There's no easy answer to this. It's an exceedingly complicated matter. The Palestinians do have genuine grievances to draw upon. And the settlers are fucking cunts who do everything they can to provoke the Palestinians. I'd say they qualify just as much as terrorists as Hammas. The Palestinians feel backed into a corner and are responding to it. I'd say the Palestinians have every reason to be butt-hurt about how they've been treated.
The Palestinian identity has grown mythic and overblown. It is now a victim-culture. Palestine has never been a Muslim country. It was always mostly Jewish. There is no reasonable line of argumentation that can argue all Jews out of Israel. That is insane. A two state solution is actually quite reasonable, and I'm sure reasonable people on both sides realize this. It's just that most Palestinians apparently, aren't reasonable.
So why do they keep on proposing two-state solutions?
Another solution is to rebrand Israel as Israel-Palestine and make it a part Jewish, part Muslem and part Christian state. But this solution is completely and utterly rejected by both sides.
Not so. Palestinians would be delighted with a one-state solution that would put be democratic and put them in control of the country. It's Israel that rejects this one, and quite reasonably so.
The only solution that a majority of all Palestinians is willing to accept is a total annihilation of Israel.
Source?
For various reasons Palestinians aren't trying to find a solution that makes everybody happy.
Source?
This is the ONLY Jewish country. There's nowhere else for Jews to go (at least if a Jew wants to live in a Jewish country).
It's the only Palestinian country too. It's not their fault you think of all towel-heads as basically the same.
But we saw in the 2004 elections that most Palestians aren't reasonable.
The government elected in 2004 immediately called for an end to violence, enforced a ceasefire, and started talks on a permanent peace settlement, moderated by the international community, with a detailed bargaining position that already had some international support. What's unreasonable about that?
Similarly the political landscape of Israel isn't steadfastly anti-peace either. The forces against the present policy are sufficient that the Israeli government has to form a coalition with the religious extreme right, which they're been reluctant to do in the past.
There
is a huge gap in what either side sees as a
reasonable settlement. Israel doesn't want a sovereign state in Palestine, because a sovereign state would be armed and a potential threat. And Palestinians don't want to accept half a state ruled by Israel. But there's always been support for a two-state solution in Palestine. Less so in Israel, because they have the upper hand and thus more to lose, but support for the settlers is not high there either.
The question is really what is it that needs to happen for there to be serious negotiations. Rocket attacks need to stop, settlement activity needs to stop, but what else. The position that Sweden has now apparently agreed to is that recognition of Palestine mustn't precede a peace settlement.
Does anyone know the reasoning behind this?
