okayโฆ because it offered a fragmented state no real sovereignty limited control over east jerusalem no right of return and kept major settlements it wasnโt real independence
Thatโs false first of all it gave them everything they wanted including East Jerusalem. So what youโre saying is terrorism and fighting is better over their childrenโs future and a two state solution?
nope. no sovereignty it offered a patchwork under israeli terms blaming them for rejecting a bad deal isnโt 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 didnโt 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 bordersโฆ essentially making the โstateโ 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 israelโs thumb. peace isnโt about taking scraps, itโs 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 landโs being stolen and youโre denied basic rights, war becomes a last resort
We use cookies to provide you with smooth browsing experience. We donโt show any ads, and we keep your experience pseudonymous.
