By internationally recognized you mean recognized by the Muslim community.
Up until 1967 Egypt controlled gaza and Jordan the west bank and there was no talk of peace, the line has always been there can be no state of Israel in any form. Within the last 20 years pals have been offered states on the 1967 borders and refused. The Oslo accords which included incremental steps to peace led to nothing but terrorism, all the aid pals receive they use for terrorism. They have explicitly unanimously said for decades that they will fight Israel to the death and have not made any offers or concessions to peace and you want to just these Islamic fundamentalist to behave if they let them into Israel? Do you know the history of Lebanon. You are native if you think you can trust hamas’, ISIS… Did you not see hamas on TV saying they didn’t target civilians in their attacks?
Before 1967 the arabs refused to accept the state of Israel and launched a war to destroy it in 1967 so they lost the land. The land is not held for them in perpetuity to attack and attack… If they want peace they have to give in peace, if they attack them they should be attacked, it is simple.
No one should be kept in prison but you keep a murderer in prison because of what they’ve done.
At this point you will say, well what about what Israel did… And I promise you if you go back pals have instigated every conflict. They are unwilling to live in peace with non Muslim, they follow a fascist Islamic ideology and are explicit about it. The jews , who are the natives of the land, have repeatedly shown a willingness to live in peace with arabs, with a pal state and with arabs in the Jewish state. During the Oslo peace negotiations they talked about putting Arab areae of Israel under the PLO and the Israeli arabs absolutely refused, Arabs living in Israel have better quality of life than anywhere in the Arab world, Arab countries are corrupt theocracies, Israel is a liberal democracy , this is why the fascist Muslims hate it, this is what they are talking about when they say ‘european colonialsim’, that it’s not a fascist Muslim theocracy
So since you’re a massive moron I don’t plan to engage with you much longer, but lemme say this: Netenyahu’s election platform is and has been for thirty years not making peace with Palestinians. He’s actively sabotaged the Palestinian peace movement over and over to prevent it from happening.
Yeah he won because before him you had leftist prime ministers who offered everything to the pals, have them more autonomy and it only resulted in more terrorism. The pals will fight to the death no matter what, they say so explicitly, they don’t want freedom or prosperity they are Islamic fascist and want to destroy Israel , that’s it. If they wanted peace and prosperity they’ve already had every opportunity
1947 is its own mess, but it was Israel (specifically Netenyahu) who called off the Oslo accords. Where the fuck did you find that Palestinians refused a two state solution in 1993?
The Palestinians suspended the talks and never made a counter offer. After that Hamas etc sent suicide bombers and an Israeli terrorist machine gunned a mosque and there’s never been a chance of peace since
In Israel’s May 1999 elections, the Labor Party’s Ehud Barak decisively defeated Netanyahu. Barak predicted that he could reach agreements with both Syria and the Palestinians in 12 to 15 months, and pledged to withdraw Israeli troops from southern Lebanon. In September, Barak signed the Sharm al-Shaykh Memorandum with Arafat, which committed both sides to begin permanent status negotiations. An initial round of meetings, however, achieved nothing, and by December the Palestinians suspended talks over settlement-building in the occupied territories.
Okay so we need to distinguish between the Oslo accords (which Netenyahu called off in 1996) and the 2000 Camp David summit. You’re talking about the latter. With that out of the way, the 2000 Camp David summit deal had very objectionable terms for Palestinians. I can go into the details, but I think we can just take the then-Israeli Minister of Foreign Relations’s word for it.
In 2006, Shlomo Ben-Ami stated on Democracy Now! that "Camp David was not the missed opportunity for the Palestinians, and if I were a Palestinian I would have rejected Camp David, as well.
You’re right, I was referring to Camp David, and the deal sounds pretty good conpared to today’s situation
The proposals included the establishment of a demilitarised Palestinian state on some 92% of the West Bank and 100% of the Gaza Strip, with some territorial compensation for the Palestinians from pre-1967 Israeli territory; the dismantling of most of the settlements and the concentration of the bulk of the settlers inside the 8% of the West Bank to be annexed by Israel; the establishment of the Palestinian capital in east Jerusalem, in which some Arab neighborhoods would become sovereign Palestinian territory and others would enjoy “functional autonomy”; Palestinian sovereignty over half the Old City of Jerusalem (the Muslim and Christian quarters) and “custodianship,” though not sovereignty, over the Temple Mount; a return of refugees to the prospective Palestinian state though with no “right of return” to Israel proper; and the organisation by the international community of a massive aid programme to facilitate the refugees’ rehabilitation.
You’re right, I was referring to Camp David, and the deal sounds pretty good conpared to today’s situation
It’s better than today’s situation, but the thing is that nobody could’ve predicted the situation would get this bad. Also, the thing about accepting a two-state solution is that it’s a one-time thing. All proposals so far included considering the conflict ended, so when you accept a Palestinian state with no East Jerusalem, no territorial contiguity (the offer would have it divided into four parts connected by Israeli territory that could be closed off in cases of emergency) and no control over its own airspace or water sources, you’re stuck with these things forever.
the establishment of the Palestinian capital in east Jerusalem, in which some Arab neighborhoods would become sovereign Palestinian territory and others would enjoy “functional autonomy”
I have to question the accuracy of this, given that the Israeli PM stated that he wasn’t willing to grant Palestinians anything more than symbolic sovereignty over East Jerusalem at the start of the negotiations, and in fact that was one of the main contention points.
Israel could start with restoring the internationally recognised borders. That’s one war crime down.
By internationally recognized you mean recognized by the Muslim community.
Up until 1967 Egypt controlled gaza and Jordan the west bank and there was no talk of peace, the line has always been there can be no state of Israel in any form. Within the last 20 years pals have been offered states on the 1967 borders and refused. The Oslo accords which included incremental steps to peace led to nothing but terrorism, all the aid pals receive they use for terrorism. They have explicitly unanimously said for decades that they will fight Israel to the death and have not made any offers or concessions to peace and you want to just these Islamic fundamentalist to behave if they let them into Israel? Do you know the history of Lebanon. You are native if you think you can trust hamas’, ISIS… Did you not see hamas on TV saying they didn’t target civilians in their attacks?
Bruh there is literally a UN resolution calling for Israel’s retreat to 1967 borders.
The UN is not the arbitrator of morality.
Before 1967 the arabs refused to accept the state of Israel and launched a war to destroy it in 1967 so they lost the land. The land is not held for them in perpetuity to attack and attack… If they want peace they have to give in peace, if they attack them they should be attacked, it is simple.
No one should be kept in prison but you keep a murderer in prison because of what they’ve done.
At this point you will say, well what about what Israel did… And I promise you if you go back pals have instigated every conflict. They are unwilling to live in peace with non Muslim, they follow a fascist Islamic ideology and are explicit about it. The jews , who are the natives of the land, have repeatedly shown a willingness to live in peace with arabs, with a pal state and with arabs in the Jewish state. During the Oslo peace negotiations they talked about putting Arab areae of Israel under the PLO and the Israeli arabs absolutely refused, Arabs living in Israel have better quality of life than anywhere in the Arab world, Arab countries are corrupt theocracies, Israel is a liberal democracy , this is why the fascist Muslims hate it, this is what they are talking about when they say ‘european colonialsim’, that it’s not a fascist Muslim theocracy
So since you’re a massive moron I don’t plan to engage with you much longer, but lemme say this: Netenyahu’s election platform is and has been for thirty years not making peace with Palestinians. He’s actively sabotaged the Palestinian peace movement over and over to prevent it from happening.
And good job changing the goalposts.
Yeah he won because before him you had leftist prime ministers who offered everything to the pals, have them more autonomy and it only resulted in more terrorism. The pals will fight to the death no matter what, they say so explicitly, they don’t want freedom or prosperity they are Islamic fascist and want to destroy Israel , that’s it. If they wanted peace and prosperity they’ve already had every opportunity
The UN proposed partition in 1947, Palestinians refused.
The US proposed a two state solution in 1993, Palestinians refused
What the fuck? What the actual fuck?
1947 is its own mess, but it was Israel (specifically Netenyahu) who called off the Oslo accords. Where the fuck did you find that Palestinians refused a two state solution in 1993?
The Palestinians suspended the talks and never made a counter offer. After that Hamas etc sent suicide bombers and an Israeli terrorist machine gunned a mosque and there’s never been a chance of peace since
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1993-2000/oslo
Okay so we need to distinguish between the Oslo accords (which Netenyahu called off in 1996) and the 2000 Camp David summit. You’re talking about the latter. With that out of the way, the 2000 Camp David summit deal had very objectionable terms for Palestinians. I can go into the details, but I think we can just take the then-Israeli Minister of Foreign Relations’s word for it.
You’re right, I was referring to Camp David, and the deal sounds pretty good conpared to today’s situation
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/may/23/israel3
It’s better than today’s situation, but the thing is that nobody could’ve predicted the situation would get this bad. Also, the thing about accepting a two-state solution is that it’s a one-time thing. All proposals so far included considering the conflict ended, so when you accept a Palestinian state with no East Jerusalem, no territorial contiguity (the offer would have it divided into four parts connected by Israeli territory that could be closed off in cases of emergency) and no control over its own airspace or water sources, you’re stuck with these things forever.
I have to question the accuracy of this, given that the Israeli PM stated that he wasn’t willing to grant Palestinians anything more than symbolic sovereignty over East Jerusalem at the start of the negotiations, and in fact that was one of the main contention points.