[edanm]

> A two-state solution is a fever dream if the occupier is uninterested in it. We’ve seen that repeatedly for the past 75+ years in actions and literal words.

First, the Palestinian territories have not been under occupation for 75 years.

Second, there was a real effort at arriving at a two state solution made by Israel. It's often debated who is "at fault" for no solution having been reached, but without rehashing it - I think it's simply false to say that "the occupier is uninterested in a two-state solution. Not when Israelis elected politicians multiple times over 15 years to seek such a solution, not when Israeli politicians multiple time reached compromises with the Palestinians.

Btw, I think both sides often claim, falsely, that the other side is incapable of compromise - I think it's important to keep pointing out that this is false and that actual meaningful steps towards peace have been achieved. Especially outsiders should be looking at this broad perspective, and not play up the "one side is inherently unreasonable" argument, which is never true.

[xfax]

My understanding is that every major attempt at getting to a two-state solution has been encumbered by pre-conditions set by Israel that have made the negotiations a non-starter.

For example, any deal that would have Israel give back territories it has been occupying since 1967 has never even been on the table.

The Oslo accords, perhaps the most serious of these, were deeply unpopular on both sides.

Also, any and all attempts by Palestinians to get formal recognition in the UN have been repeatedly vetoed by the United States.

[edanm]

> My understanding is that every major attempt at getting to a two-state solution has been encumbered by pre-conditions set by Israel that have made the negotiations a non-starter.

I'm sorry, not sure how else to say this - you're simply wrong. Pretty much everyone involved in the negotiations at the time disagrees with this idea. Whether the "final" offer that Israel gave to the Palestinians was "enough" or not is of course a matter of some opinion, though many at the time, both Israelis and Americans, thought that they were given an incredibly generous offer. In any case, the Palestinians never came back with a counteroffer of what they would accept, so it's hard to say how close or far Israel was from the "minimum" that Palestinians would consider acceptable.

> For example, any deal that would have Israel give back territories it has been occupying since 1967 has never even been on the table.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Literally every deal is that the West Bank and Gaza become part of a Palestinian state, that's the territories that Israel has occupied since 1967. One other territory, the Sinai, was given back to Egypt as part of the peace deal with Egypt (and is, btw, 4x the size of all of Israel).

And the Palestinian authority, as part of Oslo, did get a limited sovereignity over parts of the West Bank. Israel also completely left Gaza in 2005, though it still had some control over it, and imposed a blockade when Hamas was elected (together with Egypt).

So again, I'm not sure what you mean - literally every deal starts with Israel giving the pre-1967 land to the Palestinians, with some land swaps for land that Israel prefers not to give (btw, you call it "giving back" the land, which is inaccurate - it was never the Palestinian's land, it was part of Jordan and Egypt when it was occupied).

> The Oslo accords, perhaps the most serious of these, were deeply unpopular on both sides.

They are probably deeply unpopular now, but I don't think they were deeply unpopular at the time on the Israeli side. Indeed Israel elected multiple people trying to pursue peace after the Oslo accords, and while none of them had overwhelming public support, they had enough support to form majority coalitions and actually try to negotiate.

They're unpopular now because the result of what to Israelis looks like serious attempts at achieving peace with the Palestinians, ended with violence, terror and refusal to cooperate on the side of the Palestinians.

[aguaviva]

First, the Palestinian territories have not been under occupation for 75 years.

Only in its internal propaganda. The UN and even Israel's strongest allies consider all 4 areas to be occupied, and illegally so.

(With Gaza one try to could quibble that there was no "effective" occupation from 2005-2023, but even that was never true in regard to control of Gaza's borders).

[edanm]

> Only in its internal propaganda. The UN and even Israel's strongest allies consider all 4 areas to be occupied, and illegally so.

Oh, I meant that it hasn't been 75 years, not that the territories aren't occupied. They've only been occupied since 1967.

This isn't just a quibble btw - it's worth asking who the territories are occupied from. Because there was never a Palestinian state, and those territories belonged to Jordan and Egypt, who don't want them and have peace with Israel. Normally "Occupied" territory is territory that is contested by the country it was occupied from.

In this case it's more complicated, because the Palestinians that live on that land consider it theirs and have nationalistic aspirations. Which I 100% support, and absolutely think an agreement should be reached.

(Btw, itt is worth asking why, in the 20 years during which Egypt and Jordan had control over those territories, a Palestinian state wasn't created.)

[aguaviva]

Oh, I meant that it hasn't been 75 years, not that the territories aren't occupied.

You are right of course. It's been so long, I lose track of the math myself.