So the ideal solution would be a 2-state+1-cage solution, where the cage is for Hamas and Netanyahu together with his Ultra Orthodox faction, where they can fight each other to death, while Israel and Palestine negotiate on a peace treaty.
To my knowledge the closest state to the 2 state solution was an offer to Arafat after the Camp David negotiations. He didn’t take the offer, but I don’t know why. But that was in 2000, before Hamas seized power in 2005. That was why I asked.
Just as the reactionary Republicans who accuse the democrats of all sorts of foul play that’s in their playbook, this whole comment looks to me like projection.
Using the population as shields, by hiding weapons and militants in hospitals and schools is what the Palestinian combatants have done for years decades. Etc
You have a few points, the Israeli government has long been gone across any reasonable state of mind.
But the whole mindset you describe did not originate in Israel. This whole situation is waaay less one sided than you make it appear. And it changed significantly last weekend, initiated with a terror attack of unprecedented scale by the Hamas.
Ok, so before 1918, the Ottomans had that piece of land for about 400 years. I guess that makes a turkish claim is older, and therefore stronger, by your logic, am I right?
Before that there was the Mamluks for 200 years, but that doesn’t seem an ethnicity that’s notable today, so let’s forget that.
Before that, the cruzaders had that land for 200 years, I suppose that means Europe also has an older claim.
Before that, Arabs for 400 years, so I see we’re back to their claim.
But hold on, before that, it was Roman territory for a whopping 700 years. That’s notable. Italia has a really good claim, I’d say.
But even before, there were the Jews there, and for close to a thousand years. So, following your logic the state Israel has all right to be there.
Before that there also lived people, of course, but it’s hard to pinpoint those to ethnicity. Egypt was there shortly. That’s an older claim even, but not very long.
Hmm. Are now all those people justified in killing innocents on some grounds that hasn’t been “theirs” for generations?
Again, what’s the justification for killing innocents? Because they walk on land that another claims theirs? That sort of thinking always and everywhere only led to war and war crimes.
As for the Israelis, for those who live there, it’s their home, for many going back three generations. In many cases those ancestors took it it legally under ottoman law. I find that 24-undisputed-hour-rule questionable myself, but your story doesn’t hold up legally in many cases, nor historical. Everyone’s ancestors lived someplace. That doesn’t automatically make that place theirs.
Pointing to an old map and claiming the territory that another currently occupies never leads to peace.