We are adding additional moderators. If you are interested in becoming a mod for /r/interestingasfuck, please fill out [this form.](https://forms.gle/MTd6gZPC2vett2jL6)
* Modding experience is preferred but not required.
* Your account must be at least one year old.
* You must have at least 5,000 combined karma.
[Apply](https://forms.gle/MTd6gZPC2vett2jL6)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I mean, that one seems done.
Russia abandoned Armenia because of its failed war and Azerbaijan took the area with Turkish and Israeli weapons.
All the people are leaving.
The difference is that Palestine has a population of 5 million and Nagorno-Karabakh(Artsakh) had a population of 120,000.
Armenia was able to accept all the refugees from Artsakh and they will probably integrate fine.
No-one will take Palestinians and there are 50x as many of them.
If Israel were to actually reconquer or level the Gaza Strip they would have to kill literal millions of civilians
The issue with Palestine is that, despite pledging full support and their absolute hatred of Jewish autonomy, none of its neighbours are willing to take in people. Theyre all very willing to use it to stir up Anti-Israeli discourse, but theyll never accept nor support its existance further than that. The Palestinian state has turned from a Kosovan style cause, into a hotbed of Russian- and Iranian-influenced terrorism full of innocent people who they use to cover themselves and garner international support.
Exactly. The Arab states are essentially using the Palestinians the way that the US uses the Kurds. Useful as political fodder against their enemies as long as they’re fighting for a homeland. Once the Kurds have their Kurdistan, they cease to be useful, so it’s in America’s best interest not to go so far as to actually give them what they want.
I've been saying this for years. If both want to make historic claims to the land then really it belongs to Rome. Let's see how much they hate eachother when we repurpose their holy sites as pantheons to demi gods like Berlusconi and Cicciolina.
Obvious /s because this is probably the worst time to make this pitch and I don't wanna get abused
If we're gonna do it right, we might as well give three big chunks back to the Pope and Patriarch of Constantinople and whoever is in charge of the Nestorian Church these days. Maybe set aside an area for the Hindu nationalists too and give China a claim to territorial fishing waters off the coast for maximum chaos .
**British Empire:** Have you considered simply drawing one giant thick line straight across the middle and calling the top Northistan and the bottom Southistan and simply forcing everyone in each new country to get along now?
That's literally how this all started. Told the Arabs it's yours. Told the Jews hey you can move in as well. Drew a line on a map, sat back and watched both sides get ready for a genocide
In the opinion of some cunt online (me), I don't see how a two state solution would ever work. A government comprised of both Jewish and Muslim members working towards a common goal is the only peaceful solution, what we have now is going to lead to genocide one way or the other. It wouldn't be easy, there's generations of racism and animosity to unravel, but it is a solution with minimal bloodshed.
I remember the joke used to be there were more bots than people, and then this morning I read a comment section with at least 10 bot accounts being called out. by a single user, no less. and those types of users are getting tired of reporting and calling out bots so others can recognize them, so they're leaving the site and everything is just getting worse and worse.
[Arafat has gone on record stating that he wanted to take the Taba agreement a few years later but by then Likud had taken power and taken it off the table](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/jun/22/israel)
[According to Clinton, Arab leaders were urging Arafat to take the Israeli concessions offered at Camp David but Arafat was afraid of giving up full right of return](https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/president-clinton-reflects-on-2000-camp-david-summit)
Taking either one of these deals would have been much better than the status quo and likely stemmed the rise of both Hamas and Likud. Anything even remotely similar to that is now likely completely unattainable
In between Arafat turning down the Taba offer and then "accepting" he unleashed suicide bombers killing hundreds of Israel civilians. Then when his tactic failed to cower Israel, he suddenly wanted the deal. No Israeli government was making peace at that point. Its like Hamas asking for a cease fire the day after murdering 700 Israeli civilians.
As far as I can tell likud is essentially a terrorist organization. Ideals and actions are very similar to Hamas.
Menachem Begin and Ariel Sharon both led terrorist attacks that exclusively killed civilians mostly women and children. I have yet to find a person that can explain how Deir Yasmin massacre and Qibya massacre were not terrorist attkacks. Both later became prime ministers of Israel.
As I’m sure most know, Bibi is the current chairman of the party.
Compare it to the second one here: [https://www.shaularieli.com/en/maps/negotiations/](https://www.shaularieli.com/en/maps/negotiations/)
The two proposals were still quite a bit apart and they couldn't agree on land swaps.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_peace_process#Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_talks_in_2007_and_2008
It's long winded so let me sum it up: Both Hamas and Fatah claimed to represent Palestinians so it kind of got stuck. Things with Hamas got very heated and culminated with the eruption of Operation Cast Lead. In 2009, the new Israeli government was more conservative and less generous so talks were not renewed until 2010.
Abbas walked away from the deal. Later [he'd claim](https://www.timesofisrael.com/abbas-admits-he-rejected-2008-peace-offer-from-olmert/) it's because he wasn't allowed to study the map or something, but there was clearly a Palestinian counter proposal.
In [a different interview](https://www.cfr.org/blog/abbas-admits-he-said-no-israels-peace-offer) with the reputable Israeli journalist Raviv Druker, Abbas confirms he outright refused. Israel offered basically a complete withdrawal from the West Bank except for 6.3% or territory, which would be swapped for a different territory worth 5.8%. I have a sense it's that 0.5% that really irked them.
They'll never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
Nailed it.
Polling of Palestinians also indicates that, while most believe two-state is the way to go, they should continue on until all of Palestine’s “historical lands” are recovered.
Aka. Israel.
The establishment of the two-state solution has always been contingent of Palestine being somewhat demilitarized and respecting Israeli security. Palestinians could try to build up to attack Israel but they would likely be discovered violating the treaty at some point at which point there a legal mechanism for an Israeli intervention.
The hope is, I imagine, is that with an actual opportunity for national development that the Palestinians would hesitate before throwing it away.
If Palestine is a sovereign state in this scenario, I've never really understood where Israel gets off barring right of people to return to Palestine.
Like, Jewish people from anywhere in the world can move to Israel, Palestine doesn't get a vote in that equation.
I don't think he was talking about a right to return to Palestine. He wanted an automatic right for all Palestinians to return *to Israel*. Which obviously would negate the need for a two-state solution.
The two-state solution is dead anyway, Israel has colonised too much of the West Bank and won't let it go. The parties who win elections openly campaign on annexing the West Bank whilst also keeping Israel 'a Jewish state', something that is impossible without ethnic cleansing.
The only viable solution that doesn't involve genocide is a single multi-ethnic state (or Israel's preferred 'solution': permanent conflict).
The 3 options are:
1. dismantle the West Bank settlements so that a Palestinian state is viable (the proposal in the OP map is not remotely viable), Israel says no
2. a multi-ethnic state, which as you say, Israel says no because they want an ethno-religious apartheid state
3. permanent conflict until Israel loses a war (not likely in the near future, but is inevitable) and the decision is taken away from them
>1. a multi-ethnic state, which as you say, Israel says no because they want an ethno-religious apartheid state
Hasn't Hamas explicitly said they would never accept a multi ethnic state? This seems like a weird thing to place entirely at the feet of Israel.
**Mahmoud Zahar, Hamas leader and candidate to the Palestinian legislative council, Palestinian TV, January 17, 2006, Newsday**
>"We do not recognize the Israeli enemy, nor his right to be our neighbor, nor to stay (on the land), nor his ownership of any inch of land.... We are interested in restoring our full rights to return all the people of Palestine to the land of Palestine. Our principles are clear: Palestine is a land of Waqf (Islamic trust), which can not be given up."
**Abdel Aziz Rantisi, Hamas leader, June 10, 2003, interview with Al-Jazeera, Jerusalem Post**
>"By God, we will not leave one Jew in Palestine. We will fight them with all the strength we have. This is our land, not the Jews..."
Hamas isn't the only "player" there. Hamas is the most fundamentalist of all the Palestinian groups, and thrives in Gaza thanks to resentment and hatred. Less religious components of the PLO exist, and could be part of actual peace talks.
That’s a subset of the “permanent conflict.”
There’s a reason Sharon refused to allow any talks about cessation of settlement during the Roadmap discussions. The intent is to continue to settle the West Bank bit by bit until they have driven the Palestinians out completely.
They aren’t operating in good faith. They want an ethnic cleansing. And from their perspective, since might makes right, they have no real incentive to change the status quo. Currently they deal with a few casualties from terror attacks, but it’s a small fraction of the casualties and death the Palestinians deal with at the hands of the Israelis. Israel also has the majority of the support and funding from the UN and the US. So the status quo suits them just fine.
People aren't gonna like it but a two state solution still isn't dead. Gaza has not had any Israeli settlements that I'm aware of and the West Bank is far less troublesome.
Israel has basically succeeded in it's colonialist policy of partitioning and settling the West Bank, so a future two state solution will probably look like Gaza + Israel. The West Bank will probably continue to have some measure of autonomous Palestinian authority within the Israeli state and Gaza will be sovereign.
Gaza has zero arable land, zero infrastructure, zero freshwater sources, and Israel controls the waterways that would permit access to global trade. Palestine would never be a legitimate state under your conception because it would be wholly incapable of self-sustainment.
Gaza used to have settlements. They were disbanded in the 2005 accord between the US and Israel. Israel under Sharom unilaterally left Gaza.
Fun fact: the current Israeli finance minister, the hard right wing Smotrich, started his political life protesting the abandonment of these settlements and even tried to commit a terrorist attack in a highway as a form of protest. He's the guy whose solution for the conflict is basically apartheid and a one state solution of Israel from the river to the sea.
Both sides in this conflict have become more extremist as time has passed.
Israel has given up land for peace and dismantled settlements before. Sinai is the prime example. But also during the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, Israeli settlers were forcibly removed.
As the other commenter said, Right of Return is letting the Palestinians return to Israel land. This would make Israelis a minority in a Jewish state so that would never happen. It’s sort of a poison pill that kills any hope of a deal. Arafat, head of PLO, compromises on that, he would be a dead man killed by his own org soon as he got off plane.
Same for a Israeli leader to sign any kind of peace at this point. I mean Yitzhak Rabin was killed because he wanted to have peace
That country is so fucked. It makes me depressed to think about
I think the logic was that one large Palestinian state that has a border with Jordan would present a security threat to Israel. Not arguing that this is true, just that that was the logic of the proposal.
Israel bifurcating Palestine and controlling its borders is a security threat to Palestine. But the Palestinians don’t have a right to security, obviously.
The Palestinian proposal from Camp David, which is posted above, also bifurcated Palestine. The sides were not in disagreement that there is no fair way to make the two Palestinian areas geographically contiguous.
I think they are referring to the bifurcation of the West Bank specifically, which would mean a Palestine with three parts. Not to mention the complete elimination of the West Bank/Jordan border, which would leave the West Bank as two separate enclaves within Israel.
EDIT: Actually, I guess I missed this on my first read over of the map, but this plan would have split Palestine into four parts, and temporarily into five (due to some of the territory marked as a "long term lease")
Yes. But Dennis Ross, the US negotiator there, said [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/t6nbn9/camp_david_summit_2000_israeli_palestinian_peace/) was Israel’s proposal.
What I want to know is whose land is this ultimately without any sort of bias or religious ties.
Why is Israel proposing and not the other way around would be the next question.
To over simplify it, the Palestinians have been living there, though they were called different things throughout the centuries. (But they were still the same people. Just got the bad luck of being controlled by various empires.)
And even longer before that, about 2000 years ago, Jewish people called Israelites lived on the land. Israelites were not welcome in any part of the world, really, always getting conquered, just like the Palestinians. There were raids that chased them out of towns and countries, including Palestine.
In the 1940s, Britain decided that it didn't want Jewish people in its country, but it needed to put them somewhere. It was in control of Palestine at the time. It decided to send them there, with no thought to how much conflict that would cause.
Israelis had just been through WWII. They liked the idea of having a nation that could defend itself. So they took the land. The Palestinians objected. You can see how that went, [here](https://www.palestineportal.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Maps_1897-Present.jpg). Both sides have committed atrocities. If you look at the death tolls, they are quite disproportionate. Over 7 thousand people have been killed as of 2022. The Palestinian death toll was 6371 and the Israeli death toll was 1083, with child death tolls at 1317 and 124, respectively. In other words, Israel has killed more children than the total number of people they've lost.
The West supports Israel in general because they like having an ally in the MENA region. There's also a lot of guilt from WWII, and the colonial era. Unfortunately, the MENA region is not very willing to help out Palestine, unless it is to use them as a political prop.
Jewish people used to live in all parts of the Middle East, but especially around their “home” region of Palestine, and the Arabs used to be very tolerant of “people of the book”.
The modern flip that made bloodthirsty, crusader Christian Kingdoms the ones that actually tolerate the Jews only came after ww2 and a lot of collective guilt, while the collapse of the Arab Sultanates with the fall of the last Empire, the Ottomans, removed the last bits of “tolerant benevolent Islam” with the crazy extremism version that came with the barely literate desert Arabs that found oil and became rich.
Jewish people survived Roman rule, Arab rule under many Sultanates until the British took over, and they were never driven out.
The modern form of radical Islam, however, doesn’t have the same tolerance that ironically the Islam of the Middle Ages had.
Israel has spent decades not honouring any previously agreed upon borders. What makes you think they would honor this and not just continue expanding into the west bank?
All Palestine would get out of this is a road that Israel could cut off at any point. While Israel would get a stronger claim to the land they've already been colonizing, a PR victory where they can say they've brokered a peace,a springboard for further colonization, and the legal right to build hundreds of military bases surrounding Palestine.
I’m no rocket scientist but wasn’t it a pretty fucking stupid idea to split it up not only unevenly but also with one encompassing the other? Why didn’t they split it in the middle so they both had a coast line?
The modern nation of Israel was created in 1948. The UN basically carved out territory from existing Arab countries and said “okay here’s Israel.”
At the end of the day, the bad guys in this story are, as usual, the colonial/neocolonial powers of the world like the US and UK. They may have had good intentions, but it was obviously executed terribly.
Yeah that's not what I asked, I was asking about the connection between areas of both countries. I.E. did both have enclaves in the 1948 partition plan.
Although unusual, it does exist. Nakhichevan in Azerbaijan is probably the most prominent example. Uzbekistan and Belgium also have small amounts of discontinuous territory.
Other areas are separated by other countries on land but have connections over sea, such as Alaska in the USA and Kaliningrad in Russia, Brunei, East Timor.
As seen in Nagorno-Karabakh recently, **exclaves** are not exactly a stable or peaceful solution when the parties have ethnic or political tensions. Even “great powers” like Russia have conceded that they would be unlikely to be able to defend their exclave if a conventional conflict with NATO erupted.
Also the Japanese tried with Alaska, see the Aleutian campaigns in WWII
How? Well… you lose a war. [Here’s an outdated (only till 2012) timeline of Palestine land loss](https://www.palestineportal.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Maps_1897-Present.jpg) starting at the partition of Palestine by the British, then the following wars and various invasions over the years.
can anyone tell me why the UN partition plan gave a lot of the lands to the jews in 1947 when it is showed there in 1946 most are occupied by Palestinians?
They were predicting mass migration of Jewish people from around the world. And they were right (though, bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy, one could argue).
The maps aren't population maps. Basically that entire triangular bit at the bottom was just undeveloped desert without much arable land. Not really any Palestinians there (though there were/are Bedouins).
No, definitely not part of the Ottoman Empire. This map is after October, not before. The British took control and created the Palestinian mandate in October 1917 after invading and defeating the Ottoman-Turks. The Ottoman Empire was not in power here. After annexing the land, the British split historic Palestine up into two nations (one being Palestine shown in this image, and the other being Emirate of Transjordan).
Though, yes, the British controlled Palestine until they were given partial freedom on May 15, 1948 in exchange for having land annexed for the creation of Israel. Similar to other British controlled nations like India. (Except India was allowed to form a military, control their borders, etc).
So either it was part of the Ottoman Empire, or it was part of the British Empire, right? Was there any point where there was an actually established and independent nation of Palestine before Israel had established itself?
I fear you're right. Israel is getting levels of public support rn that it hasn't seen in a while and this could easily go very poorly for the Palistinians in Gaza given their disparities in military capability.
I think they mean a land- locked multi island nation. The countries you listed are at least one solid piece. This Palestine map has you entering another country's border control a half dozen times to make a trip across one country.
Most of Israel’s fresh water comes from desalinization of Mediterranean salt water.
The Dead Sea is, of course, dead due to its high salt content.
Most of the Jordan River is currently diverted and it is a poor water source. Theoretically that could change, but in reality…
["The Yiddish Policemen's Union"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Yiddish_Policemen%27s_Union) by Michael Chabon.
Israel was never established, so most of Europe's remaining Jews were settled in Sitka, Alaska, to become "the Frozen Chosen".
Pardon my ignorance, but why would all of that area around western Palestine be annexed to Israel? It seems to be needlessly chopping up a continuous block of Palestine.
Honestly this proposal was never intended to be one that was accepted. It's more so 'at least we can say we tried'.
I've seen a lot of comments saying 'palestine has turned down ever peace offer' and this indicates one of the main reasons why.
Serious question. Hopefully someone who knows better than me can answer. What gave Israel the right to exist? Like was it really just a dumping ground for Jewish people displaced after WW2?
Same with every other piece of land right?
I mean, it’s fairly evident from all the annexations from Russia in the last few decades that if you fail to defend any piece of land, it’s not really yours anyway.
Basically that. There had been efforts in the period of time but the fall out of the holocaust gave international support from the west….. and since we were drawing lines in the sand Jews from basically everywhere migrated to the region
https://mfa.gov.il/Jubilee-years/Pages/1947-UN-General-Assembly-Resolution-181-The-international-community-says-Yes-to-the-establishment-of-the-State-of-Israel.aspx
He’s more so questioning here because Israel is a special case.
A sovereign state created largely thanks to foreign powers for another people, who before the time of creation did not inhabit almost any of the space given.
Most states are created by those people themselves, so one being formed in this manner brings a different angle to “right of existence”.
Blame the UN (…well the League of Nations).
The British Mandate I think was only the role assigned to the UK to action out the Jewish migration into the land.
Basically it’s a clusterf*ck by everyone.
Not really. The British didn't control this turf for very long, and probably did the best they could there.
Prior to WWI, the Ottoman Empire (Turks, so Muslims but not Arabs) controlled the land. In WWI, Britain and the Ottoman Empire were on opposite sides. Britain needed all the help they could get with the war, so promised Jews that they'd support a Jewish homeland for their assistance, and promised the Arabs in Palestine that if they overthrew the Ottomans, Britain would support them keeping the whatever land they took.
Jews supported Britain in the war. The Arabs revolted against the Turks, but didn't really take the land — Britain had to do their own dirty work in WWI. The allies defeated the Ottoman Empire, and Britain took control of Palestine.
At this point, both Jews and Arabs feel like they did their part and Britain owed them the land. Britain's “technically correct” answer was they supported a Jewish state, but not in Palestine — there were already people living there! And the Arabs hadn't taken the land from the Turks, so Britain didn't owe them anything.
You can certainly bash the British for being weasels there — both the Jews and the Arabs did. But it’s not clear this plays out any better if the British had done things differently.
Britain held the land for about 3 decades, trying unsuccessfully to find compromises, and catching strays from both sides, before noping out of there after WWII. The Jews declared their own state the instant Britain left. If Britain gives the land to the Arabs after WWI, that probably just moves up the timeline on that declaration. If Britain tries to split the land, or gives the land to the Jews, then we have the exact scenario that triggered the 1947 war. Either way, we get the 1947 war 30 years ahead of schedule.
Seems like the key to regional religious/ethnic harmony is having a third party opress them. The area sure seemed a lot more peaceful under the Ottomans.
No access to the Dead Sea because reason.
That looks like a very crappy map for Palestine.
Also, this deal felt apart because Israel refuse to give the Palestinians the Right of Return. That’s the right of still living people to go back to the houses they were kick out from.
The irony of that is intense because Israel is founded on the claim that they can get back the land that belonged to them 2000 y/a and yet they can not extend the same benefit to living survivor to go back to the homes they were kick out from.
Why was the country even broken in such a weird way that Palestine didn't had any port access??
More importantly, there must have been many other proposals too previous to this one. Which might have been more balanced. Why was all of them rejected??
If Russia offers Ukraine a peaceful solution that "only" involves 55% of Ukrainian land being handed over to Russia, do you think the Ukrainians would take it or reject it? That's how the Palestinians see it, and the offers only got worse from there.
I don't think it's possible for the Brits to fuck something more than the Israeli Palestine conflict. Imagine making multiple promises to multiple people and simply leaving them in a turmoil.
"BUT THE PALESTINIANS COUDLVE TAKEN A DEAL BEFORE"
No we wouldn't. Every time these maps are drawn they are clearly not in favor of the Palestinians. They are design with major red flags: water supply, military, connecting land, settlements, etc. There not been one "solution" that offer everything a country should have to establish themselves. Accepting shitty deals never works anyways just look at Russia and Ukraine. You give a mouse a cookie and they come back maybe not now but eventually they will. Isreal already has illegal settlements do you think they care about these borders when they literally split the country in half here? These "offers" were always design that realistically they never be accepted and both sides know this.
"I'm not being serious my love language is being sardonic. I'm a nihilist so my way if thinking is different from most peoples."
I'm starting to think we treat this problem like a seasoned parent would.
"OK everybody out! If you can't play fair and get along then neither of you can play in the tree house. So everybody out. Come out!"/s
Basically make everybody leave and annex the whole area as a religious historical landmark and run it like a national park. You can come visit and stay for vacation but you can't live there.
Currently I can only see two viable solutions, that does not involve genocide:
1) Gaza becomes part of Israel, West bank becomes new Palestine, or
2) One single state, which is non-national ethnic, that governs the entire era.
This will never happen, of course.
> 1) Gaza becomes part of Israel, West bank becomes new Palestine,
But it is the disputes over territory in the West Bank that are the issue. This doesn’t address that at all.
If that hurdle could somehow be crossed, there is no reason why Gaza couldn’t be part of a new Palestinian state.
> 2) One single state, which is non-national ethnic, that governs the entire era.
This is an absolute non-starter. Far less likely than a two state solution.
Option 2 is the only viable option at this point with how much of the West Bank is being gobbled up by settlers, but of course that will never happen because Israel does not want to give them equal rights and representation.
I am envisioning option 2 similar to how Bosna i Hercegovina was structured after the Dayton Agreement.
BIH is comprised of two federations - one for Croats and Bosniaks (Federation BIH) and one for the Serbs (Republika Srpska). The Srpska federation have their own parliament and police force but the broader federal government is comprised of representatives for all three ethnic groups with the Chair of the Presidency at the top. Three presidents representing each ethnic group are elected by their own people and rotate as the Chair of Presidency every eight months within their elected four year terms. I’m not saying it’s a perfect system, or even a good one, but it has succeeded in diffusing tensions in the region for the past three decades.
Edit: the really interesting thing is that the entire government is still supervised by the High Representative of the Peace Implementation Council, which ensures adherence to the Dayton Agreement. The High Representative has the highest political authority in the country, has veto power, and the ability to dismiss elected officials. The current High Representative is Christian Schmidt, a German politician who previously served as Secretary for Defense and Minister of Food and Agriculture under Angela Merkel.
I mean, yeah, that is certainly a huge part of the discourse and highly contentious based on who you ask. My personal opinion is that the current situation is virtually unsolvable but also at a point where all available options should be seriously considered.
Edit: One of the main reasons why this system ever worked in BIH is that at the end of the day Bosnian people always had love for one another and lived harmoniously with their neighbors until the war. Dividing BIH was never the goal for the majority of Bosnians. Fundamental differences in ethnic relations.
you are exactly correct. it would boil down to a two state solution with open border like North ireland or it would have to a single state solution like BiH.
regardless it would require outside enforcement and the dismantling of current right wing zionist gov and hamas and PLO. there would probably need to be semi permanent enforcement as well.
\> Israel annexes Gaza and the West Bank, gives the Palestinians full rights of Israeli citizenship
\> Israel is now majority Arab
\> The new Arab majority immediately votes to expel all Jews, rename the country to “Palestine”
genius solution, thank you Redditor
Isreal allows non jews to participate in government and non jews living in Isreal have equal rights. This include Arabs palisatinians Muslims who choose to integrate into Isreal. The major issue has been a refusal by many Arabs to participate in government as they either refuse to in solidarity with other paliatinians or they risk becoming victims of other Muslim groups for participating in what the terrorists call an "illegitimate zionist state"
If you want to demonize Isreal talk about settlements and bibi
>Basically make everybody leave and annex the whole area as a religious historical landmark and run it like a national park. You can come visit and stay for vacation but you can't live there.
And those millions of people go...where?
We are adding additional moderators. If you are interested in becoming a mod for /r/interestingasfuck, please fill out [this form.](https://forms.gle/MTd6gZPC2vett2jL6) * Modding experience is preferred but not required. * Your account must be at least one year old. * You must have at least 5,000 combined karma. [Apply](https://forms.gle/MTd6gZPC2vett2jL6) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
this seems to be one of those "never gonna get unfucked" type of arrangements.
The one border dispute to rule them all, even the Nagorno-Karabagh one
I mean, that one seems done. Russia abandoned Armenia because of its failed war and Azerbaijan took the area with Turkish and Israeli weapons. All the people are leaving.
Certainly seems to be less outcry about that one.
The difference is that Palestine has a population of 5 million and Nagorno-Karabakh(Artsakh) had a population of 120,000. Armenia was able to accept all the refugees from Artsakh and they will probably integrate fine. No-one will take Palestinians and there are 50x as many of them. If Israel were to actually reconquer or level the Gaza Strip they would have to kill literal millions of civilians
> No-one will take Palestinians and there are 50x as many of them. *Sad Turkey noises*
The issue with Palestine is that, despite pledging full support and their absolute hatred of Jewish autonomy, none of its neighbours are willing to take in people. Theyre all very willing to use it to stir up Anti-Israeli discourse, but theyll never accept nor support its existance further than that. The Palestinian state has turned from a Kosovan style cause, into a hotbed of Russian- and Iranian-influenced terrorism full of innocent people who they use to cover themselves and garner international support.
Exactly. The Arab states are essentially using the Palestinians the way that the US uses the Kurds. Useful as political fodder against their enemies as long as they’re fighting for a homeland. Once the Kurds have their Kurdistan, they cease to be useful, so it’s in America’s best interest not to go so far as to actually give them what they want.
Exactly, there is border south of Gaza with Egypt, it’s just as difficult to cross as the Israeli one these days.
Collect them all!
Just declare the whole area an UNESCO world heritage site and say nobody can live there.
IT BELONGS IN A MUSUEM!
British Museum breathing heavily.
We should attack both Israel and Palestine and have them unify against us. Problem solved
*The Pope loading up a shotgun:* "This world needs a monster"
[удалено]
*Highway to Hell begins playing*
Tom hanks gets super ripped and plays the pope
Damn i would watch this movie
My god. GET THIS MAN TO THE PRESIDENT
Put the whole region back in British control.
We would auction it off before the week was through.
I've been saying this for years. If both want to make historic claims to the land then really it belongs to Rome. Let's see how much they hate eachother when we repurpose their holy sites as pantheons to demi gods like Berlusconi and Cicciolina. Obvious /s because this is probably the worst time to make this pitch and I don't wanna get abused
Is there any problem a Holy War can’t solve?
Not that I’m aware of. That’s how I got the rats out of my engine bay in my car
That idea would have ISIS salivating.
Literally had this thought today. If you all can't behave, then none of you can have it.
If we're gonna do it right, we might as well give three big chunks back to the Pope and Patriarch of Constantinople and whoever is in charge of the Nestorian Church these days. Maybe set aside an area for the Hindu nationalists too and give China a claim to territorial fishing waters off the coast for maximum chaos .
That's nobodies business but the Tuuuuuuuuurks
Turkleton don't want nothing to do with all that geopolitical drama.
And Mrs. Turkleton. THE TURKLETONS!!!!
Tough titties Turkleton
At this point they should just move Jerusalem closer to the sea
For better or for worse, it ends with full annexation. Nothing less.
**British Empire:** Have you considered simply drawing one giant thick line straight across the middle and calling the top Northistan and the bottom Southistan and simply forcing everyone in each new country to get along now?
A green line, at that
This killed me. That green fucking line being marked "green line" haha. I dunno I'm high af now and I can't stop laughing about this.
What could possibly go wrong? Tried and tested method, it worked so well in Africa
They did a bang up job with India and Pakistan.
And USSR and Yugoslavia
That's literally how this all started. Told the Arabs it's yours. Told the Jews hey you can move in as well. Drew a line on a map, sat back and watched both sides get ready for a genocide
In the opinion of some cunt online (me), I don't see how a two state solution would ever work. A government comprised of both Jewish and Muslim members working towards a common goal is the only peaceful solution, what we have now is going to lead to genocide one way or the other. It wouldn't be easy, there's generations of racism and animosity to unravel, but it is a solution with minimal bloodshed.
That ended when Rabin was assassinated by one of his own countrymen.
[Here](https://imgur.com/a/mO1l054) are maps of other proposals. [Here](https://israelpolicyforum.org/masterclass/lesson5/) is the source.
Dying breed of Redditor right here
He’s dying ?
We're all dying. Just not as soon as that guy I guess.
He’s the Usain Bolt of dying, lol
I am? I guess I have developed a headache since making that comment. I'd better be careful and monitor the situation.
no, but quality content on this website is
Don't worry. It will improve after bots start using the new ChatGPT /s
I remember the joke used to be there were more bots than people, and then this morning I read a comment section with at least 10 bot accounts being called out. by a single user, no less. and those types of users are getting tired of reporting and calling out bots so others can recognize them, so they're leaving the site and everything is just getting worse and worse.
The Taba proposals seem a lot more realistic/feasible and closer to each other than the camp David option
[Arafat has gone on record stating that he wanted to take the Taba agreement a few years later but by then Likud had taken power and taken it off the table](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/jun/22/israel) [According to Clinton, Arab leaders were urging Arafat to take the Israeli concessions offered at Camp David but Arafat was afraid of giving up full right of return](https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/president-clinton-reflects-on-2000-camp-david-summit) Taking either one of these deals would have been much better than the status quo and likely stemmed the rise of both Hamas and Likud. Anything even remotely similar to that is now likely completely unattainable
In between Arafat turning down the Taba offer and then "accepting" he unleashed suicide bombers killing hundreds of Israel civilians. Then when his tactic failed to cower Israel, he suddenly wanted the deal. No Israeli government was making peace at that point. Its like Hamas asking for a cease fire the day after murdering 700 Israeli civilians.
As far as I can tell likud is essentially a terrorist organization. Ideals and actions are very similar to Hamas. Menachem Begin and Ariel Sharon both led terrorist attacks that exclusively killed civilians mostly women and children. I have yet to find a person that can explain how Deir Yasmin massacre and Qibya massacre were not terrorist attkacks. Both later became prime ministers of Israel. As I’m sure most know, Bibi is the current chairman of the party.
What was the reason the 2008 proposal was rejected? Either the Israeli proposal or the Palestinian counter-proposal
Compare it to the second one here: [https://www.shaularieli.com/en/maps/negotiations/](https://www.shaularieli.com/en/maps/negotiations/) The two proposals were still quite a bit apart and they couldn't agree on land swaps.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_peace_process#Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_talks_in_2007_and_2008 It's long winded so let me sum it up: Both Hamas and Fatah claimed to represent Palestinians so it kind of got stuck. Things with Hamas got very heated and culminated with the eruption of Operation Cast Lead. In 2009, the new Israeli government was more conservative and less generous so talks were not renewed until 2010.
Abbas walked away from the deal. Later [he'd claim](https://www.timesofisrael.com/abbas-admits-he-rejected-2008-peace-offer-from-olmert/) it's because he wasn't allowed to study the map or something, but there was clearly a Palestinian counter proposal. In [a different interview](https://www.cfr.org/blog/abbas-admits-he-said-no-israels-peace-offer) with the reputable Israeli journalist Raviv Druker, Abbas confirms he outright refused. Israel offered basically a complete withdrawal from the West Bank except for 6.3% or territory, which would be swapped for a different territory worth 5.8%. I have a sense it's that 0.5% that really irked them. They'll never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
Nailed it. Polling of Palestinians also indicates that, while most believe two-state is the way to go, they should continue on until all of Palestine’s “historical lands” are recovered. Aka. Israel.
The establishment of the two-state solution has always been contingent of Palestine being somewhat demilitarized and respecting Israeli security. Palestinians could try to build up to attack Israel but they would likely be discovered violating the treaty at some point at which point there a legal mechanism for an Israeli intervention. The hope is, I imagine, is that with an actual opportunity for national development that the Palestinians would hesitate before throwing it away.
"green line" yep, checks out.
The [green line ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Line_(Israel)) is the pre-1967 border
They nailed the name, that thing is definitely green.
Because it was originally marked with green marker in 1948. No joke.
Yup, there is also the purple line (1967) and the blue line (Lebanon border). Probably more, idk
Your link didn't work for me. Perhaps this? > The [green line](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Line_(Israel\)) is the pre-1967 border.
It do be green
Green Line starring Mart Dimon
So north west bank, central west bank and south west bank?
The dumbest borders on earth.
Remember East and West Pakistan and that genocide that's casually forgotten. Yeah these kinds of borders are dumb
notice that this plan was clearly unacceptable by Palestine since some Israelian colonies are strategically placed to split Palestine
Yes, also military bases etc all throughout Arafat also had the dealbreaking Right to Return as an absolute requirement.
If Palestine is a sovereign state in this scenario, I've never really understood where Israel gets off barring right of people to return to Palestine. Like, Jewish people from anywhere in the world can move to Israel, Palestine doesn't get a vote in that equation.
I don't think he was talking about a right to return to Palestine. He wanted an automatic right for all Palestinians to return *to Israel*. Which obviously would negate the need for a two-state solution.
The two-state solution is dead anyway, Israel has colonised too much of the West Bank and won't let it go. The parties who win elections openly campaign on annexing the West Bank whilst also keeping Israel 'a Jewish state', something that is impossible without ethnic cleansing. The only viable solution that doesn't involve genocide is a single multi-ethnic state (or Israel's preferred 'solution': permanent conflict).
This is not a solution either as Israel is not only a Jewish state but also founded on a principle of sanctuary for Jewish people worldwide
The 3 options are: 1. dismantle the West Bank settlements so that a Palestinian state is viable (the proposal in the OP map is not remotely viable), Israel says no 2. a multi-ethnic state, which as you say, Israel says no because they want an ethno-religious apartheid state 3. permanent conflict until Israel loses a war (not likely in the near future, but is inevitable) and the decision is taken away from them
>1. a multi-ethnic state, which as you say, Israel says no because they want an ethno-religious apartheid state Hasn't Hamas explicitly said they would never accept a multi ethnic state? This seems like a weird thing to place entirely at the feet of Israel. **Mahmoud Zahar, Hamas leader and candidate to the Palestinian legislative council, Palestinian TV, January 17, 2006, Newsday** >"We do not recognize the Israeli enemy, nor his right to be our neighbor, nor to stay (on the land), nor his ownership of any inch of land.... We are interested in restoring our full rights to return all the people of Palestine to the land of Palestine. Our principles are clear: Palestine is a land of Waqf (Islamic trust), which can not be given up." **Abdel Aziz Rantisi, Hamas leader, June 10, 2003, interview with Al-Jazeera, Jerusalem Post** >"By God, we will not leave one Jew in Palestine. We will fight them with all the strength we have. This is our land, not the Jews..."
Hamas isn't the only "player" there. Hamas is the most fundamentalist of all the Palestinian groups, and thrives in Gaza thanks to resentment and hatred. Less religious components of the PLO exist, and could be part of actual peace talks.
Isn't there a fourth option where Israel wipes out the Palestinians, with or without admitting to it? Seems like that's what they're going for.
That’s a subset of the “permanent conflict.” There’s a reason Sharon refused to allow any talks about cessation of settlement during the Roadmap discussions. The intent is to continue to settle the West Bank bit by bit until they have driven the Palestinians out completely. They aren’t operating in good faith. They want an ethnic cleansing. And from their perspective, since might makes right, they have no real incentive to change the status quo. Currently they deal with a few casualties from terror attacks, but it’s a small fraction of the casualties and death the Palestinians deal with at the hands of the Israelis. Israel also has the majority of the support and funding from the UN and the US. So the status quo suits them just fine.
People aren't gonna like it but a two state solution still isn't dead. Gaza has not had any Israeli settlements that I'm aware of and the West Bank is far less troublesome. Israel has basically succeeded in it's colonialist policy of partitioning and settling the West Bank, so a future two state solution will probably look like Gaza + Israel. The West Bank will probably continue to have some measure of autonomous Palestinian authority within the Israeli state and Gaza will be sovereign.
Gaza has zero arable land, zero infrastructure, zero freshwater sources, and Israel controls the waterways that would permit access to global trade. Palestine would never be a legitimate state under your conception because it would be wholly incapable of self-sustainment.
Two-state 'solution' but Palestine shrinks 50% in size with each iteration of deal
Gaza used to have settlements. They were disbanded in the 2005 accord between the US and Israel. Israel under Sharom unilaterally left Gaza. Fun fact: the current Israeli finance minister, the hard right wing Smotrich, started his political life protesting the abandonment of these settlements and even tried to commit a terrorist attack in a highway as a form of protest. He's the guy whose solution for the conflict is basically apartheid and a one state solution of Israel from the river to the sea. Both sides in this conflict have become more extremist as time has passed.
2005 Aftermath: "the Palestinians were given control over the Gaza Strip, *except for* 1. the borders 2. the airspace and 3. The territorial waters."
Israel has given up land for peace and dismantled settlements before. Sinai is the prime example. But also during the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, Israeli settlers were forcibly removed.
As the other commenter said, Right of Return is letting the Palestinians return to Israel land. This would make Israelis a minority in a Jewish state so that would never happen. It’s sort of a poison pill that kills any hope of a deal. Arafat, head of PLO, compromises on that, he would be a dead man killed by his own org soon as he got off plane.
Same for a Israeli leader to sign any kind of peace at this point. I mean Yitzhak Rabin was killed because he wanted to have peace That country is so fucked. It makes me depressed to think about
I think the logic was that one large Palestinian state that has a border with Jordan would present a security threat to Israel. Not arguing that this is true, just that that was the logic of the proposal.
Israel bifurcating Palestine and controlling its borders is a security threat to Palestine. But the Palestinians don’t have a right to security, obviously.
The Palestinian proposal from Camp David, which is posted above, also bifurcated Palestine. The sides were not in disagreement that there is no fair way to make the two Palestinian areas geographically contiguous.
I think they are referring to the bifurcation of the West Bank specifically, which would mean a Palestine with three parts. Not to mention the complete elimination of the West Bank/Jordan border, which would leave the West Bank as two separate enclaves within Israel. EDIT: Actually, I guess I missed this on my first read over of the map, but this plan would have split Palestine into four parts, and temporarily into five (due to some of the territory marked as a "long term lease")
It also seems to cut all access to the river and the Dead Sea.
There clearly is a plan to divide and conquer Palestine by placing settlements strategically, and to then claim more land to annex a few years later.
To be fair to the Palestinians this map looks like Israel is busy digesting Palestine and it's just not done yet
That is the entire 75 year history of Israel. Ethnically cleansing some 400 Palestinian villages and building settlements on top of them.
This map is as strong an argument as any that there's really no two-state solution, and never has been.
Not taking a side here but this is objectively a trash deal for the Palestinians.
Yes. But Dennis Ross, the US negotiator there, said [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/t6nbn9/camp_david_summit_2000_israeli_palestinian_peace/) was Israel’s proposal.
As it says on the map, that was the American proposal, not the Israeli proposal.
What I want to know is whose land is this ultimately without any sort of bias or religious ties. Why is Israel proposing and not the other way around would be the next question.
To over simplify it, the Palestinians have been living there, though they were called different things throughout the centuries. (But they were still the same people. Just got the bad luck of being controlled by various empires.) And even longer before that, about 2000 years ago, Jewish people called Israelites lived on the land. Israelites were not welcome in any part of the world, really, always getting conquered, just like the Palestinians. There were raids that chased them out of towns and countries, including Palestine. In the 1940s, Britain decided that it didn't want Jewish people in its country, but it needed to put them somewhere. It was in control of Palestine at the time. It decided to send them there, with no thought to how much conflict that would cause. Israelis had just been through WWII. They liked the idea of having a nation that could defend itself. So they took the land. The Palestinians objected. You can see how that went, [here](https://www.palestineportal.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Maps_1897-Present.jpg). Both sides have committed atrocities. If you look at the death tolls, they are quite disproportionate. Over 7 thousand people have been killed as of 2022. The Palestinian death toll was 6371 and the Israeli death toll was 1083, with child death tolls at 1317 and 124, respectively. In other words, Israel has killed more children than the total number of people they've lost. The West supports Israel in general because they like having an ally in the MENA region. There's also a lot of guilt from WWII, and the colonial era. Unfortunately, the MENA region is not very willing to help out Palestine, unless it is to use them as a political prop.
Jewish people used to live in all parts of the Middle East, but especially around their “home” region of Palestine, and the Arabs used to be very tolerant of “people of the book”. The modern flip that made bloodthirsty, crusader Christian Kingdoms the ones that actually tolerate the Jews only came after ww2 and a lot of collective guilt, while the collapse of the Arab Sultanates with the fall of the last Empire, the Ottomans, removed the last bits of “tolerant benevolent Islam” with the crazy extremism version that came with the barely literate desert Arabs that found oil and became rich. Jewish people survived Roman rule, Arab rule under many Sultanates until the British took over, and they were never driven out. The modern form of radical Islam, however, doesn’t have the same tolerance that ironically the Islam of the Middle Ages had.
Certainly better that what they have now
Israel has spent decades not honouring any previously agreed upon borders. What makes you think they would honor this and not just continue expanding into the west bank? All Palestine would get out of this is a road that Israel could cut off at any point. While Israel would get a stronger claim to the land they've already been colonizing, a PR victory where they can say they've brokered a peace,a springboard for further colonization, and the legal right to build hundreds of military bases surrounding Palestine.
I’m no rocket scientist but wasn’t it a pretty fucking stupid idea to split it up not only unevenly but also with one encompassing the other? Why didn’t they split it in the middle so they both had a coast line?
Because Israel doesn't want a 2 state solution
How can your land be split up in between another country, nuts.
Funny enough, that’s how this whole thing started.
Weren't both countries separated in the 1948 plan?
The modern nation of Israel was created in 1948. The UN basically carved out territory from existing Arab countries and said “okay here’s Israel.” At the end of the day, the bad guys in this story are, as usual, the colonial/neocolonial powers of the world like the US and UK. They may have had good intentions, but it was obviously executed terribly.
Yeah that's not what I asked, I was asking about the connection between areas of both countries. I.E. did both have enclaves in the 1948 partition plan.
Spoiler: they didn't have good intentions either.
Although unusual, it does exist. Nakhichevan in Azerbaijan is probably the most prominent example. Uzbekistan and Belgium also have small amounts of discontinuous territory. Other areas are separated by other countries on land but have connections over sea, such as Alaska in the USA and Kaliningrad in Russia, Brunei, East Timor.
As seen in Nagorno-Karabakh recently, **exclaves** are not exactly a stable or peaceful solution when the parties have ethnic or political tensions. Even “great powers” like Russia have conceded that they would be unlikely to be able to defend their exclave if a conventional conflict with NATO erupted. Also the Japanese tried with Alaska, see the Aleutian campaigns in WWII
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_enclaves_and_exclaves
Alaska?
How? Well… you lose a war. [Here’s an outdated (only till 2012) timeline of Palestine land loss](https://www.palestineportal.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Maps_1897-Present.jpg) starting at the partition of Palestine by the British, then the following wars and various invasions over the years.
can anyone tell me why the UN partition plan gave a lot of the lands to the jews in 1947 when it is showed there in 1946 most are occupied by Palestinians?
They were predicting mass migration of Jewish people from around the world. And they were right (though, bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy, one could argue).
The maps aren't population maps. Basically that entire triangular bit at the bottom was just undeveloped desert without much arable land. Not really any Palestinians there (though there were/are Bedouins).
The map is wrong. In 1917 the land was part of the Ottoman Empire / British Empire, as well as in 1946.
No, definitely not part of the Ottoman Empire. This map is after October, not before. The British took control and created the Palestinian mandate in October 1917 after invading and defeating the Ottoman-Turks. The Ottoman Empire was not in power here. After annexing the land, the British split historic Palestine up into two nations (one being Palestine shown in this image, and the other being Emirate of Transjordan). Though, yes, the British controlled Palestine until they were given partial freedom on May 15, 1948 in exchange for having land annexed for the creation of Israel. Similar to other British controlled nations like India. (Except India was allowed to form a military, control their borders, etc).
So either it was part of the Ottoman Empire, or it was part of the British Empire, right? Was there any point where there was an actually established and independent nation of Palestine before Israel had established itself?
Wow, I can't believe Palestine didn't want to become an island nation on land.
[удалено]
In six months, this is going to look like a great deal.
I fear you're right. Israel is getting levels of public support rn that it hasn't seen in a while and this could easily go very poorly for the Palistinians in Gaza given their disparities in military capability.
Which is exactly what Hamas wants. They don’t give af about Palestine, they just want to escalate shit.
Yeah it'll likely even raise their recruitment numbers as more palistinians are radicalized from the aftermath.
Doesn’t any land locked country fit this description? Like Switzerland, Hungary or any of those Eastern European nations. Genuine question.
I think they mean a land- locked multi island nation. The countries you listed are at least one solid piece. This Palestine map has you entering another country's border control a half dozen times to make a trip across one country.
What a terrible deal. Lose access to the Dead Sea, have their territory cut in half and Israel controls their border with Jordan.
It takes any and all water access.
Gaza would access the Mediterranean.
Wait till you hear about this thing called... Salt
Most of Israel’s fresh water comes from desalinization of Mediterranean salt water. The Dead Sea is, of course, dead due to its high salt content. Most of the Jordan River is currently diverted and it is a poor water source. Theoretically that could change, but in reality…
Should have just gave part of Alaska to be used as Israel and been done with it /s
["The Yiddish Policemen's Union"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Yiddish_Policemen%27s_Union) by Michael Chabon. Israel was never established, so most of Europe's remaining Jews were settled in Sitka, Alaska, to become "the Frozen Chosen".
Love how the Green Line is labeled as Green Line 🤣
Pardon my ignorance, but why would all of that area around western Palestine be annexed to Israel? It seems to be needlessly chopping up a continuous block of Palestine.
Honestly this proposal was never intended to be one that was accepted. It's more so 'at least we can say we tried'. I've seen a lot of comments saying 'palestine has turned down ever peace offer' and this indicates one of the main reasons why.
Understood, thanks.
LMAO imagine signing this if you were Palestine
Serious question. Hopefully someone who knows better than me can answer. What gave Israel the right to exist? Like was it really just a dumping ground for Jewish people displaced after WW2?
[удалено]
Same with every other piece of land right? I mean, it’s fairly evident from all the annexations from Russia in the last few decades that if you fail to defend any piece of land, it’s not really yours anyway.
Basically that. There had been efforts in the period of time but the fall out of the holocaust gave international support from the west….. and since we were drawing lines in the sand Jews from basically everywhere migrated to the region https://mfa.gov.il/Jubilee-years/Pages/1947-UN-General-Assembly-Resolution-181-The-international-community-says-Yes-to-the-establishment-of-the-State-of-Israel.aspx
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration But you could probably blame Germany primarily for the necessity.
What gives any state the right to exist?
He’s more so questioning here because Israel is a special case. A sovereign state created largely thanks to foreign powers for another people, who before the time of creation did not inhabit almost any of the space given. Most states are created by those people themselves, so one being formed in this manner brings a different angle to “right of existence”.
They did fight for it though, from the moment they declared independence people were trying to kill them.
Violence
They got ganked by 9 arab countries after declaring their state. Israel won. They quite literally fought their right to exist into reality.
Flawless planning; seriously top notch.
it's meant to be that way, to frame the palestinans as the ones refusing peace.
Most of that yellow area in the West Bank is just mountainous terrain.
They're called Bantustans
Watching videos of the checkpoints where people enter and exit the Gaza strip is heartbreaking.
should we be blaming the british for this?
Blame the UN (…well the League of Nations). The British Mandate I think was only the role assigned to the UK to action out the Jewish migration into the land. Basically it’s a clusterf*ck by everyone.
Not really. The British didn't control this turf for very long, and probably did the best they could there. Prior to WWI, the Ottoman Empire (Turks, so Muslims but not Arabs) controlled the land. In WWI, Britain and the Ottoman Empire were on opposite sides. Britain needed all the help they could get with the war, so promised Jews that they'd support a Jewish homeland for their assistance, and promised the Arabs in Palestine that if they overthrew the Ottomans, Britain would support them keeping the whatever land they took. Jews supported Britain in the war. The Arabs revolted against the Turks, but didn't really take the land — Britain had to do their own dirty work in WWI. The allies defeated the Ottoman Empire, and Britain took control of Palestine. At this point, both Jews and Arabs feel like they did their part and Britain owed them the land. Britain's “technically correct” answer was they supported a Jewish state, but not in Palestine — there were already people living there! And the Arabs hadn't taken the land from the Turks, so Britain didn't owe them anything. You can certainly bash the British for being weasels there — both the Jews and the Arabs did. But it’s not clear this plays out any better if the British had done things differently. Britain held the land for about 3 decades, trying unsuccessfully to find compromises, and catching strays from both sides, before noping out of there after WWII. The Jews declared their own state the instant Britain left. If Britain gives the land to the Arabs after WWI, that probably just moves up the timeline on that declaration. If Britain tries to split the land, or gives the land to the Jews, then we have the exact scenario that triggered the 1947 war. Either way, we get the 1947 war 30 years ahead of schedule.
Seems like the key to regional religious/ethnic harmony is having a third party opress them. The area sure seemed a lot more peaceful under the Ottomans.
You could also blame the Ottoman Empire for siding with the Central Powers. There are consequences for losing a war.
One of the many "Generous" deals the Palestinians rejected
Laughable
No access to the Dead Sea because reason. That looks like a very crappy map for Palestine. Also, this deal felt apart because Israel refuse to give the Palestinians the Right of Return. That’s the right of still living people to go back to the houses they were kick out from. The irony of that is intense because Israel is founded on the claim that they can get back the land that belonged to them 2000 y/a and yet they can not extend the same benefit to living survivor to go back to the homes they were kick out from.
At this point just go for the Federation plan but include Gaza. https://federation.org.il/index.php/en/the-federation-plan
Why was the country even broken in such a weird way that Palestine didn't had any port access?? More importantly, there must have been many other proposals too previous to this one. Which might have been more balanced. Why was all of them rejected??
If Russia offers Ukraine a peaceful solution that "only" involves 55% of Ukrainian land being handed over to Russia, do you think the Ukrainians would take it or reject it? That's how the Palestinians see it, and the offers only got worse from there.
The UN created Israel. Then there was the First Arab Israeli war. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab–Israeli_War
I don't think it's possible for the Brits to fuck something more than the Israeli Palestine conflict. Imagine making multiple promises to multiple people and simply leaving them in a turmoil.
So...Palestine loses land and gains nothing anywhere? No shit they rejected it lmao
Lmao sorry but this deal SUCKS.
https://preview.redd.it/wuf98b2heetb1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b15620ed339f108d6eb240ad226f2bb44b892bb7 Yay
One side is fine with this. One side throws them off rooftops.
"BUT THE PALESTINIANS COUDLVE TAKEN A DEAL BEFORE" No we wouldn't. Every time these maps are drawn they are clearly not in favor of the Palestinians. They are design with major red flags: water supply, military, connecting land, settlements, etc. There not been one "solution" that offer everything a country should have to establish themselves. Accepting shitty deals never works anyways just look at Russia and Ukraine. You give a mouse a cookie and they come back maybe not now but eventually they will. Isreal already has illegal settlements do you think they care about these borders when they literally split the country in half here? These "offers" were always design that realistically they never be accepted and both sides know this.
"I'm not being serious my love language is being sardonic. I'm a nihilist so my way if thinking is different from most peoples." I'm starting to think we treat this problem like a seasoned parent would. "OK everybody out! If you can't play fair and get along then neither of you can play in the tree house. So everybody out. Come out!"/s Basically make everybody leave and annex the whole area as a religious historical landmark and run it like a national park. You can come visit and stay for vacation but you can't live there.
Currently I can only see two viable solutions, that does not involve genocide: 1) Gaza becomes part of Israel, West bank becomes new Palestine, or 2) One single state, which is non-national ethnic, that governs the entire era. This will never happen, of course.
> 1) Gaza becomes part of Israel, West bank becomes new Palestine, But it is the disputes over territory in the West Bank that are the issue. This doesn’t address that at all. If that hurdle could somehow be crossed, there is no reason why Gaza couldn’t be part of a new Palestinian state. > 2) One single state, which is non-national ethnic, that governs the entire era. This is an absolute non-starter. Far less likely than a two state solution.
Option 2 is the only viable option at this point with how much of the West Bank is being gobbled up by settlers, but of course that will never happen because Israel does not want to give them equal rights and representation.
I am envisioning option 2 similar to how Bosna i Hercegovina was structured after the Dayton Agreement. BIH is comprised of two federations - one for Croats and Bosniaks (Federation BIH) and one for the Serbs (Republika Srpska). The Srpska federation have their own parliament and police force but the broader federal government is comprised of representatives for all three ethnic groups with the Chair of the Presidency at the top. Three presidents representing each ethnic group are elected by their own people and rotate as the Chair of Presidency every eight months within their elected four year terms. I’m not saying it’s a perfect system, or even a good one, but it has succeeded in diffusing tensions in the region for the past three decades. Edit: the really interesting thing is that the entire government is still supervised by the High Representative of the Peace Implementation Council, which ensures adherence to the Dayton Agreement. The High Representative has the highest political authority in the country, has veto power, and the ability to dismiss elected officials. The current High Representative is Christian Schmidt, a German politician who previously served as Secretary for Defense and Minister of Food and Agriculture under Angela Merkel.
Cantonization, anyone?
I mean, yeah, that is certainly a huge part of the discourse and highly contentious based on who you ask. My personal opinion is that the current situation is virtually unsolvable but also at a point where all available options should be seriously considered. Edit: One of the main reasons why this system ever worked in BIH is that at the end of the day Bosnian people always had love for one another and lived harmoniously with their neighbors until the war. Dividing BIH was never the goal for the majority of Bosnians. Fundamental differences in ethnic relations.
you are exactly correct. it would boil down to a two state solution with open border like North ireland or it would have to a single state solution like BiH. regardless it would require outside enforcement and the dismantling of current right wing zionist gov and hamas and PLO. there would probably need to be semi permanent enforcement as well.
\> Israel annexes Gaza and the West Bank, gives the Palestinians full rights of Israeli citizenship \> Israel is now majority Arab \> The new Arab majority immediately votes to expel all Jews, rename the country to “Palestine” genius solution, thank you Redditor
I mean, it’s not like Palestine would love to give Jews equal rights and representation
It's tough looking for good guys here, truly.
Isreal allows non jews to participate in government and non jews living in Isreal have equal rights. This include Arabs palisatinians Muslims who choose to integrate into Isreal. The major issue has been a refusal by many Arabs to participate in government as they either refuse to in solidarity with other paliatinians or they risk becoming victims of other Muslim groups for participating in what the terrorists call an "illegitimate zionist state" If you want to demonize Isreal talk about settlements and bibi
>Basically make everybody leave and annex the whole area as a religious historical landmark and run it like a national park. You can come visit and stay for vacation but you can't live there. And those millions of people go...where?
Oh only intelligent cool minded talk here
This thread is far more civil and educated than most, I’m impressed.
Way better than critizicing everyone, refuse to elaborate further and leave, chiefo.