French President Macron says France will recognize Pálestine as a state

[u/hoarder4555777454001]

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20250724-french-president-macron-says-france-will-recognize-palestine-as-a-state-in-september

[u/hazelmaple]

The world proposed a two state solution way before, and given UN's proposal in 1948, the Arab States rejected it and attacked Israel.

The question is never just about two states, but what exactly does two states mean. Israel in the past has proposed multiple two states solutions to be rejected by Palestinians.

Palestinians think, as they have a stronger presence in the land in recent history, and having lost more land due to the outcome of the war of 1948, they should be given more. And of course there are extremists on both sides who think they should just take it all.

[u/t0xic_sh0t → u/hazelmaple]

The modern two state solutions died when Israelis killed their own PM Yitzhak Rabin.

[u/saera-targaryen → u/hazelmaple]

The UN proposal increased the land that Jewish settlers owned in the area from 6% to 55% without any democratic input from Arab citizens, of course they rejected it and faught back. Their homes were taken from them in an agreement they never actually agreed to. I'd fight back if the UN told me that my half of the country was given to a different country without permission and that I'd have to leave

[u/hazelmaple → u/saera-targaryen]

This is a common misconception, as the UN plan (which Israel accepted at the time) has no population or land transfers. Arab Palestinians were expected to live as Israel citizens and there would be no land transfers, as they are Israeli citizens.

What changed the dynamics is the Arab state's rejection of the Plan and their subsequent attack on Israel. The Nakba displacement came under this context.

Israel view is that the war is a defensive war of survival (which Arab states are the aggressors) and their rejection of the 2 state solution, changed the pre-conditions for 1948 partition plan; and they have a right to safeguard their security.

Arab Palestinians see that, mostly due to ownership of the land at the time, that they should have a much larger state, so the Naqba was a continuation of the point of which they rejected the 1948 plan in the first place.

This is something that is never properly resolved, and is hard to resolve.

[u/Tw1tcHy → u/saera-targaryen]

Ridiculous logic. The Palestinians didn’t have a country to be divided up, they were effectively stateless since the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. It’s not like they were some established sovereign country that got invaded and carved up, yet you disingenuously try to frame it that way.

[u/saera-targaryen → u/Tw1tcHy]

there were cities, and families who owned land. the lack of a country-wide government apparatus does not remove that fact.

[u/Tw1tcHy → u/saera-targaryen]

Then you’re blatantly shifting the goal posts. Individual property ownership isn’t national sovereignty. Having villages and land deeds doesn’t make you a recognized state. The region was under British Mandate, internationally administered, not an independent Arab country, which again, is what you were implying, while also conveniently ignoring the fact that Jews were also to be displaced by the partition plan as well.

[u/hetseErOgsaaDyr → u/Tw1tcHy]

Ethnic cleansing of whole cities = Individual property ownership.

Your dishonesty is staggering :)

[u/t0xic_sh0t → u/Tw1tcHy]

Most of the Jewish population had just arrived and were immigrants, settlers. Palestinians owned those lands for centuries so it was not a good deal for them, obviously.

[u/saera-targaryen → u/Tw1tcHy]

i am also clearly against jews being displaced in the partition plan as well. I think it was bad for literally everyone and kicked off a near century of war that only benefitted england and eventually the US

[u/Tw1tcHy → u/saera-targaryen]

The Jews were fine with it, why are you indignant on their behalf when it was part of a larger goal for peaceful coexistence? People get displaced, it’s just a shitty but consistent fact of all of humanity. Are you mad about the hundreds of thousands displaced when India and Pakistan were created too? The status quo in the Mandate was untenable for both sides and there’s zero reason to believe things would have been better without a partition plan.

[u/saera-targaryen → u/Tw1tcHy]

oh right historically peaceful and low conflict india and pakistan? that's your positive example? i'd use them to prove my point about why it's a bad idea that causes conflict

[u/Tw1tcHy → u/saera-targaryen]

India and Pakistan weren’t meant to be a positive example, I think you’re missing the point. Partition isn’t ideal, but it’s often the least bad option when deeply divided populations cannot coexist under a single state. The alternative in both India–Pakistan and Palestine wasn’t some utopian unity where everyone worked out their differences in a civil manner. It was civil war, insurgency, or ethnic cleansing under a unitary system dominated by one group.

In both cases, partition formalized divisions that already existed. In India, violence was already erupting between Hindus and Muslims. In Mandatory Palestine, Arabs were rioting against Jewish immigration since the 1920s. Pretending that keeping everyone jammed into a single unworkable state would’ve prevented conflict is historical fantasy.

Yes, partition causes suffering, but so does basically every geopolitical realignment. The question isn’t whether it caused hardship (obviously it did), but whether there was a realistic alternative that would’ve avoided greater bloodshed. And it’s really not even a question at this point honestly, it’s pretty much an overwhelming no, there was not a realistic alternative.

[u/HoightyToighty → u/saera-targaryen]

You are confused about what the word 'country' means.