news Report: US rejected 2-state proposal offer by Palestinian Authority + 5 Arab nations

[Ryan]

20 minutes ago, Hurem said:

See how three of your points are about Israel, yet your initial post still pointed the blame at Hamas?

 

I see what you're saying and I know it's not malicious, but it just comes across very misinformed and influenced by US/Israeli propaganda talking points.

All my initial post was trying to convey is no deal would be approved as long as Hamas remains the representatives for the Palestinian government. 

Thank you for at least seeing my POV and not outright dismissing it. Even if I’m not stating every single point some want me to (because I don’t agree), my only concern is the safety and wellbeing of the Palestinian people. 

 

[Aethereal]

Israel cannot be serious with the 2 state solution without removing all the settlements from East Jerusalem and West Bank. 

[Communion]

46 minutes ago, Ryan said:

I get it. You support Hamas. You condone their actions with a "but…"There's no reason to bother engaging when you're twisting yourselves to defend the indefensible, all the while attacking anyone who doesn't think exactly the way you want. 

Sis, this just makes you appear to be engaging in bad faith. 

 

- The US said the word eradicate.

- Those outraged read the word eradicate. 

- You're arguing you somehow see the US's point but don't know why people are assuming you agree with any concept of eradication. 

 

The proposal does exactly what you say it should do. Why are you then committed to the idea that America's rejection of it is done in honesty? Should American citizens not recognize when their nation acts as a force of oppression and subjugation in the world?

[Communion]

I'm sorry but what is the meaningful difference, if any, between American liberalism that believes their government is a moral authority in the world and thus believes their government is acting in good faith when enabling genocide and MAGA American nationalism?

 

This is why progressives remain unmoved by alleged differences between Biden and Trump and many will not vote or vote 3rd party and seemingly be justified in doing so based on this thread. 

 

If one can only react so reflexively that they rush to defend Joe Biden for the sake of defending Joe Biden that the demands become objectively impossible to meet (Don't eradicate Hamas but not NOT eradicate, but remove from power but NOT like how it is proposed currently to remove them from power), where is there any semblance of "less" suffering Biden inflicts on Palestinians than Trump would? Biden and Trump both effectively do not want statehood for Palestinians. There is quite literally no material difference here. How can that be defended?

[Thickorita]

59 minutes ago, Ryan said:

I get it. You support Hamas. You condone their actions with a "but…"There's no reason to bother engaging when you're twisting yourselves to defend the indefensible, all the while attacking anyone who doesn't think exactly the way you want. 

There's no Hamas in West Bank. Why do Palestinians get locked up, raped and killed there, with their territory being eroded by settlers?

 

Understanding why Hamas was formed and has a strong support of the Palestinian people doesn't equate to supporting it. If your family was slaughtered, your entire bloodline wiped, and you lived in an open field cage, would you care how the liberation is achieved?

 

 

[Kassi]

1 hour ago, Hurem said:

Asking Palestinians to compromise further after losing so much already is fundamentally unfair.

The reason they've lost so much is precisely because of refusing to compromise. How is that not evident by now?
 

Holding on too tightly to this idea of absolute fairness seems too detached from the harsh realities of the world. This isn't like the clear-cut fairness we learn about in grade school. This is real life, where outcomes aren't always ideal. And where real people's lives hang on the balance. 

 

Consider historical precedents like the Greek-Turkish population exchange, the division of Bosnia, or Taiwan's acceptance of its status separate from mainland China. None of these situations were ideal for the parties involved, but they required concessions to move forward.

[Earth Ripper]

54 minutes ago, Kassi said:

The reason they've lost so much is precisely because of refusing to compromise.

Explain. This is a WILD ******* statement.

[rihannafan]

59 minutes ago, Kassi said:

The reason they've lost so much is precisely because of refusing to compromise. How is that not evident by now?
 

Holding on too tightly to this idea of absolute fairness seems too detached from the harsh realities of the world. This isn't like the clear-cut fairness we learn about in grade school. This is real life, where outcomes aren't always ideal. And where real people's lives hang on the balance. 

 

Consider historical precedents like the Greek-Turkish population exchange, the division of Bosnia, or Taiwan's acceptance of its status separate from mainland China. None of these situations were ideal for the parties involved, but they required concessions to move forward.

The fact that problematic **** like this goes unchecked but a palestinian member is banned is just... Let me leave this ******* forum

[byzantium]

1 hour ago, Kassi said:

The reason they've lost so much is precisely because of refusing to compromise. How is that not evident by now?

This is a really ignorant statement. 

[rihannafan]

17 minutes ago, Earth Ripper said:

Explain. This is a WILD ******* statement.

She would have to get out of Biden's ass to explain (she can't)

[Ryan]

1 hour ago, Communion said:

There is quite literally no material difference here. How can that be defended?

Youre right, Communion. You’re always right. Forgive me for ever disagreeing or doubting you. You’ve finally won be over. They’re two sides of the same coin. The literal same evil. Please direct me to which write in candidate I should support. 
 

Forget the fact that I wasn’t even defending Biden or whatever else your last couple of dissertations have covered, I was acknowledging one thing about why the deal wasn’t likely accepted and you’ve spun it off into this unnecessary narrative. 

[Kassi]

22 minutes ago, Earth Ripper said:

Explain. This is a WILD ******* statement.

The emotional and ideological layers of this conflict are deep, but if we strip it back to first principles, it's self-evident how the solutions have evolved—or devolved—over time.

 

First we start by stipulating to a certain set of assumptions:

• The Jewish population established during post-Holocaust migrations will not leave the region.
• Both Israelis and Palestinians are committed to their independence, with neither side willing to be administered by the other.
• The British, weary from World War II, are unwilling to administer both groups and are even offloading commitments like India.
• The U.S., while at its peak influence, is stretched thin implementing the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe and neutralize hostilities with Germany and Japan.

-----

Scenario #1 - 1948 Borders

• Power transfer from Turkey to Britain.
• Establishment of two states as per the UN's original partition plan.
• Result: Coexistence and mutual recognition from the outset.

Scenario #2 - 1967 Borders:

• Transition from Turkey to Britain, followed by Israeli control after the Arab-Israeli war.
• Israeli expansion to the 1967 borders.
• Result: A modification of the original plan due to wartime realities and subsequent armistice lines.

Scenario #3 - 2000 Camp David Summit Division:

• Negotiations in the 2000s aimed at addressing complex, on-ground security concerns.
• Proposed division far from the initial 1948 or 1967 visions.
• Result: Substantial concessions and adjustments from the original ideal, influenced by decades of conflict and political changes.

---

 

Obviously, "undo Nazi Germany" would be the MOST ideal outcome. But given that reality and then looking at the historical trend of this conflict, the original UN plan was clearly the best resolution. Yet some here even reject that on an ideological basis. Why?? 

 

It's baffling how anyone would suggest more resistance is the answer. Every time we've moved away from the ideal of mutual agreement, things have just gotten worse. To think that some would rather see the will of the Palestinian people broken than admit that Israel has a right to exist... is heartbreaking. And, frankly, it's horrifying to imagine pushing a group of people to the brink just to avoid compromise.

 

It was wrong when the Arab League did it in 1948 and it's emphatically wrong, not to mention irresponsible, to do now when we have history to reflect on and learn from.

[rihannafan]

Just now, Ryan said:

Youre right, Communion. You're always right. Forgive me for ever disagreeing or doubting you. You've finally won be over. They're two sides of the same coin. The literal same evil. Please direct me to which write in candidate I should support. 
 

Forget the fact that I wasn't even defending Biden or whatever else your last couple of dissertations have covered, I was acknowledging one thing about why the deal wasn't likely accepted and you've spun it off into this unnecessary narrative. 

You're not defending Biden, you're quite very clearly defending Genocide, and that's not even the slightest bit of exaggeration. Shame on you. You are no different than MAGAs.

[rihannafan]

1 minute ago, Kassi said:

The emotional and ideological layers of this conflict are deep, but if we strip it back to first principles, it's self-evident how the solutions have evolved—or devolved—over time.

 

First we start by stipulating to a certain set of assumptions:

• The Jewish population established during post-Holocaust migrations will not leave the region.
• Both Israelis and Palestinians are committed to their independence, with neither side willing to be administered by the other.
• The British, weary from World War II, are unwilling to administer both groups and are even offloading commitments like India.
• The U.S., while at its peak influence, is stretched thin implementing the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe and neutralize hostilities with Germany and Japan.

-----

Scenario #1 - 1948 Borders

• Power transfer from Turkey to Britain.
• Establishment of two states as per the UN's original partition plan.
• Result: Coexistence and mutual recognition from the outset.

Scenario #2 - 1967 Borders:

• Transition from Turkey to Britain, followed by Israeli control after the Arab-Israeli war.
• Israeli expansion to the 1967 borders.
• Result: A modification of the original plan due to wartime realities and subsequent armistice lines.

Scenario #3 - 2000 Camp David Summit Division:

• Negotiations in the 2000s aimed at addressing complex, on-ground security concerns.
• Proposed division far from the initial 1948 or 1967 visions.
• Result: Substantial concessions and adjustments from the original ideal, influenced by decades of conflict and political changes.

---

 

Obviously, "undo Nazi Germany" would be the MOST ideal outcome. But given that reality and then looking at the historical trend of this conflict, the original UN plan was clearly the best resolution. Yet some here even reject that on an ideological basis. Why?? 

 

It's baffling how anyone would suggest more resistance is the answer. Every time we've moved away from the ideal of mutual agreement, things have just gotten tougher. To think that some would rather see the will of the Palestinian people broken than admit that Israel has a right to exist... is heartbreaking. And, frankly, it's horrifying to imagine pushing a group of people to the brink just to avoid compromise.

 

It was wrong when the Arab League did it in 1948 and it's emphatically wrong, not to mention irresponsible, to do now when we have history to reflect on and learn from.

Where does this mention the ******* Naqba? i can't. The way you don't allow them ANY sovereignty.

[Aethereal]

Removing settlements from East Jerusalem and West Bank is the bare minimum. You cannot compromise for less than that.  Look at the other side:

 

 

[Ryan]

Literally doing the very opposite but okay. 

2 minutes ago, rihannafan said:

you're quite very clearly defending Genocide

[Earth Ripper]

10 hours ago, Ryan said:

This is why content is extremely important. What's the point of trying to sell a deal if the literal terrorist group responsible for the Palestinians being slaughtered is still in control?

This and all your other posts here paint a super incomplete picture. It is literally mainstream knowledge that one of Netanyahu's main political investments was to deliberately keep Hamas in power to ruin Palestinian peace plans and stigmatize Gazans as people who can't be reasoned with.

 

Any mention of Hamas being "responsible" for anything is dishonest without mentioning that it has been recent Israeli policy to make sure they keep, as you say, making it worse for Palestinians. It's delusional to paint the US as some kind of fair mediator with concerns about Hamas' presence in this when they knew Netanyahu would allow Hamas to grow from the start, and allowed him to carry out that intention. Any "concern" about Hamas now is 100% fake and we should call that out always.

 

Taking a stance against Hamas isn't the move people think it is. Palestine is a member of the ICC (unlike Israel or the US) and accepts and has in fact celebrated that body's jurisdiction over and investigations of war crimes committed by both Israel and Hamas (and other armed Palestinian groups). We should support that as a great thing that is already a momentum.

 

Meanwhile Israel, much more internationally and legally recognized, has been allowed to blatantly, repeatedly violate international law and actually threaten legal and advisory bodies with support of one of the most powerful countries of the world. It shouldn't be tough to identify which state is more dangerous and unhelpful in the long run in this scenario.

[rihannafan]

2 minutes ago, Ryan said:

Literally doing the very opposite but okay. 

You said its Hamas fault they are being killed, thus removing any blame from Israel. You are defending them.

[GhostBox]

3 minutes ago, Ryan said:

Youre right, Communion. You're always right. Forgive me for ever disagreeing or doubting you. You've finally won be over. They're two sides of the same coin. The literal same evil. Please direct me to which write in candidate I should support. 
 

Forget the fact that I wasn't even defending Biden or whatever else your last couple of dissertations have covered, I was acknowledging one thing about why the deal wasn't likely accepted and you've spun it off into this unnecessary narrative. 

Welcome to the forum where this happens on a daily basis with communion 💀

[Ryan]

1 hour ago, Thickorita said:

There's no Hamas in West Bank. Why do Palestinians get locked up, raped and killed there, with their territory being eroded by settlers?

Because the IDF are terrorists and get away with it because of the incredible sway it has over its allies (like the US) who turn a blind eye and do nothing except give them billions of dollars in aid.

 

1 hour ago, Thickorita said:

Understanding why Hamas was formed and has a strong support of the Palestinian people doesn't equate to supporting it. If your family was slaughtered, your entire bloodline wiped, and you lived in an open field cage, would you care how the liberation is achieved?

It doesn’t. But that member stated “What Hamas did was horrible, but it also was resistance violence in retaliation to decades of occupation.” I don’t see how excusing/justifying/minimizing what Hamas did is acceptable. They played right into the IDF’s hands. And they used that to justify the genocidal behavior they’ve been doing on the world stage. Who’s to say the IDF wouldn’t have found another reason to attack them? They would have for sure. But this specific round of war crimes is literally being justified because of what Hamas did on 10/7. 
 

 

let me preface that that saying of course history exists before then. That should go without saying but some people need to see it acknowledged apparently. 

[Kassi]

2 minutes ago, rihannafan said:

Where does this mention the ******* Naqba? i can't. The way you don't allow them ANY sovereignty.

It's actually useful that you bring this up. It highlights how focus on historical grievances is part of the ideological trap that prevents forward motion. 

 

This fixation is key to what perpetuates a cycle of blame and resistance that makes compromise and reconciliation increasingly difficult. 

 

A prime example of how is the 'right of return,' which has been a major sticking point in past proposals. The insistence on this right, which, while technically fair, is basically unprecedented for any group of refugees, has often derailed negotiations. Leading to a situation where Palestinians now find themselves without the right of return OR an independent state. 

 

How does any of that make sense?

 

1 hour ago, Kassi said:

Consider historical precedents like the Greek-Turkish population exchange, the division of Bosnia, or Taiwan's acceptance of its status separate from mainland China. None of these situations were ideal for the parties involved, but they required concessions to move forward.

 

[Ryan]

12 minutes ago, rihannafan said:

You said it’s Hamas fault they are being killed, thus removing any blame from Israel. You are defending them.

Jesus fucking Christ. 

[rihannafan]

1 minute ago, Ryan said:

Jesus ******* Christ. 

I know right? The fact that you permabanned Jjang, a palestinian member who is very knowledgeable about this while spewing uninformed stuff is just very telling. There is literally no excuse. 

 

Kassi is engaging in Naqba denial/dismissal and that's fine and dandy for you.

[Earth Ripper]

11 minutes ago, Kassi said:

The emotional and ideological layers of this conflict are deep, but if we strip it back to first principles, it's self-evident how the solutions have evolved—or devolved—over time.

 

First we start by stipulating to a certain set of assumptions:

• The Jewish population established during post-Holocaust migrations will not leave the region.
• Both Israelis and Palestinians are committed to their independence, with neither side willing to be administered by the other.
• The British, weary from World War II, are unwilling to administer both groups and are even offloading commitments like India.
• The U.S., while at its peak influence, is stretched thin implementing the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe and neutralize hostilities with Germany and Japan.

-----

Scenario #1 - 1948 Borders

• Power transfer from Turkey to Britain.
• Establishment of two states as per the UN's original partition plan.
• Result: Coexistence and mutual recognition from the outset.

Scenario #2 - 1967 Borders:

• Transition from Turkey to Britain, followed by Israeli control after the Arab-Israeli war.
• Israeli expansion to the 1967 borders.
• Result: A modification of the original plan due to wartime realities and subsequent armistice lines.

Scenario #3 - 2000 Camp David Summit Division:

• Negotiations in the 2000s aimed at addressing complex, on-ground security concerns.
• Proposed division far from the initial 1948 or 1967 visions.
• Result: Substantial concessions and adjustments from the original ideal, influenced by decades of conflict and political changes.

---

 

Obviously, "undo Nazi Germany" would be the MOST ideal outcome. But given that reality and then looking at the historical trend of this conflict, the original UN plan was clearly the best resolution. Yet some here even reject that on an ideological basis. Why?? 

 

It's baffling how anyone would suggest more resistance is the answer. Every time we've moved away from the ideal of mutual agreement, things have just gotten worse. To think that some would rather see the will of the Palestinian people broken than admit that Israel has a right to exist... is heartbreaking. And, frankly, it's horrifying to imagine pushing a group of people to the brink just to avoid compromise.

 

It was wrong when the Arab League did it in 1948 and it's emphatically wrong, not to mention irresponsible, to do now when we have history to reflect on and learn from.

I'm not getting what you're saying. You seem to imply that those who support Palestine are unwilling to compromise?

 

Strange given, yes, the fact that we have history to reflect on and learn from. The Oslo Accords aren't even that old. The perfect example of a compromise that could've been and could've resulted in peace right about now.

 

And Israel strategically broke them exactly to not have to compromise, despite Palestine's incredible (and controversial) concessions. This is how it has always gone. Israel simply does not want peace. Period. How can you ask Palestinians and those who support them to compromise with a party that wields and has wielded a stance like that?

[Ryan]

Just now, rihannafan said:

I know right? The fact that you permabanned Jjang, a palestinian member who is very knowledgeable about this while spewing uninformed stuff is just very telling. There is literally no excuse. 

 

Kassi is engaging in Naqba denial/dismissal and that's fine and dandy for you.

I am not the one who banned him, but you can surely join him if you’d like. Cause I’m really over you at this point.