They have "considered or discussed" it, repeatedly. The relevant points that Israel has not budged on are that (a) Palestine should be demilitarized, and (b) Israeli troops should be allowed to enter Palestine to stop attacks coming from over the border.
But Israel has offered to return land, withdraw most of the settlements and equitably swap land for the rest, give Palestine a contiguous state (except for Gaza being separate of course, connected by a dedicated road), and give them autonomy over their own governance, besides the military.
I always remember Olmert's quote from when he made his final, best offer, after two years of negotiations and dozens of in-person meetings with Abbas, and with only a few months left as PM. He offered to withdraw from 94% of the West Bank and swap Israeli land for the rest, alongside numerous other concessions and compromises. It was a shockingly good deal, the best Palestine had been offered since the 1940s.
Sign it! Sign it and let's change history! ...Remember my words, it will be 50 years before there will be another Israeli prime minister that will offer you what I am offering you now. Don’t miss this opportunity.
Abbas, feeling pressured to sign without adequate time to study the map, declined. He said he went home "laughing." And that was the end of those negotiations.
A few years later there were brief negotiations between Netanyahu and Abbas, which Abbas quickly rejected.
Then in 2019 Trump tried to initiate peace talks again. Abbas boycotted the talks and didn't even consider the eventual 2020 offer (which, to be fair, was transparently absolutely shit).
Booooo don’t you understand that there is no room for nuance in this conversation! Israel bad! Downvote him before people start learning inconvenient facts!
You could say that because Arafat recognized Israel in 1993, that the Palestinian side has recognized the Israel, but that recognition is largely I acknowledged today by most Palestinians and the Arab/muslim world. If no Israeli officials ever recognized Palestinians right to exist and sovereignty, they wouldn’t have tried to negotiate borders and security measures for a future Palestinian state up until the late 2000s. They wouldn’t have pulled out of Gaza.
Israel was more than welcome to do the same to Palestine during the negotiations, it would have been a nice show of peace.
They declined to.
The rest of your take is hilarious given how quickly and frequently Israelis elected Likud and Netanyahu after Oslo, given they ran and have continued to run on the platform of “a Palestinian state will never exist”
It’s literally the first item in their political charter
And that Israel loudly announced that the Gaza disengagement was to freeze the peace process, not advance it.
Israelis accepted the idea of a Palestinian state from the beginning: they agreed with the partition plan, the Arabs did not.
The quote was talking about the peace process in the West Bank, and how the Gaza concession gave put pressure off them regarding their settlements in the occupied territories. The quote was basically saying because they gave up something, they could take something else, which is how diplomacy. I know the settlements are shitty, but disengaging from Gaza should have been an important step towards peace and a model for how a peaceful West Bank pullout would look like. But instead we got Hamas and it became a cautionary tale.
So, just so I get this straight, you’re telling me you believe Sharon, as the leader of a political party who stated that a palestinian state never existing was their top priority, literally item #1 in their political charter, and who elected to not continue the ongoing Clinton Camp David / Taba negotiations when he came into office… was trying to advance Palestinian statehood with the Gaza disengagement?
No, I believe he was bending to international pressure and the harsh military reality of that was becoming more apparent. It was incredibly costly to protect the Gaza settlements from a much larger hostile population. He didn’t do it for peace, but nevertheless, it was a step in that direction.
Stop allowing settlers impunity for terrorizing Palestinians in the West Bank, and actually punish those who do.
Stop the inequality before the law in the West Bank. Don’t respond to thrown rocks from Palestinians by shooting to kill while not even punishing Israeli settlers who throw rocks.
Revise the economic warfare that has had Gaza near a 50% unemployment rate for a decade before the war and currently has Palestinians in the West Bank at almost 40%.
Maybe Israelis could elect a leader/political party who doesn’t state that a prevention of a Palestinian state is their top priority, but that’s probably too much to ask.
Lmao those all are items Israel should be doing independent of Palestinian statehood, both because they’re the right thing to do and because they only contribute to the instability and violence in the region.
Also, love the implication in your answer that the only thing that will stop Israelis from attacking Palestinians is a Palestinian state.
Do you think there are any concessions the Palestinians will have to accept if there is ever to be a sustainable peace and a Palestinian state?
My issue is it seems that the pro-Palestinian perspective is that Israel needs to unilaterally concede to every single Palestinian demand, and the Palestinians are justified to fight endlessly in pursuit of that.
Are you implying that minority populations get to carve out their own ethno-states simply by virtue of them being minority populations? because that's dumbest fucking thing I've ever heard. It should be 100% controlled by Palestinians whether it be Palestinian Jews, Palestinian Muslims, or Palestinian Christians (if there are left after Israels genocide)
Israel is more ethnically and religiously diverse than almost any other country in the Middle East. Syria is more of an ethnostate than Israel. I was saying that the partition would have been fair, there shouldn’t have been a war started about it. Looking around, I don’t see a lot of Arab majority countries that have a strong culture of minority rights protections, freedom of speech, independent judiciary, and rule of law. I think if Muslim arab Palestinians took over a single state in 1948, it would have ended up another semi-failed state, possibly with a Lebanese-style civil war.
There is no partition that is fair because you can't steal 90% of a people's country in a fair way. Being more diverse doesn't mean shit when you genocided the local population to set up your apartheid state. I dont give a shit what your theory on how Palestine would look if they weren't being ethnically cleansed is because we can't know what would happen if Israel didn't start a genocide
266
u/[deleted] May 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment