Is / was there ever any co-existence solution to peace with Israel that the Arab Palestinian side proposed or said would accept?

This was my original phrasing (using 2 state & co existence):
Was there ever any 2 state division or co existence solution to peace with Israel that the Arab Palestinian side proposed or said would accept?

Basically, I am trying to find if there was ever any effort from that side to propose or counter a peaceful end to the conflict that they would accept.

  • There's lot of talk of proposals & divisions put forth by British, UN, America, Israel etc, that were rejected by the Palestinian/ Arab side
    • Assuming they were not satisfied or unhappy with these, did they propose any counter offers (even if not very generous) that they would accept?
  • Is there any co-existence proposal put forth by them or counter offer that they said they would accept?
  • 7
    Which faction? One problem in your question is that not all Palestinian factions agree with each other. (Nor do, for that matter, the Israeli ones.) When Yasser Arafat agreed to coexist with Israel at one point but the bilateral agreement ended up collapsing. – Denis de Bernardy Jun 7 '19 at 11:21
  • 6
    The Camp David talks in 2000 and Taba talks in 2001 essentially were about the details of a two-state solution; they failed (Jerusalem and the rights of 1948 refugee families were particularly difficult) but seem to have been the closest they came to the possibility of agreement. It seems that in 2002 both the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli Government accepted United Nations Security Council Resolution 1397, including its less detailed "vision of a region where two States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side within secure and recognized borders". – Henry Jun 7 '19 at 11:51
  • 1
    @AlexS : the question in your last comment is pretty different from the one above, but it still doesn't solve the main objections raised: there are more than two "sides" involved. If you have a source for the "narrative" you heard you might ask about it on Skeptics.SE. – Evargalo Jun 7 '19 at 12:54
  • 5
    Israel is not one single side. Labour and Likud have had different view of the peace processus, with Israeli Arabs, Ultraorthodox Jews and, more recently, Russian Israeli nationalists having different interests too. Palestinians have probably been even more divided in the last decades, between politicians and religious leaders, Gaza and the West Bank, Fatah and Hamas, people condemning or endorcing violence, accepting or not Israel's existence, receiving help from Lebanon or Egypt or Saudi, etc. In both case, the proposal of one 'side' have often be rebutted by opponents from the same 'side'. – Evargalo Jun 7 '19 at 13:52
  • 4
    What research have you done? Why is "Arab Palestinian" qualified? – Mark C. Wallace Jun 7 '19 at 20:14

In 2002, the leader of the Palestinian Authority Yasser Arafat said he would accept the Taba agreement in the terms put forward by President Bill Clinton 18 months earlier.

Back in January 2001, the Taba summit had reached an impasse when both (Israeli and Palestinian) negociation teams still had reservations while Clinton had to quit the White House and Barak was facing imminent elections and a strong rejection by the Israeli opinion which considered he was making too much concessions.

In 2002, Israel's new prime minister Ariel Sharon was not interested in renewing the negociations lead by his predecessor.

Earlier, in Camp David in July 2000, the initial proposals by both camps were only oral, and not officially documented. However, various sources (Palestinian, Israeli and American) help framing what the Palestinian offer was, notably:


they wanted full Palestinian sovereignty over the entire West Bank and the Gaza Strip, although they would consider a one-to-one land swap with Israel.


"All of East Jerusalem should be returned to Palestinian sovereignty. The Jewish Quarter and Western Wall should be placed under Israeli authority, not Israeli sovereignty. An open city and cooperation on municipal services."


They demanded that Israel recognize the right of all refugees who so wished to settle in Israel, but to address Israel's demographic concerns, they promised that the right of return would be implemented via a mechanism agreed upon by both sides, which would try to channel a majority of refugees away from the option of returning to Israel. According to U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, some of the Palestinian negotiators were willing to privately discuss a limit on the number of refugees who would be allowed to return to Israel. Palestinians who chose to return to Israel would do so gradually, with Israel absorbing 150,000 refugees every year.

This offer differed too much from the Israeli one, and in spite of some progress been achieved, the Summit ended without a settlement of the difficult Israel-Palestine question.

The first originally Palestinian (not Egyptian or Jordanian) proposition for Palestine might have been the PLO's Ten Point Program proclaimed in 1974. It was a one-state proposal.

| improve this answer | |
  • Ps: PLO one state proposal wouldn’t amount to coexistence with Jews/ Israel, would they? I’ll have to read more detail on the main answer you’ve proposed; appreciate that. – Alex S Jun 8 '19 at 9:52
  • @AlexS the 1974 one state proposal was supposed to be multi-ethnic and multi-religious, so it would have meant coexistence with Jews but not with Israel. – Evargalo Jun 8 '19 at 13:24
  • And that would be Palestine only? How would Jews have self determination or their own nation, exactly what Palestine seems to be fighting for – Alex S Jun 8 '19 at 13:26
  • @AlexS you can read the linked wiki if we want to avoid an off-topic discussion in comments. Jews and Muslims (and others) would have had the same rights in a single democratic country. Since at that time there were much more Arabs than Jews in Palestine, the implications were scarier for the later, I imagine. Anyway, the proposal has never been seriously considered in Israel. – Evargalo Jun 8 '19 at 13:32
  • No discussion needed. Having the same rights & freedomsi in life, in an Islamic majority ruled region is an eyewash; evidence globally indicates the same. Let’s not debate this. Thanks 🙏 – Alex S Jun 12 '19 at 1:01

The Oslo Agreements are a prominent example. The first agreement, Oslo I Accords were signed in 1993. The Oslo II Accords were signed in Taba, Egypt in 1995. These agreements were opposed by Edward Said, a member of the Palestinian National Council at the time as he said that it merely amounted to a capitulation of Israeli agenda and the negotiations were not taken under good faith by the USA, who, although portraying themselves as an 'honest broker' between the two opposing camps, he felt this was far from the case.

Major issues, such as Palestinian concerns over Israeli settlements in the West Bank, the status of Jerusalem, security concerns over terrorism, safe borders, incitements, violence and the right of return of Palestinian refugees living in the Palestinian diaspora were left unresolved as 'final status issues', to be resolved at some later undetermined date. Given the progressive fragmentation of the West Bank into 'Bantustans', the incarceration of Gazans into the worlds largest open-air prison, and the lack of any meaningful movement on these 'final status issues' it seems that he was correct in his assessment of what the Oslo Accords would amount to.

In fact Noam Chomsky points out that a peace initiative on the two-state solution and based on the UN resolution 242 was first clearly articulated in 1976 at the Security Council of the UN by the major Arab states, but which was vetoed by the US and again in 1980. With the Security Council stalled by the US veto, the same or similar plan came up almost annually in the General Assembly, under pressure from the third world and the non-aligned movement, but with Europe also going along. The votes were usually something like 150-3 (US, Israel, sometimes a client state). He also points out that in 1988, the Palestinian Council formally backed this plan having tacitly accepted since the mid 1970s. So the Arab states and Palestine have been putting forward peace initiatives based on the international consensus for quite some time but have generally been foiled by Israeli and US intransigence whilst they 'created facts on the ground.'

| improve this answer | |
  • The description of Gaza has the world's largest open air prison might be challenged by the situations in North Korea or Xinjiang. – Evargalo Jun 8 '19 at 13:26
  • @Evargalo: Or Tibet, I suppose where the Han Chinese invaded and pushed out the indigenous Tibetans to a marginal existence in their own land whilst also dispossessing them of their own traditions, religion and culture. – Mozibur Ullah Jun 8 '19 at 14:01
  • 1
    Post has been flagged for possible plagiarism of Wikipedia. Could you add references & analysis to eliminate the doubt? – Mark C. Wallace Jun 8 '19 at 20:58

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.