The question is quite simple as stated - have Palestinians or their representatives ever provided/brought a peace plan to the negotiation table? If they did, what was the plan? If they didn't, why?

All peace proposals initiated by PA, PLO, and HAMAS are welcome.

  • 8
    The Oslo accords? Dec 1, 2023 at 17:58
  • 10
    Voting to close - Please read How do I ask a good question? and first do a search online. (I did a search for "Palestine peace proposal" and immediately came across two resources - All the Times Israel Has Rejected Peace With Palestinians and Israel has rejected every offer from Palestinians for a two-state solution). Note that SEs are not discussion platforms.
    – sfxedit
    Dec 1, 2023 at 17:59
  • 9
    @sfxedit After years of learning proposals from the West and Israel, I am yet waiting to see/hear a proposal from the most relevant player in this play - the Palestinians themselves. I stay firm on my question, though you may choose to shut it down.
    – r13
    Dec 1, 2023 at 18:12
  • 7
    I've no issue with your Q itself as I am one of the few here who support the Palestinian right to self-determination and return of their land. It is how you have lazily asked the question here that irks me, without any effort from your part. Do remember that people here are offering their expertise and labour for free. If more and more people keep posting one and 2 line questions, answers for which are easily found online, many will just lose interest here as they aren't here to offer their free knowledge to spoonfeed people. Without them content quality will drop and Po.SE will lose its value
    – sfxedit
    Dec 1, 2023 at 19:11
  • 4
    @sfxedit Why don't you write the answer if you can back up your claims?
    – r13
    Dec 2, 2023 at 1:44

1 Answer 1


Oslo process
It is not entirely clear what is meant in the question: the peace process launched by the Oslo accords is a two-sided venture, where both sides (Israel and the Palestinians, as represented by the Palestinian authority) contribute equally.

Israel has indeed made a few proposals intended at reaching the final status agreement, notably those by Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert during the two respective premier-ministerships. The Palestinian side (Yasir Arafat and later Mahmoud Abbas) has rejected both, as they didn't go far enough in terms of the status of Jerusalem and the refugee return - that is they are more or less clear what their proposal would imply. See 2000 Camp David Summit and Realignment plan: 2008 secret offer.

The sticking points in the negotiations are:

Arab peace initiative
There is also a proposal by the Arab league, which is acceptable to the Palestinians, but not to Israel. This one is somewhat informal, since most of the states promoting it do not have diplomatic ties with Israel, but they do offer full normalization in exchange for what is considered as Palestinian parameters in terms of borders, the right of return and the status of Jerusalem. It however signaled the Arab League members willingness to accept Israel's right to exist (e.g., the final status point outlines above.)

Hamas' hudna
Hamas has floated the idea of a long-term truce - for 10 years and even for 100 years. However, unlike the proposals mentioned above, it was never an official decision by Hamas, but rather something mentioned in passing in speeches by Hamas officials, and hence deniable. These are also unacceptable to Israel, since they deny Israel diplomatic recognition, and since Hamas refuses to sign to the security and economic agreements achieved within the Oslo accords. On the other hand, this would mean recognition of Hamas as a representative of the Palestinian people, violating the internationally recognized status of the Palestinian Authority and various previous agreements.

Hamas offer was a classical case of proverbial eating the cake and still having it: it offers none of the points outlined above. Notably, Hamas and its supporters are vocal in gaining control of all of the territory between the Mediterranean and Jordan river.

Geneva Initiative
Finally, there was also Geneva peace initiative, where the representatives of the Israeli left signed a peace agreement with Palestinian representatives. It was mostly a symbolic gesture, since neither had the authority to officially represent their side.

What again comes out is that "Palestinians" are not a homogeneous group of people sharing the same views on peace, violence, justice, etc. Neither is it clear who has the authority to speak for them - Palestinian Authority, recognized by most of the world and the US, Arab League, as a representative of all Arabs, or Hamas, who enjoys some popularity and de facto controls and runs Gaza.

In this conditions, it is not clear whether any Palestinian representative is capable of accepting a peace offer - since the rival political groups may always claim that he sold out the Palestinian cause and that they can extract more from Israel by refusing to abide by the conditions of the agreement and/or resorting to more violence... while Israel would have already made concessions by reaching half-way to the peace offer. Indeed, Hamas victory in 2006 legislative elections was largely seen as the consequence of Israel's withdrawal from Gaza.

Thus, the typical Israeli right's response to those claiming that Israel is not doing enough for peace is that there is no Palestinian partner to negotiate with, capable of making peace.

  • "what is considered as Palestinian parameters." Which are? Is this a reference to the Oslo points above, or to something different. It is hard to tell.
    – ohwilleke
    Dec 4, 2023 at 18:47
  • 1
    @ohwilleke I mean that the proposal is more favorable to Palestinians - pretty much on the same points that Israel couldn't concede in the Oslo context: the 1967 borders, right of return, east Jerusalem. It is still important, since it signaled that Arabs are willing to accept Israel's existence. Dec 4, 2023 at 18:49

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .