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.
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.
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.
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.
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”
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.