One-State Solution Gaining Steam

[Classical_Liberal]

One-State Solution Gaining Steam
Jewish leaders worried about ‘seductive idea.’
James D. Besser - Washington Correspondent


When a delegation of young legal advisers to the Palestinian Authority were in Washington recently, they made their usual pitch about settlements and Israel’s new security fence.

But not far from the surface was a new argument with old overtones: support for a two-state solution to the conflict is rapidly waning among Palestinians, they said. Instead, more and more are supporting the creation of a single, binational democratic state between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean.

That idea has generated little interest in Washington, mostly because it is a blatant prescription for the quick elimination of the Jewish state.

But Jewish leaders are worried. In some quarters — including across Europe and on campuses at home — “it will be a seductive idea,” said Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League.

http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=8751

[Jim Sagle]

1. But off campus, fuggggggedddddddddddddddaboudit!!!

[BlackFrancis]

2. People will become better informed

There was a study that showed that the majority of Americans believed the Palestinians were the occupiers in the situation.

Trying to explain the whole thing as it stands now is complicated and involves a bunch of history lessons that run longer than most peoples attention span.

Ask these same people if they support equal rights for Palestinians and Israeli's within the same country and barely anyone will say no.

[La_Serpiente]

3. Wha?

Palestnians occupiers?

[Classical_Liberal]

6. anti -Iraq war sentiments were once more predomenent on

campuses as well. Besided the majority of Americas who have expressed an opinion on the matter think the settlements should be stopped.

[brainshrub]

4. Better chance of Mars crashing into Earth

The Israeli government will kill or deport every man, woman, child and dog in Palestine before they share a state with them. They consider them lower than pigs. (And ditto for the attitude that the Palestinians have toward the Israelis)

A one-state solution would end the dream of a pure Jewish-state; and that's not going to be allowed to happen. Period.

As I've stated before, the Palestinians are doomed. They should just leave if they can and just resign themselves to being a conquered people. The fight is over for them, to go on is suicidal.

[BlackFrancis]

5. at least then you know what you are dealing with

No more bullshiting about what a misunderstood nation Israel is.

[rini]

31. There is no misunderstanding

Israel is a democratic progressive state.

[La_Serpiente]

7. What the hell?

That is their land? Why should they leave?

Let this be a warning to Israel. If they expel the Palestnians, we will see radical Islam like we have never seen before. International terrorism WILL be inflamed to passions unheard of. We will lose ALL of our Muslim allies. Also, the EU will not stand for it.

I don't believe in the one state solution. I firmly believe in the two state solution. However, Israel does prevent a two-state solution, there will only be two choices: One-state solution or radical Islam.

We cannot just tell a people who have been living there for hundreds of years to get up and move. They are human beings too. Also, there is a sizable amount of Palestnians in Israel too. A "plurality" can sink Israel into street warfare.

[Classical_Liberal]

8. I don't believe that

The Israelis state will be over if they do that as well. It will make them look like hypocrites on the whole antinazi agenda. More likely they'll get serious about a two state solution if Palestinians kiss them and claim them as countrymen then if they do suicide bombings.

[Blitz]

9. Israel is no more a pure Jewish state

Than America or France or Italy are pure-Christian states. Less so, in fact, since only about 80% of Israelis are Jews and in America, South Aemrica and most of Europe Christians comprise far more than 80% of the population.

A citizen of Israel can decide to convert to Christianity or Islam or Buddhism or virtually any other faith. They will not be jailed or whipped or thrown out of the country or killed. Their homes and property will remain their own.

Do citizens of Saudi Arabia or Jordan or Syria or Egypt or Lebanon or the UAE or Kuwait or Lybia have that option? What will happen to them if they decide to convert?

Of course, as long as there is one Jew upon the earth, people will continue to repeat the canard about the fearsome "pure Jewish state." Hell, it may even survive that last Jew.

[Classical_Liberal]

10. It is illegal for Christian missionaries to convert Jews in Israel

Ethiopian Jews are discriminated against and refused immigration because many have become christian over the centuries. This is a severe bone of contention between likudniks and their religious right supporters here in America. Israel would presently be majority muslim if they hadn't kicked most palestinians out of the country in 48. It will be by 2010 if it doesn't get rid of the west bank.

[meti57b]

42. It should be illegal for missionaries to convert people, everywhere.

How many cultures have missionaries destroyed with their aggressive proselytizing.

[Muddleoftheroad]

45. Why?

Religious choice should be up to those involved. If I try to convert you without force, you have the clear option to say, "No!"

[meti57b]

47. reasons:

Overall, for the reason I have already stated, that native cultures have been destroyed or weakened by aggressive proselytizing.

Just looking at the bush administration and recent polls, my opinion is that at least half the people are far more gullible than I had previously imagined.... even considering that in this country, we have public education and plenty of dissemination of news and information, more so than many other places, people remain gullible. As a result I do not believe that people who are subjected to aggressive proselytizing are making a free choice.

Most of what is promised by proselytizers is conjecture and wishful thinking. As such, there is nothing superior to the religion they are pushing, over any other native or cultural religion. (I say that not as an atheist, but maybe a wishful thinker.)

In past times and maybe even now, proselytizers have shown up with more advanced technology and there have been instances where that has persuaded proselytizees that some other religion is superior.

[Muddleoftheroad]

48. I fail to see a problem

Again, I see nothing wrong with spreading religion. If people don't like it, they don't have to join.

What you consider to be "conjecture and wishful thinking," many of us consider to be faith. As such, there IS something superior to the religion they are promoting. If they do not think so, they don't have to join.

[bluesoul]

49. "Spreading" religion

as long as it's the right one I guess. If it was Islam, people would be screamin against it...

[Muddleoftheroad]

50. Islam IS speading in America

You don't see me screaming about it.

I only fear RADICAL Islam which is basically at war with us. Slightly different.

[meti57b]

55. "if people don't like it, they don't have to join"

Again, I do not think it is a free choice that they make as many proselytizers spell out dire consequences if proselytizees do not convert and many are gullible.

But admittedly, as a Jew it is an aspect of my own faith that we do not proselytize but instead believe that other religions are fine for non-Jews. So being against proselytizing is just my opinion.

[Lurking Dem]

61. I would like people to bear in mind

that Christian proselytizing in Arab Muslim countries is a death sentence.

I think it's squicky too but hardly worth taking one's head over.

Does anyone know the penalty in Israel for this?

[BlackFrancis]

11. okay..

As far as what will happen to you if you covert in your list of bad places is this: You will be issued a new identity card with the new symbol and be treated to various levels of discrimination on a non-official level.

Exactly the same as Israel.

If you are Jewish and want to convert in Israel you have to go to a government office and they will try everything they can to make it impossible.

on edit: What the hell did that have to do with anything?

[tinnypriv]

18. They will be kicked out of school though

;-)

[Gimel]

44. The contempt is held for the terrorists

The Palestinian people are welcome to be a part of the Israeli economy, to share resources and medical facilities. In fact, the future Palestinian state will need to continue in this accomodation. A state with a leader is one thing, but a viable economy, medical system, social services are also necessary.


The current status of 1.3 million Arab Muslems in Israel is democratically equal to the rest. Most have a higher standard of living than I do, a Jewish immigrant of 20 some years.

[Muddleoftheroad]

12. Desperation

I consider all of the binational talk just another desperate attempt to scare Israel into doing what its enemies wish.

There will be no binational state in our lifetime and probably a lot longer. It would destroy Israel and the Israelis aren't going to be accommodating on that point.

[BlackFrancis]

13. "doing what it's enemies wish"

Like coming to grips with the fact that Palestinians are no better than they are and deserve the same rights and freedoms? That's pretty sinister stuff there, better not do that :eyes:

[Muddleoftheroad]

14. Israel has a right to exist

The binational solution would destroy Israel. This is not about the Palestinians, it is about destroying the state of Israel.

[BlackFrancis]

15. why would it "destroy" Israel?

This sort of arrangement was reached in South Africa, Bosnia, and Northern Ireland.

I think it's interesting that notions like "democracy" that get tossed around here as glittering generalities can be immediately dispenced with and revert instantly to racial totalitarianism if the model isn't a Jewish majority with it's boot on the neck of an Arab minority vs. a secular democratic state with institutional protections of the rights of the minority.

[The Magistrate]

16. Hardly, Mr. Francis

South Africa was a state in which only a very small proportion of the population held all political power, and arranged the whole jurisdiction in their favor. That order is gone and smashed; only the name remains. The circumstance in Israel is quite different. In Israel itself, Jews outnumber other demographic groups decisively, and these are allowed political participation. To create a situation in which Jews do not decisively outnumber other demographic groups decisively, the whole of the land and inhabitants west of the river must be lumped together.

Bosnia-Herzegovina is hardly a happy state of many peoples. It is divided into cantons, bitterly hostile to one another, and disinclined to work together politically at any level. Even the nominal form of unity present is solely the result of over-awing foreign force, and should foreign authorities and garrisons be withdrawn, the cantons will seperate, one way or another.

In North Ireland, there was a reasonably successful course of negotiation with an armed guerrilla force pursued, that has resulted in what may yet prove a workable political solution. It is far from certain that it will, as the Unionists continue to give a good deal of trouble over various pretexts. They are well aware that North Ireland will not long remain independent of the Irish Republic should England sever Crown ties to it.

There is not going to be a unitary state west of the Jordan unless it is imposed by military force. The state of Israel was founded in order that there would be a state on this earth wherein state persecution of Jews was a practical impossibility. Given the sorry history of the last millenia, this seems to me a reasonable course. The Jews of Israel and the world will not give it up voluntarily.

[BlackFrancis]

46. I'm sure you are right

However, I think a right thinking world that feared instablity enough to cow the various Bosnian factions into shutting up and sitting down should certainly be willing to step in and force some sort of agreement on Israel/Palestine.

I think it would serve them both right to be stuck with one another honestly.

Also it's not all political tactics, the fact is these settlements exist and they aren't all a trailer thrown up by some wacked out "ultra-zionist". There are large Jewish communities that really can't be folded up and moved on a whim. Israel wanted this mess to ensure that it could never be undone and to a large part they were sucessful. I'm not sure it can be undone and if it can't what solution is there other than universal sufferage?

[The Magistrate]

65. It Can Be Un-Done, Sir

The largest settlements are pretty near the border, and some decent land-swap might be arranged in some cases. In others, people are just going to have to leave, enticed to it where possible, forced to it by the Israeli government where necessaary.

The settlements are not particularly popular with the people of Israel: they are damned expensive.

A seperation of the Bosnian cantons, by the way, would not necessarily involve violence. No real national authority exists there.

[Jack Rabbit]

66. Land swap

This is one of the items addressed in the Geneva Accord. It may not be an entirely satisfacory solution in the eyes of some, but it will be much easier than dismantling the larger settlements.

[Classical_Liberal]

52. then israel is denying it's own right exist

by expanding the settlements causing Palestinians to lose hope that a two state solution is possible. In other words hurry up and stop the settlements.

[rini]

32. the rights or lack thereof of Palestinians

is not Israel's problem as they are not Israeli citizens. Throw that bone to Arafat.

[Darranar]

33. They are under occupation...

the Occupying Power is responsible according to International Law.

[Jack Rabbit]

41. You are mistaken

We are talking in the context of a single-state solution. If that single state is a Jewish state, i.e. Israel, then the rights of the Palestinians in that state will be very much Israel's problem; how Israel remains a Jewish state in the face of a potential Arab majority will also be an interesting problem.

That, of course, is why I strongly favor a two-state solution.

[Classical_Liberal]

53. So they will fight to be citizens then

That simple. They deny them that, they are Afrikaaners in the eyes of even the Americans.

[Classical_Liberal]

51. I feel very stongly that the two state solution

prospects are just as weak, given the continued expansion of the settlements.

[tinnypriv]

17. Israeli stupidity is causing this

But the Palestinian leadership would be idiotic to embrace it. Nor should this be made as a threat to Jewish Israeli's. They'll pick either:

1. Transfer
2. Blowing up the world

before they'll pick a one-state solution. In fact, the former is currently supported by 46% of that sector of Israel.

[Muddleoftheroad]

19. If you believe that poll

I assume you believe the poll that says something like 75% of Palestinians support terror. If both are true, you could understand why less than half of the Israelis might not want the Palestinians around. (And no, I don't support transfer.)

[tinnypriv]

22. Don't be ridiculous

1. The Jaffe polls have proven to be extremely accurate in the past.

2. I'm rounding figures from several polls, some of which are higher, some of which are lower. All are of the order of 35-50%.

3. It isn't "Israelis" we are talking about, it is Jewish Israelis. I made the distinction for a reason. I presume I don't need to elaborate.

4. I made several detailed comments on that poll of the Palestinians, and regardless, the relative accuracy of it compared to the 46% (derived) figure is irrelevant.

5. There is no need to say you don't support transfer, because I'm assuming that anybody who did would be out on their ass from DU.

6. Supposing both polls are accurate, I'd suspect you're half correct that there is a correlation between support for terrorist attacks and Jewish attitudes towards Arabs. Probably only a slight one however, given the relative figures pre and post Intifada. They indicate a hard-core transfer ideology in addition to a small number of Jewish Israelis who swing in their opinion depending on how much terror they feel.

[Muddleoftheroad]

26. A few points

OK, Jewish Israelis. Again, my point was that if one poll is accurate, why not the other. Both scare me. Positions have hardened thanks to Arafat's Intifadas.

Actually, there IS a need to say I don't support transfer just to deflect that line of debate before it happens.

[Suzette]

20. Palestine 1918 to 1948

Palestine is the name given by Arabs to an area in the Middle East. Palestine was absorbed into the Ottoman Empire in 1517 and remained under the rule of the Turks until World War One. Towards the end of this war, the Turks were defeated by the British forces led by General Allenby. In the peace talks that followed the end of the war, parts of the Ottoman Empire were handed over to the French to control and parts were handed over to the British – including Palestine. Britain governed this area under a League of Nations mandate from 1920 to 1948. To the Arab population who lived there, it was their homeland and had been promised to them by the Allies for help in defeating the Turks by the McMahon Agreement - though the British claimed the agreement gave no such promise.

cut

Many Jews had fought for the Allies during World War Two and had developed their military skills as a result. After the war ended in 1945, these skills were used in acts of terrorism. The new Labour Government of Britain had given the Jews hope that they would be given more rights in the area. Also in the aftermath of the Holocaust in Europe, many throughout the world were sympathetic to the plight of the Jews at the expense of the Arabs in Palestine.

In 1947, the newly formed United Nations accepted the idea to partition Palestine into a zone for the Jews (Israel) and a zone for the Arabs (Palestine). With this United Nations proposal, the British withdrew from the region on May 14th 1948. Almost immediately, Israel was attacked by Arab nations that surrounded in a war that lasted from May 1948 to January 1949*. Palestinian Arabs refused to recognise Israel and it became the turn of the Israeli government itself to suffer from terrorist attacks when fedayeen (fanatics) from the Palestinian Arabs community attacked Israel. Such attacks later became more organised with the creation of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO). To the Palestinian Arabs, the area the Jews call Israel, will always be Palestine. To the Jews it is Israel. There have been very few years of peace in the region since 1948.


*emphasis added

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/palestine_1918_to_1948.htm

[Darranar]

21. Not a bad summary...

though it certainly misses a few things, such as the fleeing of many Palestinians from Palestine during the fighting.

[tinnypriv]

23. The emphasised part just doesn't happen to be accurate

But don't let that stop you.

[Darranar]

24. What's innaccurate about it?

[tinnypriv]

25. Something slightly important happened before the Arabs attacked

i.e. Israel had already expelled a large number of Arabs and taken over swathes of additional territory beyond the UN mandate. It's then that they attacked. Not before.

Now, those two events were not the exact motivation for the attack (bunch of complicated business about Syria, Trans/Jordan etc), but there is no need to go into that, considering the level of seriousness of this site (i.e. zero).

[Darranar]

28. The events you mention...

took place BEFORE Israel was a state; it's perfectly possible that Israel might have withdrawn had there been no war.

That's not to say that there wasn't a considerable desire within Israel to expand beyond the Partition; this was certainly present in the government. However, a move to do so would not have taken place as quickly as the invasion did. Such a move would have been foolish to the extreme; there were many within the Israeli government who would not have let it happen.

[tinnypriv]

30. And where are those events on this site?

Exactly.

BTW, Israel would never have withdrawn.

Not only was it not required to (the Arab territory not being a state), there is not the slightest evidence such a move was ever contemplated by the leadership. In fact, the exact opposite is the case.

[Suzette]

36. The vexing question of the "Palestinian Refugees"

is one of the perennial open sores of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs. The Palestinians left their homes in 1947-48 for a variety of reasons. Thousands of wealthy Arabs left in anticipation of a war, thousands more responded to Arab leaders' calls to get out of the way of the advancing armies, a handful were expelled, but most simply fled to avoid being caught in the cross fire of a battle. Tragically, had the Arabs accepted the 1947 UN resolution, not a single Palestinian would have become a refugee and an independent Arab state would now exist beside Israel.

There are now claims from Arab sources that millions of Palestinians were pushed off their land by the Zionists, then expelled by the new State of Israel in the War of Independence in 1948, followed by similar Israeli policies that continue today. What is the truth of these claims?

The Palestinian tragedy is primarily self-inflicted, a direct result of the vehement Palestinian Arab rejection of the United Nations resolution of November 29, 1947 calling for the establishment of two states in Palestine, and the violent attempt by the Arab nations of the region to abort the Jewish state at birth. Palestinian Arabs have tried to rewrite the history of the 1948 war in a manner that stains Israel politically and morally. Their objective is to 1) extract from Israel a confession of the allegedly forcible dispossession of "native Palestinians" by "an act of expulsion," and then 2) to ensure the return of refugees to parts of the territory that is now Israel and/or to compensate the Palestinian Arabs monetarily for their sufferings.

But this cannot actually happen, however fervently Arabs may believe in it, because historical fact is not what they claim. Arabs left Israel in 1948 in large numbers, it is true, but not for the reasons that Palestinian Arabs put forth. Fortunately for history, during the past decade Israeli and other state archives have declassified millions of records, including invaluable contemporary Arab and Palestinian documents, relating to the 1948 war and the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem. These make it possible to establish the truth about what happened in Palestine.

cut

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_independence_refugees_arabs_why.php

[Darranar]

37. That's not true...

fighting in the region would have broken out anyway; it was simply a question of who would start it.

That is the failure of the "it's all the fault of the Arabs" argument.

[The Magistrate]

38. In The Reference You Cite, Ma'am

There is a certain amount of mis-direction and elision.

There were three distinct periods to the conflict concerning the Partition, and there were differing motives and intention on each side in each period.

In the first period, the early spring of '48, it was definitely to the political interests of Arab Nationalist leadership that Arabs depart the Jewish Zone, as they had long declared Arabs would not suffer to be ruled by Jews, and it was very much in the interests of the Yushiv that the Arabs stay, as they had declared Arabs were welcome and had nothing to fear in the Jewish Zone. It is in this period that the great bulk of the Arab departures from Jaffa and Haifa occured.

The end of this period was marked by the Hagganah offensive during April, to clear the roads to Jerusalem and into the Galilee, chiefly. These had been cut by Arab Nationalist militias, operating with spectacular brutality, and the clearing operations, in which Irgun partisans participated alongside Palmach fighters, were conducted in the same spirit. It was in this offensive that the well known incident at Dier Yassin occured, on the approaches to Jerusalem. Full-scale war was already underway well before the declaration of independence or the Arab states' invasion.

The second period, the early summer, was conditioned by formal war. The Arab states' forces, for the most part, advanced into areas allocated to the Arab Zone, with the exception of the Syrian advance on the eastern Galilee, where a major Arab Nationalist militia band financed by Syria was already active. The principal battling of this period was in the seige ring round Jerusalem, and the western approaches of the city. A great number of Arabs fled in this period from villages in this well populated region, and certainly did so from fear of being involved in the battle, as well as from fear of attacks such as Dier Yassin, which had been greatly magnified by rumor. Such flight from the region of battle is normal, and indeed, is a rational response to the danger. Doubtless most who fled did expect their side would win, and that, too, is normal.

The third period, from the end of the July cease-fire, marked the clear ascendancy of Israeli forces in the conflict. Israeli operations aimed to widen the corridor to Jerusalem, break the Egyptian lodgements in the south, and clear the Galilee of irregular forces. In the operations to widen the Jerusalem corridor, it was definitely intended to drive out Arab inhabitants from such locales as Lydda and Ramleh. The style of operations, rapid movement by motor infantry columns, was inherently dangerous to be near, and there were certainly numerous civilian casualties wherever the shock columns moved. The operations into the Galilee were much more brutal, being aimed at irregulars who themselves operated with great brutality, and necessarily involved measures against villages cooperating with them, which certainly included expulsion by exemplary killing. It is quite proper to speak of Arab departures during this period as being forced by the victor.

The issue of compensation for lost property at this time does not in any way depend on altering historical view, or placing some undeserved onus on Israel. Whether persons left voluntarily or were driven out does not alter that the properties they owned were soon confiscated to the Israeli government, and disposed of without any recompense to their lawful owners. A proper compensation ought to be paid, and some such liquidation of these claims is an essential ingredient to any durable resolution of this conflict.

[The Magistrate]

27. It Seems Close Enough For Government Work To Me, Mr. Darranar

It leaves out a good deal of detail, but that is only to be expected in a summary. There had been a great deal of fighting from at least February between the various militias; English military power had been withdrawn prior to the formal end of the Mandate; the armies of the various Arab states commenced their advances within forty-eight hours of the Israeli declaration of independence, which to me does not seem a strain of "immediately", as these things do take time to set in motion, even when prepared.

[Darranar]

29. All of that is known to me...

the major fault within it is the lack of mention of the Palestinian expulsion - much of which occurred before the invasion.

Otherwise it is rather sound.

[The Magistrate]

34. My Reference Was Only To The Bold-Faced Portion Mr. Priv Mentioned, Sir

[Darranar]

35. Okay.

[Tinoire]

39. Of course it is and THNAK GOD!

I mean people are people right :shrug: and no one is more special than the other, right :shrug:. That is, of course, what Democratic ideals are ALL about, right? :shrug:

[Jack Rabbit]

40. A one-state solution won't fly

The Palestinians would be foolish to abandon a two-state solution. The Israelis aren't going to give up on their Jewish state; consequently, a single state would not be a democratic Palestine (such as assumed by Ms. Tinoire, post 39). This would be especially true if the Palestinians were to become a numerical majority, as most believe they will in a short time.

A single state solution would either mean there is no Jewish state or there is no democratic state. Assuming that the Jewish state prevails over the democratic state, the Palestinians would never be fully free or equal.

Only a two-state solution offers Israel the chance to remain both Jewish and democratic and at the same time offers the Palestinians any chance for themselves living in a democratic society. Superficially, a one-state solution sounds like the democratic ideal, but in reality it is a bad idea with more problems than virtues.

[Classical_Liberal]

54. Actually it means the Israelis should start working hard

for a two state solution, not the Palestinians. Frankly if the Palestinians abandon it, the Israelis will start working harder for it. The trouble is the Israelis are working against two states presently, by expanding the settlements so working for a one state solution would be a good strategic move on the part of the Palestinians, since it is obviously what the Israelis want. That is not to say Palestinians won't accept a two state solution, but since it is more in the interest of the Israelis to have one, they should dump it and make the Israelis work on it.

[Jack Rabbit]

57. Long-term negotiating strategies aside

It seems that the old Chinese proverb can be applied to the Israeli right wing's lust for Greater Israel: Be careful what you wish for; you might get it.

[Classical_Liberal]

59. Israel can't go the route of ethnic cleansing

It will lose even the Americans if it does that. The neocons got us into Iraq and supported the Kosovo intervention on the basis of stopping genocide. They just don't have a leg to stand on with this. The present strategy of the Palestinians working for two states, with the Israelis working for greater Israel has put us into a diplomatic deep freeze for two years. Only after the palestinians and their supporters seriously started talking about a multi culti state have we seen any signs of change on Sharon's side. Now his ministers are questioning the occupation. Now the peace movement is immerging from their bunkers. The fear of a multicultural state, is the only thing that has created signs of life.

[BlackFrancis]

62. You think hypocrisy would interfere with foreign policy?

I don't even think it would make a blip on the American radar if they pushed them all out somewhere on some security pretext.

[Classical_Liberal]

64. Yes, hypocracy would interfere with foreign policy

It would make the neocons look very bad.

[BlackFrancis]

67. Have you ever read the "Syrian Accountability Act"?

They seriously have no shame and I think they actually enjoy the irony of contradicting themselves all the time.

[Classical_Liberal]

68. Yes, but not many people have

because there is hardly any coverage of congress. A transfer of Palestinians is alot more dramatic, and will certainly get coverage.

[bluesoul]

69. I bet some people

wouldn't even blink if "transfer" happened, so anti-Muslim they are..

[Muddleoftheroad]

58. Not necessarily

If the Palestinians abandon it doesn't mean the Israelis have to. They can simply wait for the Palestinians to come to their senses. In the meantime, the status quo continues.

[Classical_Liberal]

60. The Israelis can't abandon the two state solution when

they never tried it in the first place. The Israelis are already working on the one state solution. That is why they are expanding settlements. I say that Palestinians should cooperate with them and fight for the right to move into settler neighborhoods.

[Jack Rabbit]

63. The most important reason the Israelis can't abondon a two-state solution

A one-state solution means the end of Israel as a Jewish democracy. Such a concept can only exist where Jews are assured of being the majority; if Israel were to incorporate the West Bank and Gaza, Jews would soon be a minority in the Jewish state. Moreover, the status of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza as non-citizens would make hollow any claims to democracy, Jewish or otherwise. Deomcracy is a state where citizenship is universal and equal. One cannot have democracy and split-level citizenship or where vast numbers of people are denied citizenship. The reality would simply contradict the claim.

It doesn't matter how the single state is brought about. Whether the Palestinians agree to a one-state arrangement of some kind or whether the Israelis simply impose sovereignty on the Occupied Territories, Israel will cease to be a Jewish democracy either at that moment or soon thereafter.

[meti57b]

43. one-state solution is a lot of hot air.

[Classical_Liberal]

56. If the Israelis want a two state solution

then they should act like it, instead of expanding settlements. It is Israel's responsibility to create two states if that is what israel truly wants. Right now they are expanding settlements and creating one state so why should the Palestinians work for one state with the Israelis?