A top Hamas political official told The Associated Press the Islamic militant group is willing to agree to a truce of five years or more with Israel and that it would lay down its weapons and convert into a political party if an independent Palestinian state is established along pre-1967 borders.

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
26 points

It’s important to note that for most of its existence, “fighting against Israeli oppression” explicitly meant Israel no longer existing. This is the first time I can remember them even implying that they would accept a two state solution.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

Well, they did fuck around and find out. Now they are facing an existential threat of their own and suddenly reasonable?

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Funny how that works

permalink
report
parent
reply
29 points

they accepted a two-state solution previously, the isreali PM that was negotiating with them at the time was assassinated.

permalink
report
parent
reply
32 points

Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated by an Israeli law student who didn’t believe in the peace talks. Hamas didn’t even kill him, Israel did it. No fucking surprise there.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Hamas was also not in power back then, in no position to accept or reject any solution.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

You saying Israel killed him is like saying Palestine committed Oct. 7th’s terrorist attack.

Israel didn’t kill the guy, a lone Israeli student did. This is one of those times when facts and nuance matter.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Better check that history video again. It wasn’t Hamas at that table

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

That was in the 70’s, he was killed by a student, not the government.

And the PA, including Yasser Arafat, have turned it down 4 or 5 times. Yasser Arafat turned it down last time in 2002/2004(?). They have never taken it seriously.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

If Arafat wasn’t serious about negotiations, why sit down at all and risk his position in the PLO? For decades the ‘Three Nos’ stunted any Arab-Israeli diplomacy, and the maximalists still hold sway today as they did then

Israel refused the right of return for Palestinians as a whole, while for decades doing all within their power to boost Jewish immigration, bankroll Aliyah flights, rubber stamp naturalization, and regular ‘missionary’ trips to visit US and European nations - all only for ethnic Jews, and their spouses.

A two-tiered system based on race is hardly a fair deal, especially in a democratic system where your people are denied fair representation whilst Jew from the world over are invited to jump on a plane and become a full citizen after three months

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*

Camp Davis and the Oslo Accords were a way for Israel to change the De Facto annexation of the West Bank into a De Juro annexation. While giving the PA a ‘semblence’ of a state still under Israeli Military Control. There was no offer of a sovereign state, nor of right of return. Arafat didn’t reject a Two-State Solution, he walked away from a verbal ‘offer’ of taking 90% (later ~80% once written up in Oslo) of the Occupied Palestinian Territories, while ignoring all Palestinian wants such as Right of Return and Sovereignty with an end to Occupation.

Camp David: a tragedy of errors - The Guardian

Deconstructing Camp David - Al Jazeera

What Really Happened Between Barak and Arafat at Camp David? - Haaretz

Oslo accords: 30 years on, the dream of a two-state solution seems further away than ever - The Conversation

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Every offer has been in bad faith, though, designed to be a non-starter so that Israel could claim they tried.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

they accepted a two-state solution previously, the isreali PM that was negotiating with them at the time was assassinated.

That was Fatah, not Hamas. Hamas was irrelevant back in the 90s and didn’t rise to prominence until the mid-2000s.

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points

Before 1948, Palestinian Leadership repeatedly advocated for a Unitary Binational State for decades: Palestinian Arab Congress advocating for Unified State 1928, Arab Higher Committee advocating for Unified State 1937, Arab League advocating for Unified State 1948

After the founding of Israel, the Two-State Solutions were utilized to further annex the Palestinian Occupied Territories and enact military control over Palestinians while denying them human and civil rights. This is apartheid. Despite this, both Fatah and Hamas have accepted a Two-State Solution on the 1967 borders, with the two most important factors being the Right of Return of Palestinian refugees and an end to the permanent occupation.

Oslo Accord Sources: MEE, NYT, Haaretz, AJ

History of peace process - The Intercept

The settlements represent land-grabbing, and land-grabbing and peace-making don’t go together, it is one or the other. By its actions, if not always in its rhetoric, Israel has opted for land-grabbing and as we speak Israel is expanding settlements. So, Israel has been systematically destroying the basis for a viable Palestinian state and this is the declared objective of the Likud and Netanyahu who used to pretend to accept a two-state solution. In the lead up to the last election, he said there will be no Palestinian state on his watch. The expansion of settlements and the wall mean that there cannot be a viable Palestinian state with territorial contiguity. The most that the Palestinians can hope for is Bantustans, a series of enclaves surrounded by Israeli settlements and Israeli military bases.

  • Avi Shlaim

How Avi Shlaim moved from two-state solution to one-state solution

‘One state is a game changer’: A conversation with Ilan Pappe

One State Solution, Foreign Affairs

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

They wanted a unified Arab state, and they wanted the non-Arab immigrants out

And failing that, they tried to put a genocide on them

Small details, I know

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

They wanted a unified Arab state, and they wanted the non-Arab immigrants out

It’s true they wanted it to be an Arab state, since the vast majority were Arab. It’s not that they wanted ‘non-arab immigrants’ out, it’s that Zionist Settler Colonialism was quite different from normal immigration. Instead of integration, the early land purchases led to the expulsion of tens of thousands of Palestinians in the early 1900’s. Many Palestinians opposed the Zionist Land Purchases and Immigration because of fears they would be forced out of their homes and communities, not because they were Jewish.

The Concept of Transfer 1882-1948

Transfer Committee and the JNF led to Forced Displacement of 100,000 Palestinians throughout the mandate.

And failing that, they tried to put a genocide on them

Are you talking about the Ethnic Cleansing of Palestinians? Because that was planned and carried out. There was nothing remotely equivalent from Palestinians or the Arab Liberation Army.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

They said they would accept 1967 borders in their 2017 charter, so it’s been done before. It was also less antisemitic than their previous charter. I think they’re trying to be less extreme and more flexible to get more recruitment maybe, but that’s just my guess.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

They’ve publicly held this position for nearly 20 years now. When they publicly adopted it and got elected as the new Palestinian Authority because of it, Israel immediately declared war and prevented them taking power.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

4 or 5 other times it was offered and every time it was shot down by the PA because either it wasn’t from the river to the sea or all jews have to leave.

It was never about sharing, it was about keeping it all to themselves.

permalink
report
parent
reply

World News

!world@lemmy.world

Create post

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

  • Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:

    • Post news articles only
    • Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
    • Title must match the article headline
    • Not United States Internal News
    • Recent (Past 30 Days)
    • Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
  • Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think “Is this fair use?”, it probably isn’t. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.

  • Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.

  • Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.

  • Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19

  • Rule 5: Keep it civil. 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.

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.

  • Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.

  • Rule 7: We didn’t USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you’re posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

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.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

Community stats

  • 11K

    Monthly active users

  • 17K

    Posts

  • 283K

    Comments