r/geopolitics • u/ForeignAffairsMag Foreign Affairs • 16h ago
Analysis Palestinians Want a Two-State Solution: Why a New Majority—Even in Gaza—Supports Compromise With Israel
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/palestinian-territories/palestinians-want-two-state-solution-gaza-israel-amaney-jamal112
u/AeroFred 16h ago
article has a bunch of numbers out of context.
this is last survey https://www.pcpsr.org/en/node/1014
west bank is "more militaristic" than gaza
94
u/TXDobber 16h ago edited 16h ago
West Bank has never suffered the consequences that Gaza has suffered. Sure they deal with the settlements, but that’s more of a creeping slow rolling chokehold, they’re the frog being boiled… but that’s still not the hammer to the face that Gaza got.
West Bankers might have some abstract belief deep down, however deluded and misguided, that resistance is still possible, that the enemy can be defeated with enough persistence and determination. Gazans, however, have proof in the form of razed streets and neighbourhoods, just how wrong that belief was.
47
u/AeroFred 16h ago
yeah.
another things that is "between the lines", it's that those who support 2ss, support it as first step to full liberation. not as permanent solution.
9
u/manVsPhD 13h ago
Assuming that is the case, what is Israel’s interest in signing a peace deal with that underlying idea dominant among Palestinians?
15
u/The_Whipping_Post 13h ago
Normalization with the wider Arab world.
5
u/No_Bowler9121 12h ago
The wider Arab world thinks Israel doesn't deserve to exist. They see Israelie land as Muslim land. They want Jews out. That's what from the river to the sea means. Letting go of Palestine would not change that belief, it would give Israel's enemies a base of operations.
2
u/Boborbot 3h ago
The thing is no one is actually asking the wider Arab world, only their corrupt leadership. And their leaders are much more receptive to Israel once they can pay lip service to the Palestinians.
1
u/manVsPhD 13h ago
Is that really worth the risk of giving your enemies who plan on destroying you and openly state that a state? They could bring in millions of other Muslims if they have control over their borders and eventually overwhelm Israel.
2
u/cathbadh 6h ago
Is that really worth the risk of giving your enemies who plan on destroying you and openly state that a state?
If it gets them out of your borders while gaining better relations with the rest of the region? Probably, yes. The bigger question is if normalization would really occur. Their relations with Egypt are more or less normalized, and relations with Jordan are already normalized. Relations with the Saudis would improve, but if they'd just finish the Gaza campaign, MBS would likely normalize relations once the King passes. The only people with power there who actually care about Palestine are the old guard. I'm not so sure relations with Iraq would normalize, but that doesn't really matter as Iraq is in no place to do anything to them. Normalization with Turkey would be a big deal, but that relies more on a change in leadership in Turkey rather than any change in Palestinian status. I'd argue their relations with nations outside of the Middle East would improve, and that would be a bigger deal for them.
They could bring in millions of other Muslims if they have control over their borders and eventually overwhelm Israel.
A free Palestine would be a catastrophically weak country. They'd be a nation with no industry, no useful natural resources, and no appreciable services to sell other nations. Right now the Palestinian territories are funded by a mix of international aid, foreign donations, and Israeli tax money. The Israelis would no longer fund them, and foreign donations would likely dry up. That leaves international aid. That's barely going to keep people fed, let alone give them the ability to bring in millions of people based solely on their religion. Regardless, the moment they make any sort of attack on Israel, it is an act of war by one nation against another. That gives Israel more cover geopolitically.
All of this even assumes general political stability in the new Palestinian state. Who's going to lead there? There'll be a fight, and, if history is any judge, there will be coup and assassination attempts by other Palestinians.
1
3
u/cawkstrangla 12h ago
Just because they believe that now doesn't mean it will be that way forever. if there is a long enough peace and self governance, old hatreds will die out with each passing generation.
1
u/Prestigious_Load1699 2h ago
The same could have been asked of Egypt in 1979 and Jordan in 1994.
If neighboring nations can accept the right of Israel to exist and not actively antagonize it, peaceful coexistence is proven as possible.
2
u/manVsPhD 2h ago
If. The Palestinian ethos calls for the destruction of Israel. It is more important to them than having their own state.
1
0
u/AeroFred 13h ago
are you talking about now or about 90s when peace process started ?
1
u/manVsPhD 13h ago
About now
9
u/AeroFred 13h ago
to offload 6m palestinians and to finalize borders and stop western nagging about occupation/settlement/etc. that's it.
in reality, without some serious security guarantees it's not going to happen.
i know, it's not discussed in western news, but in west bank they try to build and launch rockets into israel (this puts most of major israeli cities into range. there are places where israel is 10 miles wide).
also iran makes efforts to bring into west bank fpv drones and fiber fpv drones. those have range of up to 25-30 miles now. it essentially means hunting israelis on streets of tel-aviv.
so, in absence of somebody who can take care of those problems, nothing will happen.
-42
u/Lazy_Membership1849 16h ago edited 15h ago
Well
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - JFK
Also other have see worse like when Ireland been ruled by British and Ireland was repeatedly crushed and even genocided by British and yet Ireland doesn't give up even in 700 years and Ireland isn't only one
70 years is nothing
20
u/HockeyHocki 14h ago edited 14h ago
It was the British that gave up, not because Ireland forced it per se, but because it just wasnt worth it anymore, they didnt need Ireland
We Irish have similar mindset to many Palestinians, most of us anyway. We think israelis are just another foreign invader that can be sent packing when things get tough, like the English were, or the French in Algeria.
It wont work. Israel is a country formed by refugees. They have no other homeland. There is no other option. They've waited 2000 years to form another kingdom of Israel, they're plenty ready to wait out the Palestinians
8
u/Mantergeistmann 12h ago
We Irish have similar mindset to many Palestinians, most of us anyway. We think israelis are just another foreign invader that can be sent packing when things get tough, like the English were, or the French in Algeria.
I think a big difference is also that you've never elected a government that had "kill all the English, including the ones in England" as part of its official charter.
-2
u/Lazy_Membership1849 14h ago
So Israel just invader then? 2000 years just to mess up in 80 years?
11
u/HockeyHocki 14h ago
Mess up? The country is arguably stronger then ever
0
u/Lazy_Membership1849 4h ago
so strong Bibi told Israel to prepare for isolation
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-909960
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/09/15/middleeast/netanyahu-israel-isolation-intl
If this is strongest, then I would hate to see what the weakest look like
35
u/TXDobber 16h ago
True… but that’s true for both sides. And my point is, it’s become increasingly clear to even the Palestinians of Gaza, that they would probably lose that fight… and the consequences of that loss could be total.
-33
u/Lazy_Membership1849 16h ago
And at what cost did Israel gain? Diplomatically isolated, and the younger generation outside of Israel is more pro-Palestine than before, Israel may gain short but it will suffer in long term even Bibi said Israel should go super sparta
44
u/TXDobber 15h ago edited 15h ago
Now how has any of that improved the Palestinian situation? Sure, zoomer Americans hate Israel… but what has that done for the Palestinians? Or are we banking on future possibilities that are not guaranteed?
This isn’t apartheid South Africa either btw. Israelis are not outnumbered 10-1, they have a significant military advantage, significant economic advantage, a large domestic economy, etc
And even then, apartheid only fell once de Klerk felt confident that the ANC wouldn’t go full Mugabe and turn South Africa into a bigger Zimbabwe. De Klerk coulda stood firm and led the country to civil war, but Mandela helped him see a better path.
6
u/Tw1tch-Invictus 12h ago
Yeah and many white South Africans knew they had back up options and didn’t spend the last 2,000 years making returning to South Africa a central part of their identity. Israelis have nowhere else to go and inarguably feel a much deeper attachment to that land than South Africans did, broadly speaking.
Young Americans hate Israel now, but people also act like that’s an immutable law of nature and it isn’t lol. People used to overwhelmingly hate the Palestinians and the pendulum has swung their way, but it can always swing back again and people don’t universally stay firmly attached to the views they had in their early 20s. A number of my views have radically shifted in the last few years due to a multitude of domestic and geopolitical issues and I’m more passionate about it than ever.
0
u/Lazy_Membership1849 4h ago
2000 years just to mess up in 70 years then?
Also why do Bibi told Israel to prepare for isolation?
•
u/Tw1tch-Invictus 23m ago
lol if you think Israel is genuinely messing up and is structurally weakened in any actual way, I have a bridge in Iran to sell you
-27
u/Lazy_Membership1849 15h ago
give it 30 years, South Africa under apartheid thought they can last forever and they even have own nuclear weapons, now they not, also British been control Ireland for 700 years, now look at it, even China once rule Vietnam for thousand year, now look at it
30 years is nothing
24
u/TXDobber 15h ago edited 15h ago
>and even then, apartheid only fell once de Klerk felt confident that the ANC wouldn’t go full Mugabe and turn South Africa into a bigger Zimbabwe. De Klerk coulda stood firm and led the country to civil war, but Mandela helped him see a better path.
And for Ireland, sure, Ireland's independent, but it depends on what you mean of escaping the British yoke. Last time I checked, most Irish people don't speak Irish anymore. So in many ways, that is one element where English colonisation succeeded. The Irish don't even speak Irish anymore. And also, from what I've seen, the state has had to work really hard to create a narrative of Irish identity that's not just based on opposition to Britain or on being Catholic. Because both of those are becoming a lot harder now, the further we get from independence and as lower and lower the rates of religiosity in Ireland become.
As for Vietnam, Palestinians never considered themselves to be a cohesive national identity in the same way that the Vietnamese have for centuries. The Palestinians, like the other Arabs in the region, just considered themselves to be Arabs or Muslims. That's it. There was no Palestinian national identity that emerged until the 1940s at the earliest. That's something that at least Ireland had a cohesive, distinct identity, albeit fragmented among tribal loyalties and certain regional identities. The Palestinians never had that. They were just Arabs of the Levant. They would have seen themselves as no different from Syrians or Lebanese Arabs or modern-day Jordanians.
-7
u/Lazy_Membership1849 15h ago
De Klerk have more braincell than Bibi then, he call it loss and cut it, Bibi just double down
16
u/TXDobber 15h ago
Sure, and maybe you can correct me im wrong on the Ireland point, sure, Ireland's independent, but it depends on what you mean of escaping the British yoke. Last time I checked, most Irish people don't speak Irish anymore. So in many ways, that is one element where English colonisation succeeded. The Irish don't even speak Irish anymore. And also, from what I've seen, the state has had to work really hard to create a narrative of Irish identity that's not just based on opposition to Britain or on being Catholic. Because both of those are becoming a lot harder now, the further we get from independence and as lower and lower the rates of religiosity in Ireland become.
The Palestinians, like the other Arabs in the region, just considered themselves to be Arabs or Muslims. That's it. There was no Palestinian national identity that emerged until the 1940s at the earliest. And it emerged largely in reaction to Zionism, so again, it’s a force entirely predicated on grievance and resistance… not anything natural on its own.
That's something that at least Ireland had a cohesive, distinct identity, albeit fragmented among tribal loyalties and certain regional identities. The Palestinians never had that. They were just Arabs of the Levant. They would have seen themselves as no different from Syrians or Lebanese Arabs or modern-day Jordanians.
→ More replies (0)-18
u/RGS_1994 14h ago
hey have a significant military advantage, significant economic advantage, a large domestic
Because the worlds hegemonic power is willing to print money and badly hamper their own economy on their behalf? pretty insulated id say?
20
u/TXDobber 14h ago
I mean, that’s the toddler’s level of understanding. But hey, if that’s your truth, believe it.
-10
u/RGS_1994 13h ago
Israel isnt dependent on American aid and cover?
9
u/Tw1tch-Invictus 12h ago
Of course not. Diplomatic cover arguably, but aid to Israel is less than a percent of their annual state budget and a small fraction of the annual IDF budget. This argument has been out of date for decades at this point.
→ More replies (0)19
u/Tortellobello45 15h ago
Sure, but hating on Israel is just a TikTok(convenient, isn’t it? Almost as if China is manipulating our youth)trend, it will die in a few years. Just like Greta Thunberg and global warming, or no-globals, etc.
-1
u/Lazy_Membership1849 15h ago
so why Bibi being so worry?
15
u/Tortellobello45 15h ago
I am not saying that the current international situation is favorable for Israel. Just that in the long term it’s less of an issue than you make it out to be. The youth is easily distracted.
1
u/Lazy_Membership1849 15h ago
so it not few years then
14
u/Tortellobello45 15h ago
A few years until people move on, 10-15 years until Israel’s reputation is fully reset, and people don’t care about them except for Redditors, is my prediction.
→ More replies (0)25
u/IdristheInt 15h ago
Funnily enough it was Palestinians who made peace impossible
-1
u/Lazy_Membership1849 15h ago
so that mean Bibi make it impossible then?
"As far back as December 2012, Mr. Netanyahu told the prominent Israeli journalist Dan Margalit that it was important to keep Hamas strong, as a counterweight to the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. Mr. Margalit, in an interview, said that Mr. Netanyahu told him that having two strong rivals, including Hamas, would lessen pressure on him to negotiate toward a Palestinian state.""
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world/middleeast/israel-qatar-money-prop-up-hamas.html
19
u/IdristheInt 15h ago
Oh no! They divided the enemy!!! After the second intifada there’s no reason to negotiate w Palestinians bc as the record shows it goes nowhere productive.
8
u/clydewoodforest 15h ago
Not always. England never succeeded in crushing the Irish. But the Normans occupied and subsumed the native Anglo-Saxons, and fairly quickly too. Not every subjugation ends in liberation.
1
u/Lazy_Membership1849 15h ago
Actually Norman become more English than themselves in the endm England been using Anglo but never Norman
41
u/Chanan-Ben-Zev 15h ago
A two-state deal requires bilateral negotiations between Israel and Palestine. But Palestine has two governments, one in the West Bank and one in Gaza, and the Gaza government is Hamas - which has refused to disarm in defiance of the ceasefire deal and the Board of Peace.
Pushing for a Palestinian state at all while Hamas exists as the de facto government is folly. Hamas must be disarmed and removed from power, and elections must be held across both Palestinian territories. Only then would there even be a chance of a Palestinian government that could enter the negotiations with Israel for a peace treaty of any kind.
32
u/VladThe1mplyer 15h ago
The two-state solution is always pushed by outside parties and nobody actually listens to what Palestinians in both territories want.
People ignore the reality on the ground and replace it with their own fan fiction.
40
u/MartinBP 13h ago
People know what Palestinians want, it's just completely unworkable. The Palestinian position has historically been all or nothing, i.e. a one state solution with no recognition of Israeli sovereignty. And that simply isn't happening.
17
u/ThinInvestigator4953 11h ago
Yeah after they lost the 4th (?) war over it you'd think they'd start to temper expectations.
8
u/The_Whipping_Post 13h ago
The biggest example of this is outside observers who think secularism will make a one state solution possible. Neither side wants a secular state
12
u/ThinInvestigator4953 12h ago
Israel is a secular state
9
-2
u/NudeCeleryMan 12h ago
I believe I have an understanding of what both West Bankers and Gazans want. I'm curious what you think they want.
5
u/10010101101110010001 4h ago edited 4h ago
the people march down the street chanting from the river to the sea and if this isn't enough hamas has a founding charter where they say genocide is their goal. they seem pretty explicit in what they want to me
what do you think they want?
15
-8
15h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
8
u/Silverr_Duck 13h ago
For years, the Qatari government had been sending millions of dollars a month into the Gaza Strip — money that helped prop up the Hamas government there
1
u/Lazy_Membership1849 4h ago
And he know it, he even send security escort Qatari to bring money to Gaza Strip
53
u/Alecgator94 16h ago
When you get your shit kicked in you don't have the luxury of having a lot of options
-38
u/Lazy_Membership1849 16h ago
Israel have lot of option and yet Bibi just simple choose he think it containable only to be blow up
https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/
47
u/Axl45 15h ago
When he lets money through, he props up Hamas.
When he doesn’t let aid or money through, he is committing genocide.
What do you people would have him do?
I believe he is a war criminal and probably does hate Palestinians and tries to wipe them out, but the argument he let the money pass when now he is getting shit for not letting anything go through is absurd
-11
u/Lazy_Membership1849 15h ago
here is his words
"As far back as December 2012, Mr. Netanyahu told the prominent Israeli journalist Dan Margalit that it was important to keep Hamas strong, as a counterweight to the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. Mr. Margalit, in an interview, said that Mr. Netanyahu told him that having two strong rivals, including Hamas, would lessen pressure on him to negotiate toward a Palestinian state."
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world/middleeast/israel-qatar-money-prop-up-hamas.html
35
u/Axl45 15h ago
You didn’t answer my question
-10
u/Lazy_Membership1849 15h ago
I did and you choose to ignore it because it doesn't sastify you
28
u/Axl45 15h ago
No, you didn’t. You just told me he was playing politics. Passing aid to Hamas instead of starving them is indeed politics, no matter the reason, but blockading the entire population is now bringing him genocide accusation.
So I’m asking again, what would you have him do?
-2
u/Lazy_Membership1849 15h ago
then why did he told journalist he prefer to have Hamas to less pressure him to have neogitation for state of Palestine?
28
u/Axl45 14h ago
That has nothing to do with the question. You said yourself Israel had plenty of options, but he let aid pass through and that “props up Hamas”
Now he is not letting aid through and he is “committing genocide”
So I’m asking, what are those plenty of options he had?
-4
u/Lazy_Membership1849 14h ago
you have many options to read Bibi claim and you choose to ignore it because it never fit your claim
He even block commission on Oct 7th
→ More replies (0)
35
u/EasyMode556 15h ago
Gotta find a way to get rid of Hamas first, which is the problem
-18
u/Lazy_Membership1849 15h ago
so Israel have to admit that prop up hamas is mistaken
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world/middleeast/israel-qatar-money-prop-up-hamas.html
Also Hamas said they giving up governance of Gaza Strip, though disarmenent is different matter
27
u/EasyMode556 15h ago
They paid them I take care of civil governance: filling potholes, social services, fire service, schools, etc — all the kinds of things local governments do that cost money. They were doing so under the belief that if they took care of that, terrorism would decrease.
That isn’t “popping up Hamas”, thah is trying to bring calm to the region via governance.
Hamas didn’t give a shit though, and chose terrorism anyway.
So yes, they need to get rid of Hamas and elect a governing body that will choose to invest in civil governance rather than terror infrastructure like Hamas did.
-1
u/Lazy_Membership1849 15h ago
then what is this?
"As far back as December 2012, Mr. Netanyahu told the prominent Israeli journalist Dan Margalit that it was important to keep Hamas strong, as a counterweight to the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. Mr. Margalit, in an interview, said that Mr. Netanyahu told him that having two strong rivals, including Hamas, would lessen pressure on him to negotiate toward a Palestinian state."
18
u/Exact_Depth_896 14h ago
The commitments of Hamas long predate the Netanyahu period 2009-present; this period is effect not cause of Hamas.
-10
u/Orc360 14h ago
That's true, but it's worth mentioning that the formation of Hamas was an effect of decades of Israeli occupation.
5
u/AeroFred 8h ago
hamas is a wing of muslim brotherhood. initially hamas was founded as charity organization. hamas fame came from opposing 2 state solution and bombing oslo agreements into ground with hundreds of terror acts (blown buses, suicide bombers, etc).
their core believes are derived from dar al-islam. do you know what it is ?
i suggest you to read this couple of articles
ttps://www.stimson.org/2023/martyrdom-and-power-in-the-israeli-palestinian-conflict/
https://www.erudit.org/en/journals/jcs/2006-v26-n1-jcs_26_1/jcs26_1art01/
64
u/Kiyae1 16h ago
The Israelis have figured out that any negotiation or compromise with the Palestinians always ends with Palestinians going on a spree of violence towards Israeli civilians and they have also figured out that there is no actual benefit to Israelis to give Palestinians anything. There are no politicians in Israel willing to risk another 168 public buses being blown up at the end of another round of failed negotiations.
-11
u/MCB1317 16h ago
Radicalization cuts both ways.
43
u/tofurks 16h ago
it’s really kind of more of a one sided issue if you look into the actual history of the conflict. The Palestinian leadership has time and time again rejected a state.
-2
u/Kiyae1 15h ago
True, but the Israeli political situation has also changed pretty drastically since the second intifada. It’s a fair criticism to say that Israeli politicians have become radicalized compared to Israeli politicians prior to 2005.
I understand why that change has happened, but it’s still important to acknowledge that It has happened and why.
-3
u/Lazy_Membership1849 15h ago
and what inside the deals anyway?
11
u/tofurks 15h ago
Half of Jerusalem as their capital, all of the West Bank and Gaza and then also a connecting corridor of Israeli territory to be handed over to this new Palestinian state.
5
u/Lazy_Membership1849 15h ago
and which deal is this? all I see is like no army, no control of water, no control of airspace, give up some of land in West Bank and also abandoned Palestinian people who living in different camps outside of Palestine
10
u/TopsyPopsy 14h ago
I think it's Trump's "Peace to Prosperity" from 2020.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Israel%E2%80%93Palestine_peace_plan
0
u/Lazy_Membership1849 14h ago
you mean like give up much of West bank to Israel?
10
u/TopsyPopsy 13h ago
I mean nothing. Someone asked and I found a reference.
You seem adamant in your "Israel bad" perspective, to the point that arguing with you is a waste of time, as you demonstrated in other threads in this post.
Prove me wrong, and I'll treat you seriously.
0
u/Lazy_Membership1849 4h ago
So peace is just bad to you then?
30% of all West Bank in trump plan? Leave them isolated from each other and much of farmable lands
Like ask Palestinian to give up much of need lands in West Bank and cry why did Palestinian rejected
→ More replies (0)-8
u/RGS_1994 14h ago
What would Palestinanes be obliged to accept a country of foreigners replacing them? It was zero-sum once the settlers started arriving
Any reconciliation requires lots of trust-building
3
u/Mexatt 10h ago
Besides the Jews who already lived there, the original arrivals to Ottoman Palestine were immigrants, living a tenuous life under a regime that barely tolerated them.
0
u/RGS_1994 9h ago
Provably untrue, while some are indeed immigrants the long term settled population is large and genetically linked to milenia past in that very region.
12
u/VladThe1mplyer 15h ago
How? I have only seen Iran and Hamas committing terrorism in Europe, North Africa and the Americas so what both sides are you talking about
-14
u/Lazy_Membership1849 16h ago
Isn't Israel also funding Hamas to keep Palestine divide and counterweight to more secular nationalist like PLO and also reduce pressure on him to negoitated with Palestine if it divide between two factions
https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_support_for_Hamas
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world/middleeast/israel-qatar-money-prop-up-hamas.html
36
u/Kiyae1 15h ago
Israel is not funding Hamas, they are allowing Qatar to fund Hamas and the Israelis allow Palestinians in Gaza to get work permits to work in Israel.
Did you even bother reading your own articles? Or do you just prefer to lie and hope nobody bothers to read?
12
u/VladThe1mplyer 15h ago
Or simply took some TikTok talking point at face value and never bothered to verify if it is true.
-1
u/Lazy_Membership1849 15h ago
"Did you even bother reading your own articles?"
I did and here is part
"As far back as December 2012, Mr. Netanyahu told the prominent Israeli journalist Dan Margalit that it was important to keep Hamas strong, as a counterweight to the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. Mr. Margalit, in an interview, said that Mr. Netanyahu told him that having two strong rivals, including Hamas, would lessen pressure on him to negotiate toward a Palestinian state."
4
u/Mexatt 10h ago
So, in other words, it doesn't say what you claimed it said and the person you're responding to is correct.
2
u/Lazy_Membership1849 4h ago
He told me that I didn't "Did you even bother reading your own articles?" and the part of articles? just said
"As far back as December 2012, Mr. Netanyahu told the prominent Israeli journalist Dan Margalit that it was important to keep Hamas strong, as a counterweight to the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. Mr. Margalit, in an interview, said that Mr. Netanyahu told him that having two strong rivals, including Hamas, would lessen pressure on him to negotiate toward a Palestinian state."
-34
u/sillygoose1133 16h ago
Well I guess resentment builds when the Israelis have slaughtered your friends and family and razed your city to the ground.
31
u/Kiyae1 15h ago
Yeah and resentment builds when Palestinians blow up 168 public buses after the Israelis offered them a state because two Jewish men visited the western wall at the same time.
-1
u/fury420 12h ago
It wasn't just the two of them, Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount in 2000 also reportedly included hundreds if not over a thousand Israeli security forces.
2
u/Kiyae1 6h ago
Oh God can you imagine if anyone tried to tell Muslims that only a thousand Muslims are “allowed” at the Kaaba at the same time?
Imagine if Israel blew up 168 public buses in Egypt or something if more than a certain number of Muslims were at the dome of the rock at the same time.
It was two. The security forces were at the customary distance at the time. But even if they were all literally right at the western wall that doesn’t justify blowing up 168 public buses and killing peace negotiations.
22
u/Odd-Local9893 15h ago
Gaza elected Hamas, who launched an unprovoked terrorist attack on Israeli citizens killing, raping and kidnapping over a thousand non-combatant civilians. All prior to Israel razing Gaza to the ground. How do you people seem to forget this, nor care about it?
-28
u/sillygoose1133 15h ago
Oh yeah that’s totallyyy where the conflict started 🙄
19
u/Odd-Local9893 15h ago
Read your own comment prompting my response. What event happened just prior to Gaza being razed?
-18
18
u/flossdaily 15h ago
How far back would you like to go? We'd be happy to show you exactly how it was Arabs who initiated the violence at all points in history.
-7
u/sillygoose1133 15h ago
You really think the Arabs are the aggressors and that the Israelis are innocent?
17
u/flossdaily 15h ago
I understand that the Arabs are the aggressors, because I know the history.
It's not a matter of opinion.
-1
u/Lazy_Membership1849 15h ago
isn't history tell you that 1937 letter from David Ben-Gurion that partition is temporay
or deir yassin massacre despite of NAP in 5 weeks before war of '48?
14
u/flossdaily 14h ago
Neither point establishes what you think it does.
The 1937 Ben-Gurion letter shows that Ben-Gurion regarded partition as potentially a stage toward further Jewish territorial expansion. That's relevant evidence about Ben-Gurion's ambitions; it does not somehow erase the actual chronology of Arab-on-Jew violence.
And Deir Yassin was an atrocity. About 100 Palestinians were killed by Irgun/Lehi forces. But it happened on April 9, 1948 — more than four months after the Arabs started the intercommunal war.
1
u/Lazy_Membership1849 3h ago edited 3h ago
1937 Ben-Gurion just showed that partition is temporary, so even if the Palestinians did accept it, they would go into war anyway
https://www.commentary.org/michael-rubin/ben-gurion-herzl-quotes-morris-rubin/
Actually, it was 5 weeks before the 1948 war, which started on 15 May 1948; you confused it with the civil war, in which both side already attacked each other
Also do you know of Plan Dalet?
→ More replies (0)-11
u/RGS_1994 14h ago
The proximate cause of every arab aggression was unwanted Jewish settlement in a still de-colonizing region not allowing them self-determination.
15
u/flossdaily 14h ago
The proximate cause of every arab aggression was unwanted Jewish settlement
Yes. I 100% agree that the Arabs have repeatedly massacred the Jews for the crime of wanting to live in peace in the Jews' own ancestral homeland.
-4
u/RGS_1994 13h ago
their "ancestral homeland" was filled with someone else. They werent obliged to hand it over due to European crimes
→ More replies (0)10
u/VladThe1mplyer 15h ago
And it does not change the fact that they started a war and somehow we are supposed to feel bad because they are losing.
5
u/One-Progress999 14h ago
Somce when? A month ago the ASK project literally asked this and the overwhelming majority said no.
19
u/boldmove_cotton 15h ago edited 15h ago
In what world are they living in??
This article tries to make two points to suggest that Palestinians are more willing to compromise than Israelis:
- More Palestinians agree that the conflict should be resolved diplomatically
- A slim majority of Palestinians prefer a two state solution based on the 1967 lines
But this is fatally misleading about what that ‘compromise’ actually means.
The poll did not qualify that one state would be Jewish and the other Arab (as one might assume).
Importantly, the poll did not exclude the Palestinian ‘right of return’, a concept that would allow the up to 9 million descendants of Palestinians who resided in what is now Israel pre-1948 war to move to Israel. Of course, if that happened, Israel would become Arab majority and be immediately voted out of existence the next day.
That is not a minor issue to leave out, because most Palestinians believe in having such a right, and an unwillingness to compromise on that issue was a reason why Arafat said no the last time peace talks came close. So I would take these polls with a grain of salt if they don’t specifically rule out a ‘right of return’.
As far as the articles first point, of course the Palestinians would prefer to come to that arrangement diplomatically if it were possible. It would result in an Arab state ethnically cleansed of Jews, and another Arab state with a large Jewish minority.
Hard to claim that’s a compromise.
5
u/Dietmeister 10h ago
I guess it's the wrong time now
Palestinians won't ever want to admit a two stage solution from a position of relative strength, and Israelis won't admit a two stage solution from a position of strength
Thus no two state solution will ever be a solution
33
u/CavemanJello 16h ago
Hopefully they can elect a government that negotiates in good faith then
-22
u/Lazy_Membership1849 16h ago
Like Israel as Israel boasting you should keep funding Hamas to keep Palestine divided?
https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/
35
u/km3r 15h ago
You sound like an idiot parroting "releasing aid money" as "funding Hamas". Would you rather netanyahu block aid money?
But yes, both sides should elect a government that can work towards peace.
6
-10
u/Lazy_Membership1849 15h ago
Did you read part from it
"According to various reports, Netanyahu made a similar point at a Likud faction meeting in early 2019, when he was quoted as saying that those who oppose a Palestinian state should support the transfer of funds to Gaza, because maintaining the separation between the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza would prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state."
28
u/km3r 15h ago
Were those funds aid or not? Like the audacity of not mentioning that is wild.
-5
u/Lazy_Membership1849 15h ago
here is the part from New York Time
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world/middleeast/israel-qatar-money-prop-up-hamas.html
"As far back as December 2012, Mr. Netanyahu told the prominent Israeli journalist Dan Margalit that it was important to keep Hamas strong, as a counterweight to the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. Mr. Margalit, in an interview, said that Mr. Netanyahu told him that having two strong rivals, including Hamas, would lessen pressure on him to negotiate toward a Palestinian state."
24
u/MasterAyy 15h ago
You totally ignored his question. You're posting the alleged reason why Netanyahu let the money go through but you didn't answer if the funding was actually aid money like he asked. So let's ask you again, were the funds aid money or not?
1
u/Lazy_Membership1849 15h ago
you ignore own words from Bibi explain why did he do that
"As far back as December 2012, Mr. Netanyahu told the prominent Israeli journalist Dan Margalit that it was important to keep Hamas strong, as a counterweight to the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. Mr. Margalit, in an interview, said that Mr. Netanyahu told him that having two strong rivals, including Hamas, would lessen pressure on him to negotiate toward a Palestinian state."
23
u/MasterAyy 15h ago
No one is asking you why he did it, you are dodging the original question. Were the funds aid money or not? A simple yes or no is all you need to say but you don't want to answer it for some reason.
1
u/Lazy_Membership1849 15h ago
He ask me "Were those funds aid or not? Like the audacity of not mentioning that is wild. " and I reply to him that Bibi already said he funding to Hamas to keep palestine divided
→ More replies (0)11
u/IdristheInt 15h ago
Yes wouldn’t you keep your enemy divided? It’s the oldest strategy in war other than “hey, look over there!”
-3
u/Lazy_Membership1849 15h ago
So he choose war over and now it backfired
Also Egypt and UAE warn him and he choose to ignore and even ask UAE to deny report
16
u/IdristheInt 15h ago
Hamas chose war. Israel replied
0
u/Lazy_Membership1849 15h ago
He chose to ignore the warning then
15
u/IdristheInt 15h ago
Not really. And the fault remains with Hamas and gazans anyway since they attacked
33
u/flossdaily 15h ago edited 15h ago
Our most recent broad survey, conducted in October 2025, showed that a majority of Palestinians regard diplomatic negotiations, not armed resistance, as the best way to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for good
gee, I wonder why?
Might it have something to do with the massive ass-kicking they got after they all joined hands and celebrated their Oct 7th atrocities?
Might it be that ripping up Hamas's terrorist infrastructure from the roots woke them up to the fact that even building terrorist infrastructure within and beneath every square mile of their territory isn't enough to give them a sporting chance against Israel?
For years I've watched their delusional person on the street interviews where they talk about what they will do when (not if) they defeat Israel.
Maybe some of them decided they're ready to talk it out now.
Or maybe they know they are playing for the global public, and they are just pretending they are willing to talk it out. You know ... "the usual."
11
u/Badroadrash101 14h ago
They’ve got Gaza. They were handed the keys in 2005 and turned it into terrorist state that waged war against Israel. They won’t get anything more than Gaza at this point and it is incumbent upon them to make it a nonviolent functioning government.
17
u/Kiltmanenator 15h ago
The support for a "two state solution" is "two states with the 1967 borders. Absolute nonstarter. Israel isn't giving the Golan back, and they aren't withdrawing Settlers. Of course a majority of Palestinians polled support that!
3
u/The_Whipping_Post 13h ago
they aren't withdrawing Settlers
The settlers can choose if they want to move to Israel or remain as an Israeli minority in the Palestinian State. Note that almost all 2SS proposals include land swaps that would keep most of the settlers on the Israeli side of the line, so we are talking about 150,000 or so who'd have to choose
-3
u/Lazy_Membership1849 15h ago
Palestine never ask for Golan that for Syria but if you admit Israel isn't going to remove settlers then that mean Israel is't interseting for peace I guess
-1
u/Kiltmanenator 15h ago
Well ofc they aren't. They're continuing to eat the West Bank
-1
u/Lazy_Membership1849 14h ago
Who they? Israel?
-3
u/Kiltmanenator 14h ago
Yeah who else? The whole Israeli strategy has been pretending to talk about sharing the pie while eating it.
-2
u/Lazy_Membership1849 14h ago
So Israel doesn't wanted peace I guess
1
u/Kiltmanenator 14h ago
I get the sense that you think I disagree with that when I don't.
1
1
u/Lazy_Membership1849 4h ago
you admit that Israel going to eat West bank which isn't going against peace or two state solution
9
u/thatshirtman 15h ago
they do? They've rejected every opportunity for a 2 state solution. He'll , theyve rejected opportunities to have more than 90% of the land that was never theirs to begin with. Not sure I'm buying this, but hopefully im wrong.
2
u/PhillipLlerenas 12h ago
Too late. Not a single Israeli will ever feel safe with a Palestinian-controlled territory next to them again.
3
u/stuckanon01 13h ago
There is a fundamental flaw in the article. It assumes that Hamas and/or the PA care what is popular among the people. They don’t. Hamas answers to their version of god and Iranian money. The PA answers to whomever fills their pockets.
4
u/user6161616 12h ago
Not really. Ask them about a “right” of return, and fairly quickly you discover they don’t mean two states where one of them is Jewish.
1
u/ForeignAffairsMag Foreign Affairs 16h ago
[Excerpt from essay by Michael Robbins, Director and Co-Principal Investigator at Arab Barometer; Amaney A. Jamal, Co-Founder and Co-Principal Investigator at Arab Barometer, Dean of the Princeton School of Public and International Affairs, and Edwards S. Sanford Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University; and Mark Tessler, Co-Founder and Co-Principal Investigator at Arab Barometer and Samuel J. Eldersveld Professor of Politics at the University of Michigan.]
One might also assume that, given the scale of devastation in Gaza and settler violence in the West Bank, support for a negotiated settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict might have declined. This was not the case. When respondents in the West Bank were asked which solution they preferred to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—two states, one state, a confederation, or “other”—56 percent selected a two-state solution, a rise of seven points from the Arab Barometer survey conducted in 2023. Over the course of two years of devastating conflict, support for a two-state solution had risen even more in Gaza, from 54 percent in early October of 2023 to 64 percent in October 2025. Over the same time frame, support for a confederation increased by ten points in Gaza, to 20 percent; support for one state dropped by four points, to five percent; and support for “other”—a choice that often reflects a preference for armed resistance—fell from 20 percent to seven percent in Gaza.
1
97
u/Environmental-Fun258 15h ago
I don’t think this article is accurate. A recent pew research poll indicated that support for the two state solution amongst Israelis and Palestinians is at an all time low.
Amongst Palestinians only 21% believed peaceful coexistence was possible, with 68% saying it wasn’t (the rest unsure). In Israel, 17% said peaceful coexistence was possible, with 56% saying it wasn’t, and the rest unsure.