Hamas strike on Israel - Threadbans in op - mod warning in OP updated 19/10/23

They boycottes because it was only proposing a single solution

A two-state solution? Why is that a bad thing? Should a one-state solution have been on the table, in your opinion?

In hindsight do you think the boycott was a terrible miscalculation?

Are you saying that the findings of the UNSCOP were done, dusted and signed off on before any of them visted Palestine?

beyond the the very problematic final outcome

That final outcome being a 2 state solution, a solution more or less supported by everyone, including you?

I dont understand how you can be against a 2 state solution in 1947, but for it now…

Sounds ominous, but it could be noise.

The Israelis should be able to handle it though, and have an ace up their sleave with US backing if needs be.

We were talking about 1947, the year the UNSCOP visited Palestine.

That is the dataset that is important.

You also don't answer the question in regards to the one-state solution that the Arab delegation wanted and their clear intent to ethnically cleanse hundreds of thousands of Jews from the land.

An inconvienient truth?

A 2 state solution was the best outcome for all, but the Arabs refused to accept their loss and here we are… 80 years later and they still have not accepted it.

I never ever said a 2 state solution was a bad thing.

The main premise of the UNSCOP and UN Resolution 181(II) was a 2 state solution.

You seem intent on trying to discredit it.

It was half baked and this is fundamental to why here are so many issues today .

What exactly about it was half-baked?

Let's say we agree that the UNSCOP was always going to advocate a 2 state solution/parition, what in your mind should have happened instead?

It seems to me that your main argument is that the plan was not 'perfect' (no plan is), but we have no evidence that the Arab delegation would have accepted partition and a 2 state solution anyhow. We know what the Arabs wanted, (One state majority rule and kicking out all the new Jewish immigrants) and it appears they were dogmatic, uncompromising, and without alternatives. This is an issue even today, Arafat refused a 2 state solution for example.

The more I read about the Arab attitudes of the time, it reminds me of dogmatic Ulster Unionist ala Ian Paisley.

The Ad-hoc committee rejected the subcommittee 2 plan, largely, I presume, because they still advocated a single one-state solution.

The Ad Hoc Committee rejected the subcommittee 2 resolution to constitute a unitary Palestinian state and accepted the proposed partition plan of subcommittee 1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_Hoc_Committee_on_the_Palestinian_Question

I am asking because your argument appears to be conflicted.

You appear to favour the one state solution adopted by the Arabs in 1947, but you also say a 2 state solution wouldn't be bad either…. which is it?

If for example, the Ad-hoc subcommittee accepted the Arab plan, where there was a federal unity state (under Arab majority rule) there would be some sort of utopian peace there at the moment, ignoring the chatter and context that many Arabs wanted to ethnically cleanse Jews from the region….