Why did the Palestinians reject the Peel commission partition (and every subsequent two state proposals)? We can’t go back in time. Its unfortunate, but Israel is there now. The question is what should we do now? Genuinely curious. I’m not saying this in defense of Israel. It’s where we are now.
Edit: also, Israel has done its fair share of atrocities, but there is plenty of blame to go around. It’s not like Hamas and the PLO are free of any criticism. Whenever I see posts unilaterally condemning one side my spider senses start tingling.
We can and should go back in time to understand what’s happening in today’s era.
If you never learn about history, you’ll never understand what is happening today.
In your point of view; we should never look back on what Nazi Germany did because we cannot go back in time.
Hypothetical question to you;
If you were living in peace with your family in your house and suddenly 5 people come. They beat you up, murder few of your family members and put you in the bathroom for 10 years.
You manage to escape and out of rage kill you someone. You suddenly get called out for being the aggressor and the ones that started it are now victimized.
How would that make you feel? Because that’s what is happening now.
I don’t know why they refused that back then however, I can understand it. It was and is the Palestinian land. It was stolen in 1948.
Why “share the land” when it was theirs all along and never asked peacefully to share the land for the people back then?
You’re turning this around as if Palestinians are the wrong one for wanting to live in peace in their own land
EDIT: I would also like to add
Israel has been refusing to make a two-state solution.
Israel has been doing all the atrocities for 75 years.
Israel has been having Apartheid, illegal settlements and two separate laws for Israeli and Palestinian people.
Israel has the control over the open air prison against Palestinian people
Israel has been sending men, women and children to prison unfairly.
Israel keep provoking Palestinians
Israel wants to drop an atomic bomb on Palestinian people.
Now tell me who’s the aggressor, how would you make peace and a two-state solution with the Israeli government.
BTW, thanks for discussing without engaging in ad-homs --I’m appreciating the conversation. It’s sad this needs to be said, but just getting it out there. To go back to the topic:
I didn’t say we should Ignore history. History is absolutely pertinent. When I’m talking about turning back the clock, I’m referring to the Peel commission as well as the establishment of the Jewish state. We can’t undo the process that occurred, just like we can’t undo the settlement of the Americas by western people that displaced the Native Americans. We need concrete, actionable plan that can bring the Israelis to the table. Dwelling on the actions of just the Israeli side is unproductive and will not yield any results. Just like the Marshall plan was effective with post WW2 Germany, action needs to happen towards reformation and peace building -Not reverting to playing the blame game.
On your edit:
This is not true. Israel has accepted two state solution proposals multiple times, but each time the Palestinians walked away (1947, 1968).
“Israel has been doing all the atrocities for 75 years”: I’m not sure what this is intended to say. Are you saying PLO, Hamas are without any blood on their hands? Palestinians have been committing acts of violence without exception, including in Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt. Also one of the reasons these three --also Arab nations-- have had fraught relations with the Palestinians.
“Israel keeps provoking Palestinians”: I agree the settlements are the driver behind a lot of the violence. The settlements need to be demolished and returned to the Palestinian people without exception. But to speak in such absolute terms betrays a lot of history and dilutes your point or any effort towards a peace process.
“Israel wants to drop an atomic bomb”: again, the statement of some individuals is not representative of an entire government or people. But Israel’s right wing government is absolutely exploiting the Oct 7 attack in order to exert maximum casualties in Gaza. Netanyahu needs to be replaced asap.
Back to my original point: what needs to happen, concretely, moving forward? How can we bring both sides to the table for negotiations?
I didn’t say we should Ignore history. History is absolutely pertinent. When I’m talking about turning back the clock, I’m referring to the Peel commission as well as the establishment of the Jewish state. We can’t undo the process that occurred, just like we can’t undo the settlement of the Americas by western people that displaced the Native Americans. We need concrete, actionable plan that can bring the Israelis to the table. Dwelling on the actions of just the Israeli side is unproductive and will not yield any results. Just like the Marshall plan was effective with post WW2 Germany, action needs to happen towards reformation and peace building -Not reverting to playing the blame game.
Then I understood that incorrectly. It is true we cannot undo the process but we do have to understand what happened to also understand Hamas perspective (and the normal Palestinian civilians).
I, personally, was not dwelling on it. I was giving an argument and a bit of history, the first commentor pretended as if it started somewhere around the ~2000. Which is not true.
This is not true. Israel has accepted two state solution proposals multiple times, but each time the Palestinians walked away (1947, 1968).
Yes and again my question to that; Why would they agree to it? The land was unfairly ‘given away’ to the Jewish people back then. The Palestinians themselves had no say in it. The land was theirs (and still is!) and it was suddenly given away by another country (I think it was Britain?).
That’s like someone forcefully entering your home and claim ‘’this will now be our house’’. It does not work like that and it should not.
“Israel has been doing all the atrocities for 75 years”: I’m not sure what this is intended to say. Are you saying PLO, Hamas are without any blood on their hands? Palestinians have been committing acts of violence without exception, including in Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt. Also one of the reasons these three --also Arab nations-- have had fraught relations with the Palestinians.
I mean by this that for more than 7 decades Israel has been doing immensely awful things (the things I listed before). No, I’m not saying Hamas and the other groups never had blood on their hands, they do.
But realize Hamas did not exist until 1987. Before that Israel already had shed much blood already.
Israel had been doing bad things for 39-40 years before Hamas become an actual group.
Hamas is a literal creation of Israel’s actions.
Certainly Palestinian have done their fair share of violence but many people from many countries as well.
“Israel keeps provoking Palestinians”: I agree the settlements are the driver behind a lot of the violence. The settlements need to be demolished and returned to the Palestinian people without exception. But to speak in such absolute terms betrays a lot of history and dilutes your point or any effort towards a peace process.
Israel has made the possibility of peace between Israeli’s and Palestinians not possible anymore and they (Israel Government) do not even want peace. They want the land and the Palestinians gone (erased) and this can be proven on how the entire Likud party behaves and speaks. I say that in absolute terms because it is true. Israel (government) keep provoking Palestinian people, there so many writing and video evidence of it.
“Israel wants to drop an atomic bomb”: again, the statement of some individuals is not representative of an entire government or people. But Israel’s right wing government is absolutely exploiting the Oct 7 attack in order to exert maximum casualties in Gaza. Netanyahu needs to be replaced asap.
This is not just ‘’some individual’’. This was said by the far-right Israeli Jerusalem Affairs and Heritage Minister, Amichai Eliyahu. So yes, it can be representative.
Also Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant called Palestinian people ‘’rats’’. Would you say the very Defense Minister of Israel is not an ‘’representative’’?
There’s enough evidence.
EDIT: Correction of a specific date “1948” to “1987”
That’s fair. I agree with a lot of what you’re saying here --I don’t know that there’s much to contest. But, again, going back to the Peel partition is not going to happen. At that time, there was no “Palestine” as a nation and–as much as this sucks, because it does-- it was under British mandate. If we’re going to leverage history then both sides will play the same game: the Jews will say that this was their homeland 2000 years ago. That’s why I don’t place too much weight on land swaps that happened in the last century. At some point, we have to draw a line somewhere and move forward. I don’t think we can even go back to the 68 partition at this point, so what’s the point any more? Somehow, we need to force both parties into negotiations before more innocent people are killed. That’s my only thesis.
The history is not relevant to any current peace plan. Besides, if you dig deep enough, the inhabitants if the earliest recorded history were judaic and spoke Hebrew.
Why do you give a complete pass for Hamas’s strategy of intentional war crimes and terrorism?
You really can’t tell the difference between a country with a Democratic government that actually punishes war crimes, and an ungovernable hellhole ruled by criminals who reward war crimes?
Why did the Palestinians reject the Peel commission partition (and every subsequent two state proposals)?
I can go through all of them, but the short of it is: Palestinians had every right to reject the construction of an Apartheid ethnostate (that had explicitly stated it would expand beyond its assigned borders) being built on their land. That’s the Peele commission, for the 1948 UN resolution it’s the same thing and the fact that Israel would get land that at the time held half of the Palestinian population. There were no other serious 2-state solution proposals (except maybe the 2008 one that was done under the table so we don’t know much about it).
We can’t go back in time. Its unfortunate, but Israel is there now. The question is what should we do now? Genuinely curious. I’m not saying this in defense of Israel. It’s where we are now.
Well the best solution is a one-state democratic, non-Apartheid state (certainly no nonsense about a Jewish homeland or nation state laws). The two-state solution is discussed as the next best thing because Israel is too attached to Apartheid to commit to a one-state solution, so from that point where we go now is the international community forces Israel to actually accept Palestinians’ human rights, including right to self-determination, because God knows they won’t do it on their own.
You’re saying we can’t go back in time like this is ancient history. The prime minister of Israel was born one year removed from its founding. There are people who live in Gaza right now who had family and friends who were massacred by the colonists who are presently squatting on their land.
Would you be willing to make peace with people who forced you from your home, killed your family, and herded you into the largest open air concentration camp in the world? Do you think those people would be content to live in peace with you, when they continue, to this day, to forcibly evict your people from their homes to move in settlers? It is not the Palestinians responsibility to reconcile this, and Israel has no intention of coexisting.
No, I’m saying “we can’t go back in time” period. As a factual statement. Not as a qualitative assessment of blame. There is plenty of that going around already. Also, I never see any condemnation on this site for any of the actions perpetrated by one side: it’s always about the one with the bigger military force as if it’s a de facto given that Israel should just sit back and let Hamas rain rockets on them indefinitely. What is the proposal going forward? What should Israel do? Are you saying we should go back to the 48 partition proposal? Should we go back to the 62 partition? Two state solution? One state solution from river to sea? What should happen now, realistically, that will get both sides to the table? I’m genuinely curious.
What exactly do you want me to say? I cannot lay out a plan for peace in the Middle East for you; it is literally a euphemism for an unsolvable problem.
From the river to the sea is the only way this resolves in a way that ends the conflict permanently, and if you care at all about justice then Palestine must be what remains.
What exactly do you want me to say? I cannot lay out a plan for peace in the Middle East for you; it is literally a euphemism for an unsolvable problem.
See, I disagree. I think there are options, just like we did in other parts of the world with 3rd party interventions (Bosnia/Herzegovina) etc. I’m not going to go into specifics now, but just now that cynicism is just a vehicle for more blame passing.
From the river to the sea is the only way this resolves in a way that ends the conflict permanently, and if you care at all about justice then Palestine must be what remains.
I don’t quite understand this statement, so forgive me if I misspeak. I’m all for a two state solution, but if I understood correctly, the expression “from the river to the sea” is intended to mean the elimination of all Israeli statehood within this particular region. Even if all nations stopped selling weapons to Israel, Israel has enough armament to wipe out the entire subcontinent and last I checked, the Israelis have no intention to go anywhere. So this isn’t a productive path towards either a 2 state solution or a peace process. Just my 2 cents though, I’m just a guy on Lemmy interested in History.
I’m all for a two state solution, but if I understood correctly, the expression “from the river to the sea” is intended to mean the elimination of all Israeli statehood within this particular region
It’s a call for one state encompassing all of Palestine. The details vary (sometimes it’s used with “drive them to the sea” rhetoric) but the original meaning, which is still used today, is calling for a democratic state where both Jews and Palestinians have full civil rights.
A democratic state managed by who? Isn’t Israel a democratic state, technically? I’m not trying to be facetious. I think herein lies the challenge: once we start to dig into actual policy and details. Slogans are nice, but how do we move from slogans to actionable plans? That’s why I firmly believe a third party is necessary as a mediator of some sort. Israel will definitely not negotiate favorably for Palestinians at this point.
EDIT: btw, im enjoying the discussion and I’m learning a lot. So thanks for your patience.
We had a chance of peace with Rabin, but Palestinians would not accept that Israel has much a right to exist as any surrounding Arab country.
Now we have fools supporting terrorists who would gladly kill those same supporters. Fools that refuse to accept that neither side is completely honest yet also that neither side is completely dishonest.
We have people that have no understanding of military weapons and tactics telling us that certain things are happening which are probably not the case.
With all this talk of apartheid and genocide, tell me, Where are Algeria’s Jews? Syria’s? Egypt’s?
We had a chance of peace with Rabin, but Palestinians would not accept that Israel has much a right to exist as any surrounding Arab country.
What the fuck are you… A Zionist terrorist fucking murdered Rabin for daring to go through with peace you piece of shit. Then another Zionist came and called the whole thing off.
Hey come on, address his/her points without escalating. Yes, a Zionist did assassinate him, but that’s besides the point. This thread was going pretty well overall. We’re actually hearing other perspectives for once.
Wait. I’m confused, so please educate me. Rabin was not in favor of a peace deal? Is that your stance? What exactly are you saying is misinformation. Can you be specific?
No no. Rabin was in favor of peace. The misinformation is the attempt at shifting the blame from the Israeli right that literally called for Rabin’s assassination to Palestinian (admittedly misguided) armed resistance, with no mention of the former. Like yes I won’t deny that Hamas and other organizations objecting to peace and ramping up their activities was fucking stupid, but pretending that the deal fell through because of that and not because the Israeli right couldn’t let go of their Manifest Destiny is a pipe dream. And the thing is: It’s a pipe dream nobody would seriously believe, or—in other words—a dog whistle.
This might strike you as dismissive, but the thing is: Attempting at shifting all blame for failure of negotiations to Palestinians (at a time when the largest Palestinian organization, the PLO, specifically disavowed violence and recognized Israel, no less) is a common Israeli tactic to make it look like there’s no other way for poor poor Israel to defend themselves. So is pretending camp David 2000 (or worse, the US-led 2014 initiative) was a serious Israeli attempt at peace and blaming its failure on Palestinians. You learn to recognize these things, because they’re ideas nobody who’s discussing the conflict in good faith, and as educated as they imply they are, will actually believe.
Ok thanks for the clarification. I’m going to check out of this thread because the downvote brigade is here and I’m tired. It was interesting until a few minutes ago when that started and once again proving the limitations of discourse on Lemmy. I’m tired of this platform.
Why did the Palestinians reject the Peel commission partition (and every subsequent two state proposals)? We can’t go back in time. Its unfortunate, but Israel is there now. The question is what should we do now? Genuinely curious. I’m not saying this in defense of Israel. It’s where we are now.
Edit: also, Israel has done its fair share of atrocities, but there is plenty of blame to go around. It’s not like Hamas and the PLO are free of any criticism. Whenever I see posts unilaterally condemning one side my spider senses start tingling.
We can and should go back in time to understand what’s happening in today’s era. If you never learn about history, you’ll never understand what is happening today.
In your point of view; we should never look back on what Nazi Germany did because we cannot go back in time.
Hypothetical question to you; If you were living in peace with your family in your house and suddenly 5 people come. They beat you up, murder few of your family members and put you in the bathroom for 10 years.
You manage to escape and out of rage kill you someone. You suddenly get called out for being the aggressor and the ones that started it are now victimized.
How would that make you feel? Because that’s what is happening now.
I don’t know why they refused that back then however, I can understand it. It was and is the Palestinian land. It was stolen in 1948.
Why “share the land” when it was theirs all along and never asked peacefully to share the land for the people back then?
You’re turning this around as if Palestinians are the wrong one for wanting to live in peace in their own land
EDIT: I would also like to add
Now tell me who’s the aggressor, how would you make peace and a two-state solution with the Israeli government.
BTW, thanks for discussing without engaging in ad-homs --I’m appreciating the conversation. It’s sad this needs to be said, but just getting it out there. To go back to the topic:
On your edit:
Back to my original point: what needs to happen, concretely, moving forward? How can we bring both sides to the table for negotiations?
Then I understood that incorrectly. It is true we cannot undo the process but we do have to understand what happened to also understand Hamas perspective (and the normal Palestinian civilians).
I, personally, was not dwelling on it. I was giving an argument and a bit of history, the first commentor pretended as if it started somewhere around the ~2000. Which is not true.
Yes and again my question to that; Why would they agree to it? The land was unfairly ‘given away’ to the Jewish people back then. The Palestinians themselves had no say in it. The land was theirs (and still is!) and it was suddenly given away by another country (I think it was Britain?).
That’s like someone forcefully entering your home and claim ‘’this will now be our house’’. It does not work like that and it should not.
I mean by this that for more than 7 decades Israel has been doing immensely awful things (the things I listed before). No, I’m not saying Hamas and the other groups never had blood on their hands, they do.
But realize Hamas did not exist until 1987. Before that Israel already had shed much blood already. Israel had been doing bad things for 39-40 years before Hamas become an actual group. Hamas is a literal creation of Israel’s actions.
Certainly Palestinian have done their fair share of violence but many people from many countries as well.
Israel has made the possibility of peace between Israeli’s and Palestinians not possible anymore and they (Israel Government) do not even want peace. They want the land and the Palestinians gone (erased) and this can be proven on how the entire Likud party behaves and speaks. I say that in absolute terms because it is true. Israel (government) keep provoking Palestinian people, there so many writing and video evidence of it.
This is not just ‘’some individual’’. This was said by the far-right Israeli Jerusalem Affairs and Heritage Minister, Amichai Eliyahu. So yes, it can be representative. Also Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant called Palestinian people ‘’rats’’. Would you say the very Defense Minister of Israel is not an ‘’representative’’?
There’s enough evidence.
EDIT: Correction of a specific date “1948” to “1987”
That’s fair. I agree with a lot of what you’re saying here --I don’t know that there’s much to contest. But, again, going back to the Peel partition is not going to happen. At that time, there was no “Palestine” as a nation and–as much as this sucks, because it does-- it was under British mandate. If we’re going to leverage history then both sides will play the same game: the Jews will say that this was their homeland 2000 years ago. That’s why I don’t place too much weight on land swaps that happened in the last century. At some point, we have to draw a line somewhere and move forward. I don’t think we can even go back to the 68 partition at this point, so what’s the point any more? Somehow, we need to force both parties into negotiations before more innocent people are killed. That’s my only thesis.
The history is not relevant to any current peace plan. Besides, if you dig deep enough, the inhabitants if the earliest recorded history were judaic and spoke Hebrew.
Why do you give a complete pass for Hamas’s strategy of intentional war crimes and terrorism?
You really can’t tell the difference between a country with a Democratic government that actually punishes war crimes, and an ungovernable hellhole ruled by criminals who reward war crimes?
I can go through all of them, but the short of it is: Palestinians had every right to reject the construction of an Apartheid ethnostate (that had explicitly stated it would expand beyond its assigned borders) being built on their land. That’s the Peele commission, for the 1948 UN resolution it’s the same thing and the fact that Israel would get land that at the time held half of the Palestinian population. There were no other serious 2-state solution proposals (except maybe the 2008 one that was done under the table so we don’t know much about it).
Well the best solution is a one-state democratic, non-Apartheid state (certainly no nonsense about a Jewish homeland or nation state laws). The two-state solution is discussed as the next best thing because Israel is too attached to Apartheid to commit to a one-state solution, so from that point where we go now is the international community forces Israel to actually accept Palestinians’ human rights, including right to self-determination, because God knows they won’t do it on their own.
You’re saying we can’t go back in time like this is ancient history. The prime minister of Israel was born one year removed from its founding. There are people who live in Gaza right now who had family and friends who were massacred by the colonists who are presently squatting on their land.
Would you be willing to make peace with people who forced you from your home, killed your family, and herded you into the largest open air concentration camp in the world? Do you think those people would be content to live in peace with you, when they continue, to this day, to forcibly evict your people from their homes to move in settlers? It is not the Palestinians responsibility to reconcile this, and Israel has no intention of coexisting.
No, I’m saying “we can’t go back in time” period. As a factual statement. Not as a qualitative assessment of blame. There is plenty of that going around already. Also, I never see any condemnation on this site for any of the actions perpetrated by one side: it’s always about the one with the bigger military force as if it’s a de facto given that Israel should just sit back and let Hamas rain rockets on them indefinitely. What is the proposal going forward? What should Israel do? Are you saying we should go back to the 48 partition proposal? Should we go back to the 62 partition? Two state solution? One state solution from river to sea? What should happen now, realistically, that will get both sides to the table? I’m genuinely curious.
What exactly do you want me to say? I cannot lay out a plan for peace in the Middle East for you; it is literally a euphemism for an unsolvable problem.
From the river to the sea is the only way this resolves in a way that ends the conflict permanently, and if you care at all about justice then Palestine must be what remains.
See, I disagree. I think there are options, just like we did in other parts of the world with 3rd party interventions (Bosnia/Herzegovina) etc. I’m not going to go into specifics now, but just now that cynicism is just a vehicle for more blame passing.
I don’t quite understand this statement, so forgive me if I misspeak. I’m all for a two state solution, but if I understood correctly, the expression “from the river to the sea” is intended to mean the elimination of all Israeli statehood within this particular region. Even if all nations stopped selling weapons to Israel, Israel has enough armament to wipe out the entire subcontinent and last I checked, the Israelis have no intention to go anywhere. So this isn’t a productive path towards either a 2 state solution or a peace process. Just my 2 cents though, I’m just a guy on Lemmy interested in History.
It’s a call for one state encompassing all of Palestine. The details vary (sometimes it’s used with “drive them to the sea” rhetoric) but the original meaning, which is still used today, is calling for a democratic state where both Jews and Palestinians have full civil rights.
A democratic state managed by who? Isn’t Israel a democratic state, technically? I’m not trying to be facetious. I think herein lies the challenge: once we start to dig into actual policy and details. Slogans are nice, but how do we move from slogans to actionable plans? That’s why I firmly believe a third party is necessary as a mediator of some sort. Israel will definitely not negotiate favorably for Palestinians at this point.
EDIT: btw, im enjoying the discussion and I’m learning a lot. So thanks for your patience.
We had a chance of peace with Rabin, but Palestinians would not accept that Israel has much a right to exist as any surrounding Arab country.
Now we have fools supporting terrorists who would gladly kill those same supporters. Fools that refuse to accept that neither side is completely honest yet also that neither side is completely dishonest.
We have people that have no understanding of military weapons and tactics telling us that certain things are happening which are probably not the case.
With all this talk of apartheid and genocide, tell me, Where are Algeria’s Jews? Syria’s? Egypt’s?
What the fuck are you… A Zionist terrorist fucking murdered Rabin for daring to go through with peace you piece of shit. Then another Zionist came and called the whole thing off.
Hey come on, address his/her points without escalating. Yes, a Zionist did assassinate him, but that’s besides the point. This thread was going pretty well overall. We’re actually hearing other perspectives for once.
There’s no point to be addressed.
Is misinformation, plain and simple. I can see the mental gymnastics they went through to get to this point, but just… no.
Wait. I’m confused, so please educate me. Rabin was not in favor of a peace deal? Is that your stance? What exactly are you saying is misinformation. Can you be specific?
No no. Rabin was in favor of peace. The misinformation is the attempt at shifting the blame from the Israeli right that literally called for Rabin’s assassination to Palestinian (admittedly misguided) armed resistance, with no mention of the former. Like yes I won’t deny that Hamas and other organizations objecting to peace and ramping up their activities was fucking stupid, but pretending that the deal fell through because of that and not because the Israeli right couldn’t let go of their Manifest Destiny is a pipe dream. And the thing is: It’s a pipe dream nobody would seriously believe, or—in other words—a dog whistle.
This might strike you as dismissive, but the thing is: Attempting at shifting all blame for failure of negotiations to Palestinians (at a time when the largest Palestinian organization, the PLO, specifically disavowed violence and recognized Israel, no less) is a common Israeli tactic to make it look like there’s no other way for poor poor Israel to defend themselves. So is pretending camp David 2000 (or worse, the US-led 2014 initiative) was a serious Israeli attempt at peace and blaming its failure on Palestinians. You learn to recognize these things, because they’re ideas nobody who’s discussing the conflict in good faith, and as educated as they imply they are, will actually believe.
Ok thanks for the clarification. I’m going to check out of this thread because the downvote brigade is here and I’m tired. It was interesting until a few minutes ago when that started and once again proving the limitations of discourse on Lemmy. I’m tired of this platform.