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.
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.
they accepted a two-state solution previously, the isreali PM that was negotiating with them at the time was assassinated.
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.
Hamas was also not in power back then, in no position to accept or reject any solution.
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.
That was Fatah, not Hamas. Hamas was irrelevant back in the 90s and didn’t rise to prominence until the mid-2000s.
Better check that history video again. It wasn’t Hamas at that table
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.
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
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
Every offer has been in bad faith, though, designed to be a non-starter so that Israel could claim they tried.
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
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
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
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.
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.
If you have sympathy for that argument, what’s the difference with jewish people who want the same? Both wanted to be the first class citizens in their country.
That’s true, but it’s not different from renters who are forced out after their landlord sells the property. It’s not a ‘nice’ part of humanity, but it’s generally accepted as ‘fair’. Of course it’s true that most zionist immigrants had no plans to integrate with non-jews. Partly because of their own religious backwardness, partly because they moved there specifically to escape religious oppression.
There certainly was: Nebi Musa riots; 1929 Palestine Riots; etc. certainly showed the intent of many Palestinian Arabs to put an ethnic cleansing on the jews.
You’re quite wrong if you don’t think the ALA or others didn’t go in with the same intent. You should look up their logo or statements from their organizers prior to their attack. The only reason one side won is because the other side lost
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.
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.
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.
Well, they did fuck around and find out. Now they are facing an existential threat of their own and suddenly reasonable?
Funny how that works