okay… because it offered a fragmented state no real sovereignty limited control over east jerusalem no right of return and kept major settlements it wasn’t real independence
That’s false first of all it gave them everything they wanted including East Jerusalem. So what you’re saying is terrorism and fighting is better over their children’s future and a two state solution?
nope. no sovereignty it offered a patchwork under israeli terms blaming them for rejecting a bad deal isn’t a free pass for decades of occupation and violence
False. Read it again. It gave them full autonomy over 97% of the West Bank, 3% of Israeli territory and the Gaza Strip including East Jerusalem. Arafat didn’t even make a counter offer he walked out. U know why? Because then all the funding stops
some autonomy, but it still left israel with control over key areas like water, airspace, and borders… essentially making the “state” unviable.
False but even if that was true is it not better than the current state of war?
better than war? maybe, but it was a halfassed deal that still left them under israel’s thumb. peace isn’t about taking scraps, it’s about real justice
They could have had a better deal in 1937 and 1947 they chose war and terrorism. U and them can cry about it
they chose resistance to oppression, not terrorism. when your land’s being stolen and you’re denied basic rights, war becomes a last resort
Používáme cookies, abychom ti poskytli plynulý zážitek z prohlížení. Nezobrazujeme žádné reklamy a tvůj zážitek udržujeme pseudonymní.
