The big problem is that while there used to be a relatively clean line aggressive (and highly illegal) Isreali settlers and those who organize them have purposefully worked to destroy any clear separation in an effort to make a two state solution impossible.
The isreali government has had many different forms and drives since founding - this is by far the worst form where displacement and genocide is openly embraced - but even under prior more tolerant government there’s always been a militant genocidal faction of the population that have indepently worked to establish illegal settlements.
The question of where to draw the line has been purposefully made as difficult as possible by people who are opposed to a line ever being drawn.
It is exactly what happened with the settlement of native american lands in the US. Settlers move into land given by treaty to the Indians, when trouble occurs the military is sent in and the Indians are inevitably ejected from their lands.
Yeah but they were barbaric and scalped babies.
They are eating the cats, they are eating the dogs… Sigh…
Its crazy how people can justify genocide at the time.
It’s called “right of return” and transforms Israel from a Jewish apartheid state into a pluralistic democracy, so the settler lobby would never allow it.
The first proposal for separate Jewish and Arab states in the territory was made by the British Peel Commission report in 1937.[3] In 1947, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a partition plan for Palestine, leading to the 1948 Palestine war.[4][5] As a result, Israel was established on the area the UN had proposed for the Jewish state, as well as almost 60% of the area proposed for the Arab state. Israel took control of West Jerusalem, which was meant to be part of an international zone. Jordan took control of East Jerusalem and what became known as the West Bank, annexing it the following year. The territory which became the Gaza Strip was occupied by Egypt but never annexed. Since the 1967 Six-Day War, both the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and Gaza Strip have been militarily occupied by Israel, becoming known as the Palestinian territories.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-state_solution
Basically from the beginning until 2014, that has been the basis of every proposal.
There was the original 1947 UN plan for the partition of Palestine, for one. You can read in that article about which groups accepted and rejected it.
There is the Saif al-Islam Gaddafi Isratin proposal:
The Gaddafi Isratin proposal intended to permanently resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict through a secular, federalist, republican one-state solution, which was first articulated by Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, the son of Muammar Gaddafi of Libya, at the Chatham House in London and later adopted by Muammar Gaddafi himself.
Its main points are:
-
Creation of a binational Jewish-Palestinian state called the “Federal Republic of the Holy Land”;
-
Partition of the state into five administrative regions, with Jerusalem as a city-state;
-
Return of all Palestinian refugees;
-
Supervision by the United Nations of free and fair elections on the first and second occasions;
-
Removal of weapons of mass destruction from the state;
-
Recognition of the state by the Arab League.
Similar to the Binational State Solution advocated by the Palestinian leadership and some others prior to the Nakba.
Partition was used to justify Setter Colonialism and Ethnic Cleansing
The Zionist position changed in 1928, when the pragmatic Palestinian leaders agreed to the principle of parity in a rare moment in which clannish and religious differences were overcome for the sake of consensus. The Palestinian leaders feared that without parity the Zionists would gain control of the political system. The unexpected Palestinian agreement threw the Zionist leaders into temporary confusion. When they recovered, they sent a refusal to the British, but at the same time offered an alternative solution: the partitioning of Palestine into two political units.
- Pg 132 of Ilan Pappe - A History of Modern Palestine
On 31 August 1947, UNSCOP presented its recommendations to the UN General Assembly. Three of its members were allowed to put forward an alternative recommendation. The majority report advocated the partition of Palestine into two states, with an economic union. The designated Jewish state was to have most of the coastal area, western Galilee, and the Negev, and the rest was to become the Palestinian state. The minority report proposed a unitary state in Palestine based on the principle of democracy. It took considerable American Jewish lobbying and American diplomatic pressure, as well as a powerful speech by the Russian ambassador to the UN, to gain the necessary two-thirds majority in the Assembly for partition. Even though hardly any Palestinian or Arab diplomat made an effort to promote the alternative scheme, it won an equal number of supporters and detractors, showing that a considerable number of member states realized that imposing partition amounted to supporting one side and opposing the other.
- Pg 181 of Ilan Pappe - A History of Modern Palestine
This ongoing Settler Colonialism annexing the West Bank continues to make a Two State Solution less possible, it has already divided the West Bank into hundreds of isolated enclaves. This Apartheid State needs to end as a binational state for all Palestinians and Israelis.
Here are resources by Historians about a One-State Solution. In many ways, it’s already a One-State, an Apartheid State, this change would be the emancipation of Palestinians to bring forth a One-State with equal rights.
The settlements represent land-grabbing, and land-grabbing and peace-making don’t go together, it is one or the other. By its actions, if not always in its rhetoric, Israel has opted for land-grabbing and as we speak Israel is expanding settlements. So, Israel has been systematically destroying the basis for a viable Palestinian state and this is the declared objective of the Likud and Netanyahu who used to pretend to accept a two-state solution. In the lead up to the last election, he said there will be no Palestinian state on his watch. The expansion of settlements and the wall mean that there cannot be a viable Palestinian state with territorial contiguity. The most that the Palestinians can hope for is Bantustans, a series of enclaves surrounded by Israeli settlements and Israeli military bases.
- Avi Shlaim
How Avi Shlaim moved from two-state solution to one-state solution
‘One state is a game changer’: A conversation with Ilan Pappe
-
Quite inconceivable at this point than any solution exists that satisfies the apparently mutually exclusive…
I) “right to return”. A large part of the Palestinian cause is the right to repossess their familys historic land inside modern Israel
Ii) Israeli security. Israel already considered the 1967 borders indefensible even more so given miliary action initiated by neighbours in 1948, 56, 63, 67 and so on.
Any two state solution is enormously fragile even if it does exist. Unimaginable that Israel wouldn’t take parts of the land saying that without it their security is untenable. Unimaginable that extremist groups within Palestine wouldn’t use it as an opportunity to build up forces and launch attacks at Israel given they’re ideologically opposed to any Jewish state, even a reduced one.
The solution “probably” is that things have to get so terrible and the rest of the world so upset at it carrying on that some sort of secular UN guarded state is created encompassing the whole region.
Either that or Israel’s going to divide and kill the Palestinians until 2 generations from now younger folk in the West, who don’t remember any of this, consider the whole region to be Israel. And the “Palestinians” if they’re heard from at all, are a stateless minority group, relegated to slums and living on the street.
Palestinian state is never happening… Discussions around it is just a circle jerk to provide cover for Israel to finish the genocide.
Never again 🤡
/s (putting this up front just in case)
Clearly at this point the only answer is a 0 state solution. Everyone shit in the pool so we’re shutting it down, everyone out.
Removed by mod
You should watch this Israeli academic explaining about those terrorists! https://youtu.be/2CTpVNKw7UM?si=-kWXAxceWpj9X2hP
EDIT: Original 2hr video the clip was taken from, for people who don’t like Middle East Eye being the source of the clip: https://youtu.be/Cs70S35_HPY?si=mKsQPYQfrOZvuAQo
Removed by mod
It’s a video of a very well known academic from Israel. It’s available on many, many different sources. I literally just grabbed the first one that came up on YouTube.
Here’s the original 2hr video of the entire conference presentation from CDA: https://youtu.be/Cs70S35_HPY?si=mKsQPYQfrOZvuAQo
Don’t reject self-evidently truthful commentary simply because you have a problem with the specific channel providing the clip.
EDIT: Also big lol at your link (Arab News) having a worse media bias rating (right-center bias, “mixed” factual reporting) than Middle East Eye (left-center bias, “mostly” factual reporting). Perhaps you should do your own source checking 😉
well known academic from Israel
Credible
Pick one
Lol you are exactly the type of person who most needs to hear the message of this video and you never will, and that’s kinda sad
I thought when Britian originally gave Palestine to the Jews (who made it Israel), the Muslims were offered a state where they got some of the land, and the Jews got some, with each getting half of Jerusalem, but they were unable to come to an offer that both sides would agree to.
And then 5 neighbouring countries invaded Israel the day after the British protectorate ended because they weren’t happy with the UN defined borders.
After the ethnic cleansing of hundreds of Palestinian cities
Ethnic Cleansing is fundamental to Zionism
Zionism’s aims in Palestine, its deeply-held conviction that the Land of Israel belonged exclusively to the Jewish people as a whole, and the idea of Palestine’s “civilizational barrenness" or “emptiness” against the background of European imperialist ideologies all converged in the logical conclusion that the native population should make way for thenewcomers.
The idea that the Palestinian Arabs must find a place for themselves elsewhere was articulated early on. Indeed, the founder of the movement, Theodor Herzl, provided an early reference to transfer even before he formally outlined his theory of Zionist rebirth in his Judenstat.
An 1895 entry in his diary provides in embryonic form many of the elements that were to be demonstrated repeatedly in the Zionist quest for solutions to the “Arab problem ”-the idea of dealing with state governments over the heads of the indigenous population, Jewish acquisition of property that would be inalienable, “Hebrew Land" and “Hebrew Labor,” and the removal of the native population.
Settlements and Occupation
Israel justifies the settlements and military bases in the West Bank in the name of Security. However, the reality of the settlements on-the-ground has been the cause of violent resistance and a significant obstacle to peace, as it has been for decades.
This type of settlement, where the native population gets ‘Transferred’ to make room for the settlers, is a long standing practice.
- The Transfer Committee, and the JNF Ethnic Cleansing, which led to Forced Displacement of 100,000 Palestinians throughout the mandate before the Nakba
The mass ethnic cleansing campaign of 1948:
Further, declassified Israeli documents show that the Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip were deliberately planned before being executed in 1967:
While the peace process was exploited to continue de-facto annexation of the West Bank via Settlements
The settlements are maintained through a violent apartheid that routinely employs violence towards Palestinians and denies human rights like water access, civil rights, etc. This kind of control gives rise to violent resistance to the Apartheid occupation, jeopardizing the safety of Israeli civilians.
The apartheid regime is based on organized, systemic violence against Palestinians, which is carried out by numerous agents: the government, the military, the Civil Administration, the Supreme Court, the Israel Police, the Israel Security Agency, the Israel Prison Service, the Israel Nature and Parks Authority, and others. Settlers are another item on this list, and the state incorporates their violence into its own official acts of violence. Settler violence sometimes precedes instances of official violence by Israeli authorities, and at other times is incorporated into them. Like state violence, settler violence is organized, institutionalized, well-equipped and implemented in order to achieve a defined strategic goal.
Yea, that’s what happens when your country chooses to support the wrong side in a world war and get stomped so bad the entire country collapses and is redistributed to the winners. Then Britain suggests using it’s chunk to house a group of people that literally just went through the holocaust and needed a place (and it just so happened they had a historical claim to much of that area anyways)
So yes, pushing people out was part of the plan.
You act like this hasn’t happened before, yet you(probably American based on your posting) live on land that was taken by force in an even more violent way from the native population. You planning on leaving and heading back to Europe anytime soon? Or are we only trying to stop new situations but old ones are allowed to persist?
Zionism is a settler colonialism project that was able to really start with the support of British Imperialism. Zionism as a political movement started with Theodore Herzl in the 1880s as a ‘modern’ way to ‘solve’ the ‘Jewish Question’ of Europe. Western Nations supported this instead of instituting legal protections and refuge for Jewish people fleeing persecution.
Adi Callai, an Israeli, does a great analysis of how Antisemitism has been weaponized by Zionism during its history.
Since at least the 1860’s, Europe was increasingly antisemitic and hostile to Jewish people. Zionism was explicitly a Setter Colonialist movement and the native Palestinians were not considered People but Savages by the Europeans. While Zionist Colonization began before it, the Balfor Declaration is when Britain gave it’s backing of the movement in order to ‘solve’ the ‘Jewish Question’ while also creating a Colony in the newly conquered Middle East after WWI in order to exhibit military force in the region and extract natural resources.
That’s when Zionist immigration started to pick up, out of necessity for most as Europe became more hostile and antisemitic. That continued into and during WWII, European countries and even the US refused to expand immigration quotas for Jewish people seeking asylum. The idea that the creation of Israel is a reparation for Jewish people is an after-the-fact justification. While most Jewish immigrants had no choice and just wanted a place to live in peace, it was the Zionist Leadership that developed and implemented the forced transfer, ethnic cleansing, of the native population, Palestinians. Without any Occupation, Apartheid, and ethnic cleansing, there would not be any Palestinian resistance to it.
Herzl himself explicitly considered Zionism a Settler Colonialist project, Setter Colonialism is always violent. The difficulty in creating a democratic Jewish state in an area inhabited by people who are not Jewish, is that enough Palestinian people need to be ‘Transferred’ to have a demographic majority that is Jewish. Ben-Gurion explicitly rejected Secular Bi-national state solutions in favor of partition.
Over 12000 Palestinians fought alongside Jewish forces against Nazi Germany. Nor would ethnic cleansing be justified if that wasn’t the case.
I support equal rights and reparations for Native Americans in America, which they still don’t currently have. So what’s your point. I’m advocating for equal rights for Israelis and Palestinians too.
America is a settler colonialism project started by British imperialism.
Equal rights and reparations for native Americans? Give me a break, how is that in any way acceptable after slaughtering them to take an entire continent?
If that’s all that’s needed, then maybe Israel should just eject all Palestinians entirely into Egypt, Jordan, etc, then send them a gift basket for a housewarming in their new location. They wouldn’t even need to kill anywhere close to the 95% of native Americans that died during the takeover of North America.
Equal rights and reparations for native Americans? Give me a break, how is that in any way acceptable after slaughtering them to take an entire continent?
It’s not. It’s the bare minimum
If that’s all that’s needed, then maybe Israel should just eject all Palestinians entirely into Egypt, Jordan, etc, then send them a gift basket for a housewarming in their new location
No, they could just have a One-State Solution with equal rights. Nothing justifies ethnic cleansing.
Bare minimum, the American way.
A one state solution is a pipe dream, even Ireland couldn’t figure that shit out and their differences are much smaller.
History is littered with failed one state solutions, from the USSR to the Roman empire.
Removed by mod
Tbf they were all Muslim countries, they weren’t exactly coming from an impartial perspective.
