A two-state solution is still the way

[oberliner]

Relations between Israelis and Palestinians have reached such a low point that many on both sides are increasingly despairing of peace efforts.

The rationales vary, as do the proposed implications, but the diagnosis is similar: The two-state solution, the formula that most Israelis and Palestinians support as a compromise solution for their conflict and that is the official policy of the United States and the international community, is no longer viable.

Moreover, groups that consider the two-state solution as the cornerstone of their vision for a secure and lasting peace are increasingly dismissed as passé, unrealistic. "It's over," many are saying from within those communities.

Is it really? Not even close.

A negotiated separation agreement between Israelis and Palestinians that would allow both to live in their sovereign states, with peace and security, can work. True, there are challenges to achieving this goal, including the Israeli settlement enterprise, the question of Hamas, regional spoilers and absentee U.S. leadership. But the alternatives are either unacceptable or unrealistic.

<snip>

A binational state means, for all practical purposes, dismantling the state of Israel. Would Israeli Jews ever accept that? Would Palestinians - or anyone else, for that matter - ever be able to impose it? Why should Israelis give up on their dream and why should Palestinians give up on their yearning for a national homeland? And how would the two communities share in government and administration? A binational state, too, is a recipe for perpetual conflict.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/05/31/opinion/eddajani.php

[Tom Joad]

1. Maybe they should spend more of their time speaking out against the annexation wall

or the sanctions against Palestinians, or opposing US military aid to Israel as it occupies Palestine and keeps this perpetual war going and going.

[oberliner]

2. They have spent a lot of time speaking out against those things

Spend some time on the Americans for Peace Now website and you will find that to be the case.

http://www.peacenow.org/

[sabbat hunter]

6. annexation wall?

or protection wall? is it just coincidence that since the wall/fence has been put up very few, if any, terror attacks have come from the west bank.

not to mention the fact that resolution 242 allows for israel to have safe and defensible borders and allows for adjustments to the borders from the truce green line.

maybe the palestinians should try peaceful nonviolent protests instead? they worked in india against the british.

[breakaleg]

7. If it was primarily for protection, they would have put it on the green line.

The fact that they didn't proves they had a little land grab on the table as well. How can anyone dispute this? All you have to do is look at a map and it proves it out.

Not to mention the facts that are coming out about new settlement plans on the annexed land that have been in the works for quite a while.

[sabbat hunter]

8. the green line

is where the fighting stopped. it isnt meant to be the final borders at least not by resolution 242.

the palestinians deserve their own state, in gaza and in continuous territory on the west bank. but not necessarily along the green line.

[breakaleg]

9. you are right. We should go back to the origial UN partition plan since that's the only

way land can be transfered from one state to another.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pelsar]

4. Egypt doesnt want to....

just the simple fact that they put on no pressure to "widen" the gates of rafah (egypt/gaza) is indicative of their political viewpoint in that matter......

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.