327
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2023
327 points (92.7% liked)
politics
19088 readers
3666 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
No, you probably can't. But you can, however, hold the moral high ground and offer one.
Here is a list of peace offers which would grant the Palestinians a country of their own, they refused all of them
1937 - Peel commission, rejected
1947 - Partition resolution, rejected
2000 - Camp David, rejected
2001 - Taba, rejected. Arafat starts the second intifada and a year later changes his mind.
2008 - Olmert offer, rejected
Hamas have tried to agree to boundaries Despite media attempts to portray it as a new Hamas charter, it is not. The new ‘policy document’ accepts the creation of a Palestinian state in 1967 borders, but still rejects Israel and claims its territory. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-39775103
Here are some other noteworthy peace meeting or proposals from Israel to the rest if the Arab world, which were rejected
1919: Arabs of Palestine refused nominate representatives to the Paris Peace Conference.
1920: San Remo conference decisions, rejected.
1922: League of Nations decisions, rejected.
1937: Peel Commission partition proposal, rejected.
1938: Woodhead partition proposal, rejected
1947: UN General Assembly partition proposal (UNGAR 181), rejected.
1949: Israel’s outstretched hand for peace (UNGAR 194), rejected.
1967: Israel’s outstretched hand for peace (UNSCR 242), rejected.
1978: Begin/Sa’adat peace proposal, rejected (except for Egypt).
1994: Rabin/Hussein peace agreement, rejected by the rest of the Arab League (except for Egypt).
1995: Rabin’s Contour-for-Peace, rejected.
2000: Barak/Clinton peace offer, rejected.
2001: Barak’s offer at Taba, rejected.
2005: Sharon’s peace gesture, withdrawal from Gaza, rejected.
2008: Olmert/Bush peace offer, rejected.
2009 to 2021: Netanyahu’s repeated invitations to peace talks, rejected.
2014: Kerry’s Contour-for-Peace, rejected.
Not gonna link Trump’s imbecilic peace plan as an example.
Here is a list of peace offers ~~the Palestinians~~ the governing body of palestinians offered to Israel -
None
That doesn't sound right. One of those was stopped by an assassination. One was stopped by conservatives gaining power in Israel. One was stopped by a war between Fatah and Hamas.
The PLO offered peace in 2010, 2012, 2013, and 2014 and were stopped by Israel.
Many were stopped because of a Hamas attack or Israel refusing to stop taking West Bank territory.
It seems like you were saying that because Palestine didn't give in to Israel's demands every time that it's always their fault.
This is from some quick research, though. Someone feel free to correct me.
Yes, and it was all for shit because hamas threatened violence if any party thought about compromise. Aka. Exactly what i wrote.
Kind of, but not really. You were equating Hamas and all Palestinians together. They're not all the same. Lots of Palestinians want peace, including ones that have been in governing positions. I'm glad you crossed out the one sentence that did that but you've still got this one:
That's a very ambiguous "they" up there and seems to refer to all Palestinians and not just Hamas.
Hamas has been a great excuse to break off peace negotiations, though. I can see why Bibi propped them up to prevent a two state solution. It's worked wonders, although hopefully the blowback of this past event takes him out of political life forever now.
But USA can't waste billions of taxpayer's money on this if they do so
This only leads to a North Korea situation where you end up in a cycle of appeasement, every time they make a threat or attack.
Idk about you but the current situation doesn't look like appeasement to me.