So how can we move things? Some Palestinians try, through building or social development, but they do not control things and there are far too many who will overpower them on the extremist side (because the extremist is the mainstream). And unfortunately, only through the Palestinians losing and being abandoned can they hope to jettison the nonsense poison that has denied them peace and independence for decades. The Japanese are the perfect example of a cultural change for the better brought about by complete defeat.
I would love it if there were a better way, but I don't see any other approach moving the needle on this or resulting in any sort of peace. Would love to be proven wrong, though.
TBH I don't agree with some/much of the analysis you covered , that I had to edit out for the same reason as before ( sorry again ), in this post and feel it is the Israeli side that needs to be defeated ( diplomatically/politically ) before it will come to its senses
What to do ?
I think that the framework should be based on international law simply because I think it's really important for people to understand who is really making concessions and who isn't. It is only in this context that , what is referred to as Arab/Palestinian rejectionism , can be seen in its true light.
The law is clear on most of the main points and the massive international consensus on the conflict reflects this
1. All of the West Bank , Gaza and East Jerusalem constitute the Occupied Palestinian Territories and that's what the vast majority of the world think should make up the Palestinian state
2. All of the settlements are illegal under article 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention
3. On the borders situation , the internationally recognized border is the green line. I know you will say something like that line is no good , but hear me out on this for a moment. Let's just accept this for now
4 The right of Return of the Palestinians is enshrined in UNGA 194. I know UNGA resolutions aren't binding and are recommendations but none the less they have relevance. If I wanted to be pedantic I could say that the UNGA resolution to partition Palestine into two states was illegitimate because it never had UNSC endorsement
From what I can gather about the Taba negotiations the Palestinian side agreed that around 50% of the illegal settlements would be annexed by Israel . Seeing as the Palestinian side, according to international law , had the right to refuse any settlements concession and Israel the legal right to demand none , it soon becomes apparent which side made the concession.
On the question of border alterations and territorial percentages , including land swaps , the Palestinians conceded overall around 3 % of the territory it is legally entitled to. Again the concession is on the Palestinian side not the Israeli side.
On the right of return the Palestinians never demanded the return of the 5 -6 million Palestinians in the diaspora be returned. Figures vary but the highest figure seems to be around the 800,000 mark. No small amount at the top end but not a full return either. Again that is a huge concession on the Palestinian side
Now I am not hardline enough to demand that the letter of the law be followed rigidly here , the above has one purpose only. To show that when you apply international law to the negotiations and not the Israeli wish list , of which it is entitled to practically zilch , the whole outlook changes.
All of the above is completely achievable imo and would constitute a fairish resolution
