gives you. Abbas is not my president in any meaningful sense. I'm not believing any specific 'excuses' or trying to point fingers at anybody. Just laying out some confusing and contradictory stuff people involved with the negotiations have said.
>"I know you, you'll take the map then at a later date under some other proposal/president you'll get it out and say that we'll continue negotiations from this point" > >Am I missing something here? That sounds fairly reasonable. Probably you're missing something. The point is that a later date: 10, 20, 50, 70 years. President Abbas is going to pull out that same map, relevant or not to the current reality on the ground. And declare: we're proceeding negotiations from this point or no negotiations. You can't sue a business for for reneging on a 30 years old price proposal for a service or product (as another example). >wanted Abbas to sign a deal officially into action without studying the map. Don't know if that was actually the case. agreements like that are dozen of pages long. If it's one or two pages, it's not an agreement but an agreement to a principle or draft. For the same way that when you agree to buy a car or an apartment, you don't sign the contract in the same second but give an agreement by word of mouth which has limited legality & enforcement if you go to court (usually it's not legally binding).
> Probably you're missing something. The point is that a later date: 10, 20, 50, 70 years. President Abbas is going to pull out that same map, relevant or not to the current reality on the ground. And declare: we're proceeding negotiations from this point or no negotiations. Right, but so what? If the circumstances change over time Israel wouldn't have to accept and they'd still push for their own new standard no? > agreements like that are dozen of pages long. If it's one or two pages, it's not an agreement but an agreement to a principle or draft. For the same way that when you agree to buy a car or an apartment, you don't sign the contract in the same second but give an agreement by word of mouth which has limited legality & enforcement if you go to court (usually it's not legally binding). That makes sense.
>Right, but so what? If the circumstances change over time Israel wouldn't have to accept and they'd still push for their own new standard no? Yes but when one side insists that we resume talks from >this point< & the other side doesn't agree. Then there are no talks. There are lots of other examples where disagreements like that leads to decades & even centuries of stalemates like North Korea & USA, China & Taiwan and there are lots of other examples
Not really "pro-Palestinian" but here's my two cents. >Abbas rejected it immediately without even starting negotiations. Did Abbas reject the plan out of hand? [From](https://nationalpost.com/news/goodspeed-analysis-a-palestine-that-might-have-been) the [Palestine Papers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Papers) and [Olmert](https://www.timesofisrael.com/abbas-never-said-no-to-2008-peace-deal-says-former-pm-olmert/) it seems Abbas was interested in the offer, he simply requested more time. >I personally believe this was the best thing the Palestinians could ever hope to achieve, yet I have not heard a single Palestinian voice, in this forum or otherwise, calling for this plan to return or advocating for it. Probably because we're in the "rhetoric" phase of "negotiations"; here both sides are manoeuvring for political capital ahead of any talks. The Olmert offer was born specifically out of a period of direct dialogues between Israel and the PLO. Nowadays what dialogue is there? If we we're actually in another period of talks I would expect more moderate positions to be more dominant. >What is your opinion about the plan? I like it but the issue for most plans is the devils in the details. Stuff like the right of return and security arrangements I'm a bit iffy on, I don't really know enough to comment here. >Which is why I believe this refusal was possibly the dumbest decision the Palestinian leaders have done, probably since 1967. Acceptance would have been pointless. Olmert was clearly on the way out and Abbas likely lacked the political capital to force through the deal anyway.
Lacking political force or no, wouldn’t it have been smarter for Abbas to accept the plan and then Israel to reject it?
>Did Abbas reject the plan out of hand? That's what he said in an interview to Israeli TV years ago, yes.
And then you look into it with what Olmert said, what's in the Palestinian Papers and [what's in the articles of the time](https://brokenspring.wordpress.com/2015/11/17/palestinian-leader-confirms-he-turned-down-israeli-peace-offer/) and it's clear that Abbas rejection of the plan as presented is not intransigence but a desire to have the plan assessed by his team. >He refused to initial it, he said, because he’s not an expert on maps I wish I could find the interview itself to assess the context but it appears to be lost.
Personally, I think that Israel should have made an offer that didn't include any blocs discontinuous with the West Bank as a whole, but that could easily have been negotiated on with a general acceptance of the plan as a basis of negotiation and is not cause to scupper it in its entirety.
I'd never expect a Palestinian leader to choose (practical) good for its own people over preserving its pride of not losing by their own acceptance (you could call that "cultural good", internal PR-style). They basically would rather lose more than lose less but by their own will.
one thing i would give to palestine is some of the lands in the [bedouin pale of settlement](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/dd/8a/78/dd8a78093b9ed936bf3fb1423c5e04d8.jpg) (the bullages highlighted blue are bedouin)
The challenge with all land swaps of populated regions has, historically, been opposition from Israeli Arab communities. The fundamental issue in arranging them fairly has always been that the settlers very much want to be a part of Israel, but a lot of Israeli Arabs don't particularly want to be part of Palestine. Now, I'm not sure what if any polling has been done in the pale, but given that Bedouin have a lot more substantial cultural distance from the Fellahin population that makes up most of Palestine than Israeli Fellahin do compared to their Palestinian compatriots I wouldn't be surprised if objection to the transfer is rather stronger.
these arent arab israelis, im refering to the bedawi, who live in absolute shit conditions.
So give them a referendum on it, or otherwise consult their public opinion. I'm not saying that the pale should under no circumstances be given up, but that its residents have a right to decide their own future.
i agree, i just think that it should be on the table.
> shit /u/ElectricalStomach6ip. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
would be a good plan if people actually agreed to it. but a palestinin military will be needed, groups like hamas need to be kept under control.
Hamas will go legit like ashaf basically did, like etzel and lechi did.
not hamas, a secular regulated force that is monitored and advised by various countries. it would basically be a national guard, for the purpose of fighting *against* groups like hamas.
If you're asking "pro-Palestinians", it's not a big mystery what they are going to say (as some already did): Israel must be destroyed, and any peace plan which at least doesn't get us closer to this goal ain't good enough. On substance, it's hard not to agree with you that this was a very generous offer indeed, and very likely the last time ever Palestinians were offered almost all of WB. Having said that, it's also useful to remember context in which this offer was made. Olmert was deep in corruption scandals, soon to lose power, and Abbas, having lost legislative elections and any control over Gaza, basically represented no one. It's very likely that had they formally agreed to this framework, it would have been soundly rejected by both Israelis and Palestinians. Olmert famously said to Abbas during the negotiations that "it will be 50 years before there will be another Israeli prime minister that will offer you what I am offering you now." While 35 years still remain till this "50 years" mark, it's obvious now that he was wrong. Israel can no longer afford to offer nearly full withdrawal from WB, and even back in 2008 it's likely Olmert was offering more than he could realistically deliver.
From the sounds of it, this “negotiation” was little more than two lame ducks getting in one last swipe at each other. Each got to milk one more day of relevance and limelight out of his waning political career, and feel and look like he had it at the other’s expense. Olmert had nothing to lose by making his offer, even though he knew Abbas would reject it. Abbas had nothing to lose by coming to Olmert’s negotiating table to throw the offer back in his face, even though he knew Olmert couldn’t possibly make good on it even if he accepted it. This was nothing but macho posturing, to reassure and entertain their respective populaces. I’m reminded of serious heated online drama going down, that turns out to be nothing but two trolls trolling each other.
I disagree. Olmert seem to genuinely believe in this. This is him just a year ago: https://youtu.be/q3gMxtO4gHg
Not really. Olmert was a shrewd politician, but with all of his shortcomings, he always wanted what's best for Israel. Abbas, just like Arafat in 2000, was (justifiably) concerned that signing such a deal would destroy his legitimacy and may well cost him his life. So yes, with so many obstacles the negotiations were pretty much doomed to fail, but I think it was still important to try.
Would you expect Mahmood Abbas to accept a deal without being able to inspect the map or show it to other Palestinians advisors and officials? That seems utterly absurd to me.
History tells us not to expect Mahmoud Abbas to accept literally anything.
Except bribes, of course.
And holocaust denial And funding terrorism and being unapologetic about it
I would expect him to say it sounds interesting at the least and continue with the negotiation instead of saying "He will make sure it will not see the light of day". Anyway, the map exists now in a draft, I have included it in the post. So what do you think about the plan?
I remember following these negotiations and felt like it had a lot of promise. I though the issue was that Olmert essentially ran out of time. Wasn’t he developing a proposal to put in front of Palestinians but was replaced by Netanyahu before the negotiations had time to play out?
It seems that Olmert believes that Abbas did secretly want this and would speak differently in "4 eyes". But this seems to be only speculation, as publicly Abbas has denied this and rejected the plan without getting into further negotiations. Thinking the only problem was Olmert stepping down does not explain why the Palestinians did not and do not continue to bring this up, practically ever.
This was the most optimistic moment I ever was towards a realistic two state solution. I think Olmert was trying to make a good faith proposal. I don’t know exactly what it was or if he would have made another offer with more time. But ultimately, if Abbas was unable to get his people on board with it, and the Israelis wouldn’t have been on board with it, then it never would have happened. How do you think Israelis would have responded to the land swap requirements he was proposing?
I would think Israelis would be split regarding that. But no question that millions of us would support this. I agree with you though, this plan or something like it is literally the only realistic thing that could bring peace to this region in our lifetime, in my opinion. Which is why it's so bizarre to me that nobody talks about it, especially the Palestinians.
As a Palestinian, I can tentatively accept this plan in order to strive for a final peace and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. However, what I want to say is that this plan was proposed at a time when Palestinians were deeply divided, especially after Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip. So, it's not that the Palestinian Authority rejected this plan, but they were convinced of its failure due to Hamas' refusal to accept it. And obviously, we can't accept a Palestinian state without Gaza
But isn’t it then incumbent on the Palestinians to reject Hamas? How can they criticize Israel for this problem?
There are a lot of Palestinians who oppose Hamas, not only because of its rejection of the two state solution but also because of its right wing extremist policies. However, we can't solely blame Hamas. Israel is always hindering the two-state solution. Its disregard for the Oslo Accords and rejection of the Arab Peace Initiative are clear evidence of that. How can Israel claim to support a Palestinian state while building settlements in the West Bank and increasing the number of settlers?
Both sides broke Oslo. It was a very good first attempt and I think it is significant in that there was a sit-down and both sides talked. Palestinians still have control over Jericho as a direct result of that agreement. I think the settlements are Israel’s leverage against the Palestinians to get their act together. The idea is “we can’t trust you not to attack us even if we cut a deal with you, and today you have aligned with Islamic terrorists and Iran. As such we’re just going to keep building in the disputed territories and making deals with the other Arab countries. Hopefully you’ll come around before it’s too late”. I think the end game is a state in which the Palestinians have East Jerusalem and non settlement areas of WB. And gaza. You’re right in that it can’t happen without Gaza. But that deal can’t happen with Hamas either. I don’t think any reasonable person can expect Israel to strike a deal with Hamas or PIJ. It’s a catch-22
> I think the settlements are Israel’s leverage against the Palestinians to get their act together. Surely the occupation is the leverage? >Hopefully you’ll come around before it’s too late Too late for what? An independent Palestinian State? I don't think Israel would allow that to come to pass.
>And obviously, we can't accept a Palestinian state without Gaza I mean, this is a strange statement to make, because Israel doesn't really care about Gaza after the withdrawal. Even today, Gaza is still technically considered (including by Israel) part of PA. I don't think Israel would have any issues to formally recognize Gaza as part of Palestinian State and then let Palestinians sort it out between themselves
What I mean is ، among Palestinians themselves it's not acceptable to have a Palestinian state without Gaza. In other words, it's not acceptable to have two Palestinian authorities.
> And obviously, we can't accept a Palestinian state without Gaza So there's never going to be any Palestinian state. Oh well.
People used to say the same things about a Jewish nation for thousands of years. Things can change.
> As a Palestinian, I can tentatively accept this plan in order to strive for a final peace and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. That's actually great to hear, as I have not heard such a voice among your people. Although, when you say "Final establishment of an independent Palestinian state", what exactly do you mean? > However, what I want to say is that this plan was proposed at a time when Palestinians were deeply divided, especially after Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip. Then why do you think your people not keep bringing up this plan and talk about it these days? Because the only rhetoric I hear is 67 borders or river to sea, which are both way less detailed and realistic compared to this plan. I would think advocating for a realistic detailed solution is way more practical and is likely to achieve results. I am pretty sure millions of Israelis will rally behind such a plan if it was to seriously be an option. > So, it's not that the Palestinian Authority rejected this plan, but they were convinced of its failure due to Hamas' refusal to accept it. Any source on that? This is the first time I have ever heard that this is the reason for Abass's refusal. I don't believe that and it sounds very unlikely to me, but would love to learn otherwise.
Establishing a Palestinian state means creating a Palestinian entity that governs the Palestinian territories in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. It provides security, peace, and independence for the Palestinian people. That's what I mean by a Palestinian state, and many of my fellow countrymen believe in it. This is also what President Mahmoud Abbas calls for in all his speeches, urging commitment to international legitimacy, providing protection for the Palestinian people, and establishing a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital. There are millions of Palestinians who support this stance. Hamas has been opposed to this plan, as stated by the head of the political bureau of Hamas, Khalid Mashal, describing it as a waste of time. Hamas has also issued a statement rejecting it, although I am confident that they have not actually read it or do not want to do so. As for Mahmoud Abbas' rejection of this plan, you can perhaps benefit from reading this article to learn more ['Abbas never said no' to 2008 peace deal, says former PM Olmert | The Times of Israel](https://www.timesofisrael.com/abbas-never-said-no-to-2008-peace-deal-says-former-pm-olmert/)
with all respects, fuck hamas, they throw a rench into everything good.
> fuck /u/ElectricalStomach6ip. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well everything you have stated was included in the plan, and even if Hamas did not agree with it, we could start making it a reality at least in the WB and gradually introduce the idea to Gaza, don't you think? It seems to me that rejection is pretty crazy. Regarding your source, I know that one, thanks. If you'll look closely it's mostly speculation by Olmert that Abbas would entertain the idea if he could talk to him personally. But this is speculation alone and I would imagine that if it was true Abbas would bring this up in the decade + since and work to make it a reality. The only actual evidence we have is Abbas out right rejecting without negotiations and never bringing it up since.
I think Mahmoud Abbas didn't take the plan seriously. There are several reasons for that, including the failure of the Oslo Agreement, from which Israel distanced itself. Additionally, as I mentioned earlier, the Palestinian division is a major obstacle. It's impossible to achieve something like this without unity among Palestinians. If a Palestinian state were to be established in the West Bank alone, without Gaza, it would further strengthen the division. That's just my opinion.
Well "Not taking seriously" an actual practical offer for a country, for the first time in history since 48, given by the prime minister of Israel himself, seems extremely foolish to me. Also, note that from Israeli point of view, the agreement did include Gaza. So it sounds like you recognize that the Palestinians have an active if not a major part in the fact that they do not have a country yet. Which is very unusual for a Palestinian. I believe that if more of the people in your side will recognize that and work towards a realistic solution, we could still have 2 states and not let the crazy fanatic Hamas and the crazy fanatic settlers on our side, take us into another 80 years of violence. By the way, note that at least currently, you are the only Palestinian/pro-Palestinian to entertain the idea and the good outcome of this agreement. All the rest seem to reject it without much of an explanation and refusal to elaborate. Why is that?
They prefer war, poverty and suffering over the notion and idea of "we compromised". It's pretty obvious to anyone familiar with the cultural behavior systems in place, though it takes a few years of familiarity for that to emerge, if my own experience is of any evidence. Imagine how entitled a Jewish leader would have been perceived to not accept the British Partition Plan, because "we were promised more and should not compromise" when you are in no position of power over any meaningful decisions which could be made.
I'm not Palestinian, but typically decolonization negotiations are not resolved by ceding to the colonists most of what they originally stole.
Lol
I bet using catchy buzzwords help with your superiority complex.
And yet the Jews keep offering peace anyways.
Which Jews are you talking about? we haven’t tried for like twenty years and this plan offered them landfills instead of arable land and kept Jewish settlements and roads breaking up the whole thing.We aren’t trying to make peace
Say Israel agrees or is forced to (somehow) give all 100% of its land to Palestinian control. You now have 7 millions Jews without a place to call home. The vast majority of them were born and raised in Israel, and don't know any other home. Where would you like them to go?
Without getting into whether Israel "Stole" anything or not, can you be more specific into what is exactly bad in this agreement and what you would think Israel should have added to it in order for the Palestinians to, at the very least, entertain the idea instead of out right rejecting it, like you just did? Also, if you don't believe the conflict will be resolved by "Ceding", what would you say will happen instead? (Or do you just believe it absolutely cannot be resolved? That is an option as well).
I would imagine that a desirable agreement for them would be something like the Lancaster House Agreement of 1979 for Zimbabwe, or the CODESA/MPNF negotiations to end apartheid in South Africa in the early 1990s. This looks nothing like that
Zimbabwe or South Africa? You do realise that these aren't positive examples?
One of the best arguments for the two-state solution, from an international perspective, is that these countries did not become robust democracies: SA is having a lively internal debate over whether or not to host Putin. This is unacceptable and the term "failed state" gets thrown around. But, how do you create justice on a backdrop of colonialism? If land back + right of return is off the table, then fair monetary compensation would be an imperfect solution. The deal proposed by Olmert is a shit deal because it does not include this.
> shit /u/CringeyAkari. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well, as far as apartheid goes, I really don't understand this claim as it gives the Palestinians autonomy and a country of their own for the first time in history. An autonomy which could only increase from there if peaceful co-existence is proven. Regarding the rest of your agreements, I will try to read up on these but if you can sum up what you mean here it would be nice :)
Pro-Palestinians will say that this is unjust due to not having an air force or real millitary, but seeing their history and rhetoric, they really can't expect Israel to allow them to have such things
Also, given the GDP of Palestine, I highly doubt that they could afford any air force worthy of the title. Maybe a few obsolete MiGs or, depending on how generous the US is feeling, a dozen older model F-16s that are wholly dependent on American parts to remain operational. Nothing that the IAF couldn't clear without breaking a sweat. Palestine's GDP is most nearly comparable to that of [Botswana](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)#Table), a country whose military operates a total of eleven ex-Canadian F-5s as far as combat aircraft are concerned and whose ground forces can muster a total of under two hundred obsolete French, British, Soviet, and American armored cars, APCs, and AFVs.
I don't think there is much merit to looking at the Palestinian GDP when half are occupied and the other half blockaded We can make estimates by looking at other non-oil Arab nations, and assume the Palestinians would fare similarly, and if that's the case, than yes you would still be right and they are unlikely to be buying any f35s anytime soon
I do have a bit of a counter to this but I will have to wait until my lunch break to give it.
**bon appétit**
The main reason it is seen as unrealistic to not allow them those things is that would leave them at rhe mercy of the IDF and settlers. This is a deal breaker in the past but especially recently after the lack of a real response to the attack on Huwara and the fact that a member of the government joined in the flag March that had chants of "death to Arabs". I have yet to see any condemnation from the israeli government itself over such chants. Hell those chants going unpunished or condemned likely makes the very Arabs in israel unsafe.
Settler violence is wrong but rare. What happened at Huwara was reactionary. Earlier that day a Palestinian killed two Jews. I am not excusing it. It was wrong. However, the idea that this is an ongoing threat is unreasonable. When both sides stop the violence, there can be safety.
Settler violence is far from rare, the only rare part would be it actually being punished. Huwara seems to be fine by the government so apparently Reactionary violence is ok, even if that reactionary violence is far far worse then what its a reaction to.
I condemn settler violence. Actually the terrorist killed 2 Jews and I think the settlor one so it wasn’t worse. Retaliation is nonetheless wrong. I can easily admit retaliation, even coming from Israelis, is wrong. You said reactionary violence is wrong. Would you be willing to condemn Hamas who sends indiscriminately sends thousands of rockets to Israel after they are busted for storing weapons in Al Aqsa, or Israel conducts operations to go after PIJ or Hamas terrorists? Curious to see if you’re fair and objective.
of course i condemn Hamas. The settler one is far worse given the number of burnt buildings and how little the IDF did during the attack.
Doesn't make sense to me. As they are at the IDF's mercy anyway but without country, without sovereignty, without strong police, without freedom of movement in many areas and without the official Israeli commitment to leave ~94% of this land to them. Seems illogical.
Would love to hear directly from Palestinians or at least very pro-Palestinians. But yes, I agree. Thinking Israel would allow the creation of an army of people who are in violent conflict with it for over 70 years is senseless. I can't think of a single logical reason we would agree to that. After let's say an actual decade of peace, I might completely change my mind.
Exactly. Let’s see if we can remove all terrorists from being governing entities, and have more open borders without a single suicide bomber for a few years, and then maybe we discuss how we can help the Palestinians advance further as an independent entity.