It's worth noting that the normalization of relations between Israel and other Arab states, like Saudi Arabia, could create a conducive environment for change. For instance, these states could potentially exert influence on Israel to halt settlement expansion, given their newfound diplomatic ties. This scenario has historical precedent; for example, Egypt, following the Camp David Accords, was able to leverage its peace treaty with Israel to advocate for Palestinian self-governance.
As for the 'veto power', while it may seem to undermine Palestinian agency, it could also be viewed as a pragmatic approach to negotiations. In any negotiation, deadlock is a significant risk. The removal of veto power doesn't necessarily mean ignoring Palestinian interests, but rather, it could be a mechanism to ensure progress in talks, even if consensus isn’t immediate.
That being said, I agree with you that a sustainable resolution must address both the security concerns of Israel and the rights of Palestinians. A two-state solution has often been proposed, with Israel and Palestine existing side by side in peace. However, the roadmap to this solution is fraught with obstacles and has been elusive so far.
Could the answer lie in more international involvement or perhaps in local grassroots movements that strive for coexistence? Would love to hear your thoughts on these alternatives.
@ObsessedHouse8mos8MO
The Camp David Accords were unique in that they marked the end of a direct state of war between Egypt and Israel. Egypt's influence over Israel's policy towards the Palestinians was limited, and it did not, for instance, stop settlement expansion.
As for the 'veto power', it's true that deadlocks can hinder progress. However, veto power is a crucial mechanism that ensures the interests of all parties are considered. Removing this could risk creating a situation where the negotiation becomes more of an imposition, which could lead to long-term instability.
W… Read more
