Israel declares war on Hamas

[Manhattanboy]

Nm

[Manhattanboy]

From the Department of the Incredible. Apparently a true story.

https://www.burnabynow.com/local-new...-exist-8964129

“The Burnaby school district says it is taking "immediate action" after learning about an elementary school social studies exam that asked Grade 6/7 students to argue for and against whether Jewish people "deserve or need a homeland."

"Regardless of intention, the question is deeply concerning and could be trauma-inducing for students, and particularly Jewish children," superintendent Karim Hachlaf said in a statement posted on the district's website. "I am grateful to the family of one of the students in the class for raising this. On behalf of the Burnaby school district, I apologize. As a district, we are taking steps to address the harm."

The exam question, which was posted on social media, said "some believe that Jewish people deserve or need a homeland (Israel) while others believe that Israel should not exist."

It then asked students to provide an argument for why Israel should exist and an opposing argument for why it should not.

"This does not necessarily reflect your own views but rather shows that you are aware of arguments made from opposing perspectives," stated the exam.“

Local school officials are now "moving swiftly" to address the incident, the district said, launching an investigation, working with the school and reaching out to the class and families to offer support.

“The district will also contact Jewish community organizations to determine any additional care and supports that might be of benefit and work with elementary school principals and vice principals to "reinforce use of appropriate learning resources within our schools."

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

From the Department of the Incredible. Apparently a true story.

https://www.burnabynow.com/local-new...-exist-8964129

“The Burnaby school district says it is taking "immediate action" after learning about an elementary school social studies exam that asked Grade 6/7 students to argue for and against whether Jewish people "deserve or need a homeland."

"Regardless of intention, the question is deeply concerning and could be trauma-inducing for students, and particularly Jewish children," superintendent Karim Hachlaf said in a statement posted on the district's website. "I am grateful to the family of one of the students in the class for raising this. On behalf of the Burnaby school district, I apologize. As a district, we are taking steps to address the harm."

The exam question, which was posted on social media, said "some believe that Jewish people deserve or need a homeland (Israel) while others believe that Israel should not exist."

It then asked students to provide an argument for why Israel should exist and an opposing argument for why it should not.

"This does not necessarily reflect your own views but rather shows that you are aware of arguments made from opposing perspectives," stated the exam.“

Local school officials are now "moving swiftly" to address the incident, the district said, launching an investigation, working with the school and reaching out to the class and families to offer support.

“The district will also contact Jewish community organizations to determine any additional care and supports that might be of benefit and work with elementary school principals and vice principals to "reinforce use of appropriate learning resources within our schools."

That's wild that they expect that, especially given so many of the "adults" here can't even seem to do the bolded at the best of times.

On a serious note I always wonder the thought process or lack there of that goes into these types of decisions. This is always a lose-lose.

[Fuzz]

Possibly a teacher who is very impassionate and doesn't have a horse in the fight. We used to do stuff like that in Social Studies all the time, including for the first Gulf War. It's a useful exercise, and it's possible the students are much more mature than many of the adults getting upset about it.


That being said, I can see the concerns given the elevated level of hatred directed at undeserving innocent Jewish people right now.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Possibly a teacher who is very impassionate and doesn't have a horse in the fight. We used to do stuff like that in Social Studies all the time, including for the first Gulf War. It's a useful exercise, and it's possible the students are much more mature than many of the adults getting upset about it.


That being said, I can see the concerns given the elevated level of hatred directed at undeserving innocent Jewish people right now.

There’s certainly value in having young people learn to evaluate this conflict from the lens of both Israeli and Palestinian people, but that seems like a really poorly chosen angle.

Not quite “teach the good things the Nazis did in equal measure” which I know some classical liberals are huge fans of, but certainly closer to that than a fair and well thought-out question.

[Fuzz]

Perhaps a better way of doing it would have been to say something like keeping the original statement as a setup(it is true) and then have the students find another example, such as Catalonia, or indigenous groups, to defend or refute the idea that a group of people is entitled to a homeland, without venturing into the thought that existing ones should be destroyed. But grade 6/7 is probably too young for that.

[Zary's-Mustache]

So honest question what's the difference between people thinking Israel doesn't have the right to exist and Israel not allowing a Palestinian state to exist?

I, for one, believe Israel should exist. No country has the right to exist. You either exist, or you don't.

People of all faith have the right to exist and live in peace in whatever borders they live in.

But don't see why there is outrage for the question asked especially when the Israel government literally does not let a Palestinian state exist.

More hypocrisy and trying to be a victim.

[Fuzzy14]

I don't have an issue with this type of question... in high school social studies. Grade 6/7 children are not mature enough to deal with the nuance involved with such a difficult topic.

High School social studies students should be, and often are, asked to grapple with a variety of complicated topics. This is just way to grown-up of a topic for them.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy14

I don't have an issue with this type of question... in high school social studies. Grade 6/7 children are not mature enough to deal with the nuance involved with such a difficult topic.

High School social studies students should be, and often are, asked to grapple with a variety of complicated topics. This is just way to grown-up of a topic for them.

Agreed, which makes me think perhaps there are ulterior motives.

[Skootenbeeten]

Originally Posted by Zary's-Mustache

So honest question what's the difference between people thinking Israel doesn't have the right to exist and Israel not allowing a Palestinian state to exist?

I, for one, believe Israel should exist. No country has the right to exist. You either exist, or you don't.

People of all faith have the right to exist and live in peace in whatever borders they live in.

But don't see why there is outrage for the question asked especially when the Israel government literally does not let a Palestinian state exist.

More hypocrisy and trying to be a victim.

Easy, Palestine has been offered a state numerous times and turned it down each time in favor of violent bloodshed. You're spreading what is known as "bull####" by saying nonsense like "Israel has stopped Palestine from having a state". Does it make you happy inside to blatantly lie?



1919: Arabs of Palestine refused nominate representatives to the Paris Peace Conference.
1920: San Remo conference decisions, rejected.
1922: League of Nations decisions, rejected.
1937: Peel Commission partition proposal, rejected.
1938: Woodhead partition proposal, rejected
1947: UN General Assembly partition proposal (UNGAR 181), rejected.
1949: Israel's outstretched hand for peace (UNGAR 194), rejected.
1967: Israel's outstretched hand for peace (UNSCR 242), rejected.
1978: Begin/Sa’adat peace proposal, rejected (except for Egypt).
1994: Rabin/Hussein peace agreement, rejected by the rest of the Arab League (except for Egypt).
1995: Rabin's Contour-for-Peace, rejected.
2000: Barak/Clinton peace offer, rejected.
2001: Barak’s offer at Taba, rejected.
2005: Sharon's peace gesture, withdrawal from Gaza, rejected.
2008: Olmert/Bush peace offer, rejected.
2009 to present: Netanyahu's repeated invitations to peace talks, rejected.
2014: Kerry's Contour-for-Peace, rejected.
The real problem is Palestine refuses to accept the state of Israel existing, they want all of the land for themselves and will never agree to live beside Israel.

[Leondros]

1919: Arabs of Palestine Refused to Nominate Representatives to the Paris Peace Conference
Palestinians felt that the Paris Peace Conference was dominated by colonial powers with a biased agenda. They believed participating would legitimize decisions made without their consent, particularly the Balfour Declaration, which promised a national home for Jews in Palestine without consulting the indigenous Arab population.

1920: San Remo Conference Decisions, Rejected
The San Remo Conference granted Britain the mandate over Palestine, formalizing the Balfour Declaration's promise. Palestinians viewed this as a betrayal and a denial of their right to self-determination, seeing it as paving the way for increased Jewish immigration and future displacement.

1922: League of Nations Decisions, Rejected
The League of Nations ratified the British Mandate, incorporating the Balfour Declaration. Palestinians saw this as international endorsement of colonial rule and the Zionist project, undermining their national aspirations and demographic majority.

1937: Peel Commission Partition Proposal, Rejected
The Peel Commission proposed partitioning Palestine, allocating a significant portion to a Jewish state. Palestinians rejected it because it involved dividing their homeland and legitimizing large-scale Jewish immigration and settlement on lands they considered inherently Arab.

1938: Woodhead Partition Proposal, Rejected
The Woodhead Commission's revised partition plans still entailed significant land loss for Palestinians and failed to address their demands for independence and majority control. Palestinians continued to oppose the principle of partitioning their country.

1947: UN General Assembly Partition Proposal (UNGAR 181), Rejected
The UN partition plan proposed creating separate Jewish and Arab states, giving 55% of the land to the Jewish minority. Palestinians rejected it, believing it was unjust and favored the Zionist movement, leading to the dispossession and displacement of many Arabs.

1949: Israel's Outstretched Hand for Peace (UNGAR 194), Rejected
UNGAR 194 included a call for Palestinian refugees to return home. Palestinians viewed Israel's peace overtures skeptically, as they were paired with the expectation to recognize and legitimize the state of Israel without addressing the core issues of refugees, land rights, and sovereignty.

1967: Israel's Outstretched Hand for Peace (UNSCR 242), Rejected
After the Six-Day War, UNSCR 242 called for withdrawal from occupied territories but was ambiguous and did not explicitly call for complete withdrawal from all territories or address the rights of Palestinians to self-determination and statehood.

1978: Begin/Sa’adat Peace Proposal, Rejected (Except for Egypt)
The Camp David Accords focused primarily on peace between Egypt and Israel, neglecting Palestinian aspirations for an independent state and ignoring the broader Palestinian-Israeli conflict, leading other Arab states and Palestinians to reject it.

1994: Rabin/Hussein Peace Agreement, Rejected by the Rest of the Arab League (Except for Egypt)
While Jordan and Israel made peace, Palestinians and other Arab nations felt the agreement failed to adequately address Palestinian sovereignty, refugee rights, and the status of Jerusalem.

1995: Rabin's Contour-for-Peace, Rejected
Rabin's proposals were seen as insufficient in addressing core Palestinian demands such as the right of return for refugees, full sovereignty, and control over East Jerusalem, leading to a lack of confidence in the peace process.

2000: Barak/Clinton Peace Offer, Rejected
Palestinians viewed the offer as inadequate, particularly regarding territorial contiguity, the right of return for refugees, and control over East Jerusalem. They felt the proposal did not ensure a viable and sovereign Palestinian state.

2001: Barak’s Offer at Taba, Rejected
Although progress was made, significant gaps remained on key issues such as borders, refugees, and Jerusalem. Palestinians believed the offer still fell short of meeting their minimum national rights and aspirations.

2005: Sharon's Peace Gesture, Withdrawal from Gaza, Rejected
Palestinians saw the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza as a strategy to solidify Israeli control over the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The move was perceived as insufficient and a way to avoid broader peace negotiations.

2008: Olmert/Bush Peace Offer, Rejected
Despite significant concessions, Palestinians felt the proposal did not adequately address the right of return for refugees, full sovereignty, or a fair division of Jerusalem. They also doubted the sincerity and feasibility of implementation.

2009 to Present: Netanyahu's Repeated Invitations to Peace Talks, Rejected
Palestinians viewed Netanyahu's offers as lacking in substance, with ongoing settlement expansion in the West Bank undermining trust and any genuine commitment to a two-state solution. They felt these invitations were more about improving Israel's international image than achieving a just peace.

2014: Kerry's Contour-for-Peace, Rejected
Palestinians felt Kerry's framework did not sufficiently address their key demands on borders, the status of Jerusalem, and the rights of refugees. There was also skepticism about the U.S. being an impartial mediator and doubts about Israel's willingness to follow through on necessary compromises.

ChatGPT makes my life so much easier

[Bownesian]

To the original point, Israel has offered a Palestinian state lots of times.

So far as I know, no Palestinian government has ever reciprocated by acknowledging the legitimacy of Israel.

[PepsiFree]

The Netanyahu mention was discrediting of the entire list anyway, considering Netanyahu and other Israeli officials enabled and encouraged funding of Hamas with the express purpose of making a Palestinian state impossible.

[Bownesian]

It's pretty infantilizing to say that the Palestinians could have opted for a two state solution but for the meddling of one Israeli Prime Minister.

They have agency and they and their allies have chosen to reject an independent Israel for more than 75 years.

[Skootenbeeten]

Originally Posted by Leondros

1919: Arabs of Palestine Refused to Nominate Representatives to the Paris Peace Conference
Palestinians felt that the Paris Peace Conference was dominated by colonial powers with a biased agenda. They believed participating would legitimize decisions made without their consent, particularly the Balfour Declaration, which promised a national home for Jews in Palestine without consulting the indigenous Arab population.

1920: San Remo Conference Decisions, Rejected
The San Remo Conference granted Britain the mandate over Palestine, formalizing the Balfour Declaration's promise. Palestinians viewed this as a betrayal and a denial of their right to self-determination, seeing it as paving the way for increased Jewish immigration and future displacement.

1922: League of Nations Decisions, Rejected
The League of Nations ratified the British Mandate, incorporating the Balfour Declaration. Palestinians saw this as international endorsement of colonial rule and the Zionist project, undermining their national aspirations and demographic majority.

1937: Peel Commission Partition Proposal, Rejected
The Peel Commission proposed partitioning Palestine, allocating a significant portion to a Jewish state. Palestinians rejected it because it involved dividing their homeland and legitimizing large-scale Jewish immigration and settlement on lands they considered inherently Arab.

1938: Woodhead Partition Proposal, Rejected
The Woodhead Commission's revised partition plans still entailed significant land loss for Palestinians and failed to address their demands for independence and majority control. Palestinians continued to oppose the principle of partitioning their country.

1947: UN General Assembly Partition Proposal (UNGAR 181), Rejected
The UN partition plan proposed creating separate Jewish and Arab states, giving 55% of the land to the Jewish minority. Palestinians rejected it, believing it was unjust and favored the Zionist movement, leading to the dispossession and displacement of many Arabs.

1949: Israel's Outstretched Hand for Peace (UNGAR 194), Rejected
UNGAR 194 included a call for Palestinian refugees to return home. Palestinians viewed Israel's peace overtures skeptically, as they were paired with the expectation to recognize and legitimize the state of Israel without addressing the core issues of refugees, land rights, and sovereignty.

1967: Israel's Outstretched Hand for Peace (UNSCR 242), Rejected
After the Six-Day War, UNSCR 242 called for withdrawal from occupied territories but was ambiguous and did not explicitly call for complete withdrawal from all territories or address the rights of Palestinians to self-determination and statehood.

1978: Begin/Sa’adat Peace Proposal, Rejected (Except for Egypt)
The Camp David Accords focused primarily on peace between Egypt and Israel, neglecting Palestinian aspirations for an independent state and ignoring the broader Palestinian-Israeli conflict, leading other Arab states and Palestinians to reject it.

1994: Rabin/Hussein Peace Agreement, Rejected by the Rest of the Arab League (Except for Egypt)
While Jordan and Israel made peace, Palestinians and other Arab nations felt the agreement failed to adequately address Palestinian sovereignty, refugee rights, and the status of Jerusalem.

1995: Rabin's Contour-for-Peace, Rejected
Rabin's proposals were seen as insufficient in addressing core Palestinian demands such as the right of return for refugees, full sovereignty, and control over East Jerusalem, leading to a lack of confidence in the peace process.

2000: Barak/Clinton Peace Offer, Rejected
Palestinians viewed the offer as inadequate, particularly regarding territorial contiguity, the right of return for refugees, and control over East Jerusalem. They felt the proposal did not ensure a viable and sovereign Palestinian state.

2001: Barak’s Offer at Taba, Rejected
Although progress was made, significant gaps remained on key issues such as borders, refugees, and Jerusalem. Palestinians believed the offer still fell short of meeting their minimum national rights and aspirations.

2005: Sharon's Peace Gesture, Withdrawal from Gaza, Rejected
Palestinians saw the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza as a strategy to solidify Israeli control over the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The move was perceived as insufficient and a way to avoid broader peace negotiations.

2008: Olmert/Bush Peace Offer, Rejected
Despite significant concessions, Palestinians felt the proposal did not adequately address the right of return for refugees, full sovereignty, or a fair division of Jerusalem. They also doubted the sincerity and feasibility of implementation.

2009 to Present: Netanyahu's Repeated Invitations to Peace Talks, Rejected
Palestinians viewed Netanyahu's offers as lacking in substance, with ongoing settlement expansion in the West Bank undermining trust and any genuine commitment to a two-state solution. They felt these invitations were more about improving Israel's international image than achieving a just peace.

2014: Kerry's Contour-for-Peace, Rejected
Palestinians felt Kerry's framework did not sufficiently address their key demands on borders, the status of Jerusalem, and the rights of refugees. There was also skepticism about the U.S. being an impartial mediator and doubts about Israel's willingness to follow through on necessary compromises.

ChatGPT makes my life so much easier

Tossing some weak ass excuse still doesn't justify rejecting almost 20 offers and leading to almost 100 years of war. Stop blaming Israel for Palestine rejecting every attempt at peace. Palestine is the one standing in the way of a peaceful resolution.


At the end of the day this is what everyone knows it is, this is Palestine prolonging a war over land, murdering civilians over land.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Leondros

1919: Arabs of Palestine Refused to Nominate Representatives to the Paris Peace Conference
Palestinians felt that the Paris Peace Conference was dominated by colonial powers with a biased agenda. They believed participating would legitimize decisions made without their consent, particularly the Balfour Declaration, which promised a national home for Jews in Palestine without consulting the indigenous Arab population.

1920: San Remo Conference Decisions, Rejected
The San Remo Conference granted Britain the mandate over Palestine, formalizing the Balfour Declaration's promise. Palestinians viewed this as a betrayal and a denial of their right to self-determination, seeing it as paving the way for increased Jewish immigration and future displacement.

1922: League of Nations Decisions, Rejected
The League of Nations ratified the British Mandate, incorporating the Balfour Declaration. Palestinians saw this as international endorsement of colonial rule and the Zionist project, undermining their national aspirations and demographic majority.

1937: Peel Commission Partition Proposal, Rejected
The Peel Commission proposed partitioning Palestine, allocating a significant portion to a Jewish state. Palestinians rejected it because it involved dividing their homeland and legitimizing large-scale Jewish immigration and settlement on lands they considered inherently Arab.

1938: Woodhead Partition Proposal, Rejected
The Woodhead Commission's revised partition plans still entailed significant land loss for Palestinians and failed to address their demands for independence and majority control. Palestinians continued to oppose the principle of partitioning their country.

1947: UN General Assembly Partition Proposal (UNGAR 181), Rejected
The UN partition plan proposed creating separate Jewish and Arab states, giving 55% of the land to the Jewish minority. Palestinians rejected it, believing it was unjust and favored the Zionist movement, leading to the dispossession and displacement of many Arabs.

1949: Israel's Outstretched Hand for Peace (UNGAR 194), Rejected
UNGAR 194 included a call for Palestinian refugees to return home. Palestinians viewed Israel's peace overtures skeptically, as they were paired with the expectation to recognize and legitimize the state of Israel without addressing the core issues of refugees, land rights, and sovereignty.

1967: Israel's Outstretched Hand for Peace (UNSCR 242), Rejected
After the Six-Day War, UNSCR 242 called for withdrawal from occupied territories but was ambiguous and did not explicitly call for complete withdrawal from all territories or address the rights of Palestinians to self-determination and statehood.

1978: Begin/Sa’adat Peace Proposal, Rejected (Except for Egypt)
The Camp David Accords focused primarily on peace between Egypt and Israel, neglecting Palestinian aspirations for an independent state and ignoring the broader Palestinian-Israeli conflict, leading other Arab states and Palestinians to reject it.

1994: Rabin/Hussein Peace Agreement, Rejected by the Rest of the Arab League (Except for Egypt)
While Jordan and Israel made peace, Palestinians and other Arab nations felt the agreement failed to adequately address Palestinian sovereignty, refugee rights, and the status of Jerusalem.

1995: Rabin's Contour-for-Peace, Rejected
Rabin's proposals were seen as insufficient in addressing core Palestinian demands such as the right of return for refugees, full sovereignty, and control over East Jerusalem, leading to a lack of confidence in the peace process.

2000: Barak/Clinton Peace Offer, Rejected
Palestinians viewed the offer as inadequate, particularly regarding territorial contiguity, the right of return for refugees, and control over East Jerusalem. They felt the proposal did not ensure a viable and sovereign Palestinian state.

2001: Barak’s Offer at Taba, Rejected
Although progress was made, significant gaps remained on key issues such as borders, refugees, and Jerusalem. Palestinians believed the offer still fell short of meeting their minimum national rights and aspirations.

2005: Sharon's Peace Gesture, Withdrawal from Gaza, Rejected
Palestinians saw the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza as a strategy to solidify Israeli control over the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The move was perceived as insufficient and a way to avoid broader peace negotiations.

2008: Olmert/Bush Peace Offer, Rejected
Despite significant concessions, Palestinians felt the proposal did not adequately address the right of return for refugees, full sovereignty, or a fair division of Jerusalem. They also doubted the sincerity and feasibility of implementation.

2009 to Present: Netanyahu's Repeated Invitations to Peace Talks, Rejected
Palestinians viewed Netanyahu's offers as lacking in substance, with ongoing settlement expansion in the West Bank undermining trust and any genuine commitment to a two-state solution. They felt these invitations were more about improving Israel's international image than achieving a just peace.

2014: Kerry's Contour-for-Peace, Rejected
Palestinians felt Kerry's framework did not sufficiently address their key demands on borders, the status of Jerusalem, and the rights of refugees. There was also skepticism about the U.S. being an impartial mediator and doubts about Israel's willingness to follow through on necessary compromises.

ChatGPT makes my life so much easier

The tragedy for Palestinians and the thing that makes solving the conflict impossible is that all of these objections are reasonable and yet none of them are in any way attainable, with every loss their lives get worse, they lose more and more, nothing will change that in our lifetime, Israel has no reason to do anything beyond what they are doing and that isn't going to change either, maybe in 1 or 200 years things change but that is the timescale we are talking about

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by Bownesian

To the original point, Israel has offered a Palestinian state lots of times.

So far as I know, no Palestinian government has ever reciprocated by acknowledging the legitimacy of Israel.

Events Where Palestine Offered to Recognize the Legitimacy of Israel:
1988: Palestinian Declaration of Independence
The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) declared a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, implicitly recognizing the state of Israel by accepting UN Resolutions 242 and 338, which call for the acknowledgment of all states in the region.

1991: Madrid Conference
The PLO agreed to participate in the Madrid Peace Conference, marking a willingness to engage in direct negotiations with Israel under international auspices.

1993: Oslo Accords
The PLO and Israel signed the Oslo Accords. In a letter to Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat recognized "the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security," and the PLO accepted UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.

2000: Camp David Summit
Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat engaged in the Camp David Summit with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and U.S. President Bill Clinton, discussing a potential agreement that would recognize Israel alongside a Palestinian state, though no final agreement was reached.

2002: Arab Peace Initiative
The Arab League, with Palestinian support, proposed the Arab Peace Initiative, offering full normalization of relations with Israel in exchange for Israel’s withdrawal to the 1967 borders and a fair resolution to the Palestinian refugee issue.

2003: Geneva Accord
Informal negotiations between Palestinian and Israeli figures led to the Geneva Accord, a proposed peace agreement that included mutual recognition of Israel and a Palestinian state.

2007: Annapolis Conference
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas participated in the Annapolis Conference, reaffirming the Palestinian Authority's recognition of Israel and engaging in discussions aimed at reaching a two-state solution.

2012: Palestinian Authority's UN Statehood Bid
While seeking non-member observer state status at the UN, the Palestinian Authority reiterated its acceptance of the two-state solution, implying recognition of Israel within the 1967 borders.
These events reflect significant instances where Palestinian leaders and representatives have expressed a willingness to recognize Israel’s legitimacy as part of broader efforts to achieve peace and establish a Palestinian state.

[Skootenbeeten]

Originally Posted by Leondros

1919: Arabs of Palestine Refused to Nominate Representatives to the Paris Peace Conference
Palestinians felt that the Paris Peace Conference was dominated by colonial powers with a biased agenda. They believed participating would legitimize decisions made without their consent, particularly the Balfour Declaration, which promised a national home for Jews in Palestine without consulting the indigenous Arab population.

1920: San Remo Conference Decisions, Rejected
The San Remo Conference granted Britain the mandate over Palestine, formalizing the Balfour Declaration's promise. Palestinians viewed this as a betrayal and a denial of their right to self-determination, seeing it as paving the way for increased Jewish immigration and future displacement.

1922: League of Nations Decisions, Rejected
The League of Nations ratified the British Mandate, incorporating the Balfour Declaration. Palestinians saw this as international endorsement of colonial rule and the Zionist project, undermining their national aspirations and demographic majority.

1937: Peel Commission Partition Proposal, Rejected
The Peel Commission proposed partitioning Palestine, allocating a significant portion to a Jewish state. Palestinians rejected it because it involved dividing their homeland and legitimizing large-scale Jewish immigration and settlement on lands they considered inherently Arab.

1938: Woodhead Partition Proposal, Rejected
The Woodhead Commission's revised partition plans still entailed significant land loss for Palestinians and failed to address their demands for independence and majority control. Palestinians continued to oppose the principle of partitioning their country.

1947: UN General Assembly Partition Proposal (UNGAR 181), Rejected
The UN partition plan proposed creating separate Jewish and Arab states, giving 55% of the land to the Jewish minority. Palestinians rejected it, believing it was unjust and favored the Zionist movement, leading to the dispossession and displacement of many Arabs.

1949: Israel's Outstretched Hand for Peace (UNGAR 194), Rejected
UNGAR 194 included a call for Palestinian refugees to return home. Palestinians viewed Israel's peace overtures skeptically, as they were paired with the expectation to recognize and legitimize the state of Israel without addressing the core issues of refugees, land rights, and sovereignty.

1967: Israel's Outstretched Hand for Peace (UNSCR 242), Rejected
After the Six-Day War, UNSCR 242 called for withdrawal from occupied territories but was ambiguous and did not explicitly call for complete withdrawal from all territories or address the rights of Palestinians to self-determination and statehood.

1978: Begin/Sa’adat Peace Proposal, Rejected (Except for Egypt)
The Camp David Accords focused primarily on peace between Egypt and Israel, neglecting Palestinian aspirations for an independent state and ignoring the broader Palestinian-Israeli conflict, leading other Arab states and Palestinians to reject it.

1994: Rabin/Hussein Peace Agreement, Rejected by the Rest of the Arab League (Except for Egypt)
While Jordan and Israel made peace, Palestinians and other Arab nations felt the agreement failed to adequately address Palestinian sovereignty, refugee rights, and the status of Jerusalem.

1995: Rabin's Contour-for-Peace, Rejected
Rabin's proposals were seen as insufficient in addressing core Palestinian demands such as the right of return for refugees, full sovereignty, and control over East Jerusalem, leading to a lack of confidence in the peace process.

2000: Barak/Clinton Peace Offer, Rejected
Palestinians viewed the offer as inadequate, particularly regarding territorial contiguity, the right of return for refugees, and control over East Jerusalem. They felt the proposal did not ensure a viable and sovereign Palestinian state.

2001: Barak’s Offer at Taba, Rejected
Although progress was made, significant gaps remained on key issues such as borders, refugees, and Jerusalem. Palestinians believed the offer still fell short of meeting their minimum national rights and aspirations.

2005: Sharon's Peace Gesture, Withdrawal from Gaza, Rejected
Palestinians saw the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza as a strategy to solidify Israeli control over the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The move was perceived as insufficient and a way to avoid broader peace negotiations.

2008: Olmert/Bush Peace Offer, Rejected
Despite significant concessions, Palestinians felt the proposal did not adequately address the right of return for refugees, full sovereignty, or a fair division of Jerusalem. They also doubted the sincerity and feasibility of implementation.

2009 to Present: Netanyahu's Repeated Invitations to Peace Talks, Rejected
Palestinians viewed Netanyahu's offers as lacking in substance, with ongoing settlement expansion in the West Bank undermining trust and any genuine commitment to a two-state solution. They felt these invitations were more about improving Israel's international image than achieving a just peace.

2014: Kerry's Contour-for-Peace, Rejected
Palestinians felt Kerry's framework did not sufficiently address their key demands on borders, the status of Jerusalem, and the rights of refugees. There was also skepticism about the U.S. being an impartial mediator and doubts about Israel's willingness to follow through on necessary compromises.

ChatGPT makes my life so much easier

Tossing some weak ass excuse still doesn't justify rejecting almost 20 offers and leading to almost 100 years of war. Stop blaming Israel for Palestine rejecting every attempt at peace. Palestine is the one standing in the way of a peaceful resolution.


At the end of the day this is what everyone knows it is, this is Palestine prolonging a war over land, murdering civilians over land.

Edit: Perfect example xD



1937: Peel Commission Partition Proposal, Rejected
The Peel Commission proposed partitioning Palestine, allocating a significant portion to a Jewish state. Palestinians rejected it because it involved dividing their homeland and legitimizing large-scale Jewish immigration and settlement on lands they considered inherently Arab.

They didn't want Israel to have even a fraction of the land and really didn't want more Jews immigrating back. The peel Commission gives so little to Israel it was bad but apparently that was too much for palestinians LOL. Apparently non-stop attacks are the way palestine negotiates peace.

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by Skootenbeeten

Tossing some weak ass excuse still doesn't justify rejecting almost 20 offers and leading to almost 100 years of war. Stop blaming Israel for Palestine rejecting every attempt at peace. Palestine is the one standing in the way of a peaceful resolution.


At the end of the day this is what everyone knows it is, this is Palestine prolonging a war over land, murdering civilians over land.

Edit: Perfect example xD



1937: Peel Commission Partition Proposal, Rejected
The Peel Commission proposed partitioning Palestine, allocating a significant portion to a Jewish state. Palestinians rejected it because it involved dividing their homeland and legitimizing large-scale Jewish immigration and settlement on lands they considered inherently Arab.

They didn't want Israel to have even a fraction of the land and really didn't want more Jews immigrating back. The peel Commission gives so little to Israel it was bad but apparently that was too much for palestinians LOL. Apparently non-stop attacks are the way palestine negotiates peace.

You do realize this was before Israel even became a state right? What would your opinion be if we were looking at partitioning Canada - specifically land that you either own or live beside?

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by Leondros

You do realize this was before Israel even became a state right? What would your opinion be if we were looking at partitioning Canada - specifically land that you either own or live beside?

Gotta love the racist colonialist mindset behind those notions.

What do you mean the Palestinians don't accept a group of white people splitting their land up? These savages must not want peace!