Israel Declares War For The First Time Since 1973.

I'm a pessimist. The Camp David Accords. The Oslo Accords. The Whatever-Comes-Next Accords. None of it matters. There's too much distrust, too much animosity, too much history.I've forgotten all the details now, but somewhere in the Balkans there are Turks on one side and either Serbians or Croatians or one of those on the other. They've been fighting on and off for centuries and still cite a grievance from 800 years ago.--Percy

The Turks have a lot of ancestral enemies...add in the Armenians and Greeks.

In my view, those were more about PR than actually fixing anything. There have to be constitutional level reforms, not wishy washy, feel good nonbinding agreements.Having two states is the obvious solution, but Palestinians have fought against this tooth and nail because they only want a one state solution, a Palestinian state. No Israel. That's where we are stuck at. A two state solution has been offered to the Palestinians multiple times, and they turn it down every time. I think the only way this gets pushed through is with the help of an Arab Sunni ally (e.g. Saudi Arabia, UAE).

The PLO endorsed a two state solution in 1982. In 1974 and 1975 the PLO diplomatic delegate to the UK, Said Hamammi, endorsed a 2 state solution.
The Israeli govt has always been solidly against a two state solution. In 1977 it was a vital plank of Likud. Netanyahu has repeated this numerous times. As recently as January.
Israel’s Netanyahu reiterates rejection of Palestinian state after Gaza war
The Palestinian Declaration of Independence is an indirect recognition of Israel. The 2017 Hamas charter call for the 1967 borders which is also an indirect recognition.
Please show how and where they turned it down.
The US has repeatedly vetoed any Security Council resolutions calling for a two state solution.How do you expect the Palestinian people to react when they have no options? I am not condoning or supporting Hamas. All I am saying is that no one should be surprised with anything they do after how they have been treated by Israel, the west and Arab states for the last 75 years.
Please do research before you blindly follow propaganda.

I will fully admit that I could be completely wrong on this, but this is what I have been reading:

quote:

---

The leadership of the Palestine Liberation Organization has accepted in principle the concept of a two-state solution since the 1982 Arab Summit in Fez,[3] having previously turned down such proposals since 1937. In 2017, Hamas announced their revised charter, which claims to accept the idea of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, but without recognising the statehood of Israel, referring to it as "the Zionist entity".[4] Diplomatic efforts have centred around realizing a two-state solution, starting from the failed 2000 Camp David Summit and the Clinton Parameters, followed by the Taba Summit in 2001. The failure of the Camp David summit to reach an agreed two-state solution formed the backdrop to the commencement of the Second Intifada, the violent consequences of which led to a hardening of attitudes among the Israeli public towards a Palestinian state and marked a turning point among both peoples’ attitudes.[5][6][7] A two-state solution also formed the basis of the Arab Peace Initiative, the 2006–2008 peace offer, and the 2013–14 peace talks. Despite the failure of these, international consensus has for decades supported a two-state solution to the conflict.[8]
Two-state solution - Wikipedia

---

But in accepting the 1967 borders they are accepting Israel without declaring it outright. The accepting of 1967 borders was a huge concession. Hamas exists because of the intransigence of Israel and the US. The radicalism would not have taken over.if the Palestinian people saw a chance in negotiations with Israel. A kicked dog will bite.

That happened in 2000, and Arafat turned it down:

quote:

---

In 2000, after Yasser Arafat rejected the offer made to him by Ehud Barak based on a two-state solution and declined to negotiate for an alternative plan,[18] it became clear that Arafat would not make a deal with Israel unless it included the full Palestinian right of return, which would demographically destroy[19] the Jewish character[when defined as?] of the State of Israel.[20][21] For this reason, critics of Arafat claim that he put his desire to destroy the Jewish state above his dream of building an autonomous Palestinian state.[22]
Palestinian views on the peace process - Wikipedia

---

And again in 2008:

quote:

---

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has publicly admitted for the first time that he turned down a chance for a two-state peace deal with Israel in 2008 that would have given him nearly all the land the Palestinians wanted.

​

The offer by former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert included a near-total Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and a land link to the Gaza Strip. The Old City of East Jerusalem, home to Jewish and Arab holy sites, would have been under international control.
Abbas Admits Rejecting Two-State Peace Plan With Israel in 2008

---

Added in edit:Also,
reuters.com

Let's start with Abbas. His own words seem to show he did not outright reject the offer and negotiations continued on the offer. The negotiations in fact fell apart on the Israeli side when Olmert was forced to resign due to corruption charges.
From your source.

quote:

---

Abbas said in an interview with Israel's Channel 10 television that he rejected the deal because he was not given the chance to study the map that spelled out Olmert's offer.

​

"He said to me, 'Here's a map. See it? That's all.' I respected his decision not to give me the map," Abbas said. "But how can we sign something that hasn't been given us, that hasn't been discussed?"

​

Olmert also spoke to Israeli TV, saying he told Abbas that it would be another 50 years before the Palestinians got another offer like the one he was giving them.

​

Abbas said in the interview, which aired late Tuesday, that negotiations continued but soon fell apart as Olmert, facing corruption charges, resigned.

---

As for Arafat, here is the Wiki entry on the negotiations. It is much more complicated than one sentence.
2000 Camp David Summit - Wikipedia
Here is one line from Wiki that puts into question Israeli seriousness of actually getting a deal.

quote:

---

The proposals made to the Palestinians were never put into writing, but told orally to Palestinian negotiators.[40] There are conflicting accounts as to what transpired

---

Read the whole thing. Look at what the Palestinians offered. Then look at what Israel may have offered. No one really knows. It wasn't written down.

Basically, if you are being starved by someone and they give you a shit sandwich are you at fault for not eating it?

What I've been posting is based on my recollections from the past half century. I haven't refreshed my memory with Internet searches or Wikipedia pages.My recollection is that the both Israel and the Palestinians have taken moderate or compromise-leaning positions on the one hand, and extreme positions on the other, sometimes by factions in a position of leadership or power, sometimes by factions out of leadership or power. Israel has been threatened with being pushed into the sea and experienced violence, and also been offered compromise. The Palestinians have experienced what Israeli rule means first hand, and heard voices of Israeli compromise.Given all that's been said and happened over the past half century it feels like one could find arguments for whatever position of blame one prefers. But the Palestinians don't have a state to lose and have a desperation born of hopelessness. They have nothing to lose.But Israel already has a state and therefore a lot more to lose, namely their country's very existence. They're not going to be able to hold hostile neighbors at bay through force forever. It's imperative that they find some way to get along with their neighbors. They will not survive perpetual war forever.--Percy

Exactly Israel continues to make bad situations worse. They continue to breed generations of terrorists.

That might be on purpose you know, what better way for Netanyahu to stay in power than an enemy closeby? One that can't do serious harm and if they do, well, you can strike back hard and the people will love you for it.I don't think Netanyahu would be in the position he's in right now if the people didn't focus on Palestine but instead on him.But that's just a thought, I don't quite have evidence for this.

Every Israeli govt and PM has worked against peace. The PM's and political parties use the threat of war as a means to maintain power. There is no incentive for peace. The Israeli economy is based upon a military industrial complex that puts the one in the US to shame.
The only reason they can continue to this is because they have the biggest bully in the world protecting them. Criticism of Israel is the final third rail in US politics. There is a bizarre alliance between the hard right orthodox jews and
the hard right evangelical christians. Each side thinks they are using the other and they hate each other. They hate each other so much they declare anathema on each other and would eradicate that other if they gained authoritarian power.
The Jews want a jewish "biblical" state. Outlaw other religions and institute a jewish patriarchy. The christians hope supporting Israel will lead to Armageddon and the return of sky baby jesus.
The US will continue to stand by as Israel commits atrocities.
Here are some articles on the Israeli govt and it's funding, support of Hamas.
How Israel Secretly Propped Up Hamas - The New York TimesIsrael was complicit in the creation of Hamas. They encouraged it to sideline Arafat. If Arafat had less power, there would be less of a chance of pressure from its allies to work toward a two-state solution.https://www.washingtonpost.com/...israel-helped-create-hamasInstead, we have yet another generation of Palestinian fighters.

In 2000, Arafat wouldn't even negotiate. When it came down to actually realizing a two-state solution instead of just talking about it, Arafat walked away.The deal was all of Gaza and 92% of the West Bank under Palestinian sovereignty. How is that a shit sandwich? And that was just the initial offer. As you said before:"The radicalism would not have taken over.if the Palestinian people saw a chance in negotiations with Israel."Well, they were offered serious negotiations, and a pretty good deal right off the bat. That happened again in 2008, and again Abbas didn't take advantage of it.

Bull shit. Arafat and the Palestinians had solid proposals. The Israeli's made amorphous oral proposals. Nothing written down.
Israel made a take it or leave it offer. They are the ones that cut of negotiations.
The Israeli "initial offer" was there first and final offer. There are reports that Israel wanted between 8 and 15%. That was only part of "the negotiations". The Israeli proposal put them in charge of most of Jerusalem, even Arab areas. Al-Aqsa mosque stays under Israeli control.(Israel knows this is a nonstarter). Why do you continue to try to portray the Gordian Knot of our time as having a simple solution? Do you think Ukraine should just accept whatever Russia wants?As I stated earlier Israel"s desire for "serious negotiations" has been very questionable. They repeatedly offer onerous terms and when the Palestians don't just gratefully accept Israel and the US claim the Palestinians do not want a deal.
Have you read anything besides propaganda about this subject? Did you read the wiki link about the 2000 talks? Do you actually think what Abbas says is an admission of walking away from a legitimate deal? We know the reality is that he did not take Israel's first terms and the Israelis ultimately ended the talks.The Palestinians have their issues and continue to devolve. Israel has huge issues and inflamed the situation for political and financial reasons.
Both sides are responsible for the situation. The difference is Israel is supposedly a democratic state that follows the rule of law.