Read on Twitter
Did the PA not “walk away from that concept” (ie a negotiated solution) through its recognition campaign, declaring itself the “state of Palestine” (a phrase appearing nowhere in the Oslo Accords), opting for Hamas partnership after rejecting the Kerry framework, etc? https://twitter.com/ilangoldenberg/status/1278644849261117440
History began yesterday, there’s only agency on one side, etc etc...you can think annexation is some combination of dumb and immoral while still finding the whole thing rather unconvincing
How about UNSC # 2334—did that entrench the supposedly sacred principle of a negotiated solution, or did it “walk away from” said principle in some way or another?
I'll let you all in on something. There is a certain class of people—and I'd count myself among them—for whom the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is both practically and morally inconvenient. Said inconvenience tends one towards not just easy solutions, but towards *any* solution...
The PA has not seemed the least bit interested in resolving the conflict since I dunno, like 2014? Thus for the Peace At All Costs camp, the responsibility *necessarily* falls to the Israelis. Oddly enough, this is an analysis shared by both left- and right-wingers...
Right-wingers thru potentially dangerous fantasies like unilaterally-imposed borders or a ludicrous "victory" framework in approaching The Conflict; lefties thru internationalizing The Conflict, recognition of the State of Palestine, the UNSC, and soft/hard BDS etc
None of this is disohonorable or dishonest, but it's all disconnected from the actual lived experience of people in the region and somehow succeeds in being deeply patronizing to both sides simultaneously, and is rooted in a quasi-religious Western-positivist belief in Peace &Law
