Bill Clinton talking about Gaza, 2016

@Ynotisay Basically they get permission to legally live on land they already live on. I'm just trying to understand their viewpoint here.

In the 1940s, Israel mostly agreed with the UN's partition, but did not necessarily agree with the borders. Yet to them, just having international legitimacy was a first step, and adjusting borders could happen later (it still is). Why wouldn't Palestinians take the same route? My understanding of the deal was that they would get recognized as their own country, get payment for the land Israel took but still yielded certain controls to Israel (such as airspace), and formally give part of the land in the west bank and East Jerusalem to Israel. If they had been offered the pre-1967 lands, they would have signed?

@trollslayer I don't know. But I'm not sure you're giving the presence of history, terrorism and religion enough credence. It's not the U.S. or Europe. What makes sense here is a non-starter there. Palestine knows bloodshed and oppression. From internal and external forces. Terrorism, war and religious extremism is baked in to that cake. They're mostly Sunni, right?. That doesn't bode well for compromise or human rights. Clearly. Both sides need enemies to exist. That's their lane.

@Ynotisay Can't disagree. I think the last two sentences you wrote sum it up. Israel and Palestine leadership draw their power from conflict. I think from Israels side, they are also used to war and people trying to oppress and kill them, and they would rather fight than cut a deal that potentially compromises their directive.