Why did the Palestinians reject the Peel commission partition (and every subsequent two state proposals)?
I can go through all of them, but the short of it is: Palestinians had every right to reject the construction of an Apartheid ethnostate (that had explicitly stated it would expand beyond its assigned borders) being built on their land. That’s the Peele commission, for the 1948 UN resolution it’s the same thing and the fact that Israel would get land that at the time held half of the Palestinian population. There were no other serious 2-state solution proposals (except maybe the 2008 one that was done under the table so we don’t know much about it).
We can’t go back in time. Its unfortunate, but Israel is there now. The question is what should we do now? Genuinely curious. I’m not saying this in defense of Israel. It’s where we are now.
Well the best solution is a one-state democratic, non-Apartheid state (certainly no nonsense about a Jewish homeland or nation state laws). The two-state solution is discussed as the next best thing because Israel is too attached to Apartheid to commit to a one-state solution, so from that point where we go now is the international community forces Israel to actually accept Palestinians’ human rights, including right to self-determination, because God knows they won’t do it on their own.
Hmm… Maybe something like the UK system? A parliamentary federal government with clearly stated limits on their power and high degrees of local independence should work for at least a century or two. Also at the time Palestinians hated Zionists, not Jews as a whole. Jews were, despite what Zionists would want you to think, not wiped out from Palestine or any of that jazz, and lived peacefully there until the whole Israel debacle. Now it’d definitely need a lot of international effort, but I still think it’s very possible if done correctly.
I can go through all of them, but the short of it is: Palestinians had every right to reject the construction of an Apartheid ethnostate (that had explicitly stated it would expand beyond its assigned borders) being built on their land. That’s the Peele commission, for the 1948 UN resolution it’s the same thing and the fact that Israel would get land that at the time held half of the Palestinian population. There were no other serious 2-state solution proposals (except maybe the 2008 one that was done under the table so we don’t know much about it).
Well the best solution is a one-state democratic, non-Apartheid state (certainly no nonsense about a Jewish homeland or nation state laws). The two-state solution is discussed as the next best thing because Israel is too attached to Apartheid to commit to a one-state solution, so from that point where we go now is the international community forces Israel to actually accept Palestinians’ human rights, including right to self-determination, because God knows they won’t do it on their own.
Removed by mod
No? Palestinians had been calling for a one-state solution at that point. It’s just that nobody was listening.
Removed by mod
Uh… No?
Removed by mod
Hmm… Maybe something like the UK system? A parliamentary federal government with clearly stated limits on their power and high degrees of local independence should work for at least a century or two. Also at the time Palestinians hated Zionists, not Jews as a whole. Jews were, despite what Zionists would want you to think, not wiped out from Palestine or any of that jazz, and lived peacefully there until the whole Israel debacle. Now it’d definitely need a lot of international effort, but I still think it’s very possible if done correctly.
Removed by mod
I used the past tense, hated. It’s different now.