The Israeli leader is under pressure over course of the Gaza war but is doubling down on opposition to a two-state solution

Defiant Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu doubled down on opposition to Palestinian statehood, deepening the divide with Israel’s closest international allies, as cracks in his wartime “unity” government became increasingly evident.

Anger with Netanyahu is also increasingly visible on the streets, even though there is broad public support for the war. On Saturday, protesters gathered in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Caesarea and Kfar Saba, some calling for bolder action to secure the release of hostages, and others demanding the prime minister step down.

One in Jerusalem held a placard that read: “Mothers’ cry: we will not sacrifice our children in the war to save the rightwing.”

Archive

  • speaker_hatEnglish
    2·
    10 months ago

    First, thank you for the detailed response, which I’ll response to as such.

    When Netanyahu just decided to ignore the Oslo accords after Rabin was assassinated.

    At that time, Shimon Peres was the prime minister of Israel, so Netanyahu’s stand wasn’t even relevant. (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prime_ministers_of_Israel)

    Anyway,

    Negotiations on further terms continued, with Peres continuing to be an integral player. On 28 September 1995, Rabin and Arafat jointly signed a second major agreement, which has popularly been referred to as “Oslo II”

    (“Oslo II” created the Areas A, B and C in the West Bank, Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_II_Accord. However, these areas still have Palestinian terror acts)

    I wonder why Palestinians didn’t want their land to be stolen and used to build an Apartheid state.

    Palestinians, at that time, didn’t had ownership over the area of Palestine. because it was an official Mandate of the United Kingdom. (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Palestine)

    Apartheid state

    How’s Israel an apartheid state when it has 21% Arabs citizens from the Palestinian origin?

    The “1937 - Peel commission” is an Investigation of the causes of the 1936 Arab revolt in Palestine, which in short was an uprising by Palestinian Arabs in Mandatory Palestine against the British demanding Arab independence and the end of the policy of open-ended Jewish immigration.

    The Arabs of that time didn’t have any stand of the Jewish immigration, as it was under the British auspices.

    Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936–1939_Arab_revolt_in_Palestine

    Same argument is relevant for “1947 - Partition resolution”.

    TL;DR: Israel’s Camp David terms were so horrible that as long as they didn’t budge on them (which they didn’t; the idea that Arafat didn’t compromise is Israeli propaganda) no sane Palestinian would accept them.

    In 2000 Camp David Summit, “The Palestinian negotiators indicated they wanted full Palestinian sovereignty over the entire West Bank and the Gaza Strip”. (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit)

    The Palestinians received sovereignty over Gaza strip at 5 years later in 2005. (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_Gaza).

    Guess what happened just 18 years later, from that Palestinian sovereignty? You guessed right, Hamas 07/10 massacre.

    Since the offer went on behind the scenes, nobody actually knows what happened, so I won’t comment on it.

    OK.

    You didn’t reply on the rest of the peace rejection, so I’ll consider them to be agreed otherwise stated.

    Here are some other noteworthy peace meeting or proposals from Israel to the rest if the Arab world, which were rejected

    This sentence, and the list you provided, strengthening and supporting what I wrote on my comment above:

    Palestinians don’t look for peace.

    They only look for undoing the what so called “Nakba”, a thing that will never happen, as long as Israel exists.