Saudi Arabia’s top diplomat says the kingdom will not normalize relations with Israel or contribute to Gaza’s reconstruction without a credible path to a Palestinian state.
A Palestinian state wouldn’t fix it either, considering that Hamas and similar groups in the area very explicitly want ALL the territory and want Israel to not exist at all.
Many Palestinians would probably be happy for recognition of state I imagine but Hamas very likely would not. It’s currently a convenient excuse for them but if it happened I highly doubt they would stop trying to lob missiles over the border and be a peaceful neighbour, even if Israel stopped trying to steal land.
Not saying it shouldn’t happen but it’s not some magical solution like many seem to think.
If they didn’t stop they would lose all support. They’ve explicitly said they’d accept a Palestinian state with the 1969 borders or a single state solution with rights for everyone.
At the end of the day though, those are also just the best solutions. Genocide certainly ain’t it.
Israel has been building settlements in the West Bank for years. To say nothing of their bombings in Lebanon. They are a state that consistently does not respect borders.
Hamas has explicitly said they would accept the 1969 borders with no settlers, no IDF presence, and an actual Palestinian state that’s not controlled by Israel.
The following are considered null and void: the Balfour Declaration, the British Mandate Document, the UN Palestine Partition Resolution, and whatever resolutions and measures that derive from them or are similar to them. The establishment of “Israel” is entirely illegal and contravenes the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and goes against their will and the will of the Ummah; it is also in violation of human rights that are guaranteed by international conventions, foremost among them is the right to self-determination.
Which certainly sounds like them wanting to destroy Israel.
They’re saying they don’t consider the state of Israel to be legal. That does not mean they intend to keep fighting after their demands for a Palestinian state are met. They are very clear about their peace goals and they do not include the dissolution of Israel.
Moreover, if the links have been distant from each other and if obstacles, placed by those who are the lackeys of Zionism in the way of the fighters obstructed the continuation of the struggle, the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah’s promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:
“The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews.” (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).
Or,
“ Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it" (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory). “
Well no. Because this charter is meant to supersede that. Just like nobody accuses the US of banning alcohol after having replaced that amendment with one saying alcohol is fine again. Trying to hang the original charter around their neck like an anchor is a propaganda thing meant to prevent them from moderating.
Considering they have still been launching rockets at civilian centers not to mention killing innocent Israelis, taking hostages, etc since putting in the new charter, Im not sure I believe them.
Good is relative. What you mean is that there isn’t a perfect solution. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
So if your argument is that a two state solution isn’t perfect, therefore we shouldn’t do it, then that’s tacit approval for my first solution…a final solution if you will. Just pick a side, and poof.
If you’re not comfortable with genocide, then a two state solution is the only viable path forward with any hope of chance of being made into a good outcome, even if not a perfect one.
So pick one: a final solution or a two-state solution, but stop with the wishy-washy “the status quo must remain until a perfect solution is found”.
Don’t get me wrong I’d love a two state solution or really any solution where they stop killing each other. But in order for a two state solution to happen, you need both sides to agree on the borders, and good luck with that.
An Israeli state wouldn’t fix it either, considering that Kahanites and similar groups in the area very explicitly want ALL the territory and want Palestine to not exist at all.
A Palestinian state wouldn’t fix it either, considering that Hamas and similar groups in the area very explicitly want ALL the territory and want Israel to not exist at all.
You’re down voted for truth.
Many Palestinians would probably be happy for recognition of state I imagine but Hamas very likely would not. It’s currently a convenient excuse for them but if it happened I highly doubt they would stop trying to lob missiles over the border and be a peaceful neighbour, even if Israel stopped trying to steal land.
Not saying it shouldn’t happen but it’s not some magical solution like many seem to think.
If they didn’t stop they would lose all support. They’ve explicitly said they’d accept a Palestinian state with the 1969 borders or a single state solution with rights for everyone.
At the end of the day though, those are also just the best solutions. Genocide certainly ain’t it.
Israel has been building settlements in the West Bank for years. To say nothing of their bombings in Lebanon. They are a state that consistently does not respect borders.
Hamas has explicitly said they would accept the 1969 borders with no settlers, no IDF presence, and an actual Palestinian state that’s not controlled by Israel.
So try again.
The same Hamas whose charter explicitly calls for the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people? Sure.
Go read it. No seriously. Stop letting Israel tell you what it says, and actually go read it.
Here’s the link.
They clearly do not like Zionism and would love to have the entire region back. But they lay out their demands for peace pretty clearly.
Also in the linked 2017 charter they state
Which certainly sounds like them wanting to destroy Israel.
They’re saying they don’t consider the state of Israel to be legal. That does not mean they intend to keep fighting after their demands for a Palestinian state are met. They are very clear about their peace goals and they do not include the dissolution of Israel.
Declare our state legitimate, but also
Your state is illegitimate.
Sounds entirely peaceful and would not lead to further future conflicts.
And then you look at their original 1988 charter,
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp
Where they say…
Moreover, if the links have been distant from each other and if obstacles, placed by those who are the lackeys of Zionism in the way of the fighters obstructed the continuation of the struggle, the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah’s promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:
“The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews.” (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).
Or,
“ Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it" (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory). “
Well no. Because this charter is meant to supersede that. Just like nobody accuses the US of banning alcohol after having replaced that amendment with one saying alcohol is fine again. Trying to hang the original charter around their neck like an anchor is a propaganda thing meant to prevent them from moderating.
Do we want less violence or more?
Considering they have still been launching rockets at civilian centers not to mention killing innocent Israelis, taking hostages, etc since putting in the new charter, Im not sure I believe them.
Great, then it’s solved. The only solution is genocide. Doesn’t matter which side, just pick one, and kill them all.
That is what you’re saying, right?
There is no good solution to the current state of things.
Good is relative. What you mean is that there isn’t a perfect solution. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
So if your argument is that a two state solution isn’t perfect, therefore we shouldn’t do it, then that’s tacit approval for my first solution…a final solution if you will. Just pick a side, and poof.
If you’re not comfortable with genocide, then a two state solution is the only viable path forward with any hope of chance of being made into a good outcome, even if not a perfect one.
So pick one: a final solution or a two-state solution, but stop with the wishy-washy “the status quo must remain until a perfect solution is found”.
Don’t get me wrong I’d love a two state solution or really any solution where they stop killing each other. But in order for a two state solution to happen, you need both sides to agree on the borders, and good luck with that.
Just remind the Israeli government who holds the biggest stick and which hand feeds them.
Reminder that the UN has tried to implement the two state solution before but the Arab side said “No we want all of it”