If Israel want’s to stop the violence they can get their settlers out of the west bank.
Somewhat naive to think that will stop the violence. Israel was withdrawing through the 90s as part of the Oslo Process, which ended with the Second Initifada. There are substantial populations on both sides that want the other side gone from that land completely, and they will take any opportunity to further entrench themselves and stoke conflict.
Israel was withdrawing through the 90s as part of the Oslo Process, which ended with the Second Initifada.
Look at the Israeli terms of the Camp David summit and you’ll get why the Intifada happened. These are terms no self-respecting state would accept.
The US & Israelis were still hoping Arafat would come back to the table until the Intifada broke out. Peace takes time and some weren’t willing to give it the time it needed.
The US & Israelis were still hoping Arafat would come back to the table until the Intifada broke out.
Israel was pretty clear about what they wanted, and that was not a real, self-sufficient Palestinian state. If you need proof of that, take a look at the modern West Bank. Israel actively funded Hamas in the early 90s to weaken the Palestinian peace movement, and would later take many such actions to divide Palestinians and prevent peace from happening.
The last time the Israeli government seriously considered a two-state solution was in 1947.
Israel was pretty clear about what they wanted, and that was not a real, self-sufficient Palestinian state.
And the PLO was established with the aim of eliminating the state of Israel. Times change. I think Arafat and Rabin were serious at the time, but there was simply too much of a gap to bridge. Since then it’s only gotten worse. Yes, Israel funded Hamas, but at the time they were more concerned about the violence of the PLO. I don’t believe the intent was to create a more dangerous enemy as a pretext for war as some are suggesting now, however it was stupid and short-sighted, and blowback is a much more widely recognized phenomenon today than it was then.
You got a better solution?
Better? No. People much more experienced in negotiation and more knowledgeable of the history than you or I have tried for decades. The Arab League rejected the first offer, which remains to this day the best offer, in a UN vote. They never wanted Israel to exist and they still don’t, and yet it does. Compromise is not a solution here; the British knew that in 1948 when they refused to enforce the partition plan. I hope to be proven wrong some day, but from my perspective, the only solution is for one side to win.
One non-solution would be totalitarian secular governments like Egypt in both Palestine and Israel, and to immediately jail jihaadists and ultra-orthodox who make the slightest suggestion of violence. But instead there’s a flawed democracy in Israel where Likud relies on the violence against Israel to gain support and a jihaadist totalitarian government in Gaza.
I dk man, sounds like a cop out. I’m pretty sure if Israel just stopped doing war crimes hamas would eventually lose support in Palestine.
Laying back and embracing the final solution your proposing just doesn’t seem like the right call.
You could as easily say israel would stop bombing palestine if hamas stopped doing terrorist attacks but then were just going back 100 years of back and forth tbh.
Point is that if israel did what you said today, the violence towards them would not stop. And just picking one side and unilaterally ignoring everything bad the other side has done is literally just feeding into this shit
Actually I can’t. I don’t remember Israel blaming hamas when Israel let Israeli settlers kick Palestinians out of their homes.
Yes, the current government tacitly tolerates illegal settlements. It’s terrible. Prior governments saw them for what they were, an obstacle to peace, and understood they had to be stopped. There’s a difference between Likud and the far-right batshits that have been able to barely cling to power, and the entire country of Israel.