Senior Fatah Officials Call For One State Solution.
- Thread starter gryfin
- Start date
Nonsense, you are confusing Zionism's successful policy of supporting immigration with ethnic cleansing.What it shows is that Jewish majority rule is fair to Arab citizens. We can see by observing any Arab state how fair Arab majority rule has been to Jews.
Lebanon would be a good case of a fairly successful multicultural country, it was the Paris of the middle east until Israel started attacking and Hezbollah grew as a resistance force.
Wow. Calling Lebanon successful is a joke. The sectarian system has made for a state of near civil war for decades with the first outright battles in 1958. Since then every little group has kept their own arsenal....
Lebanon would be a good case of a fairly successful multicultural country, it was the Paris of the middle east until Israel started attacking and Hezbollah grew as a resistance force.
And a note for grog's pathetic version of history, the Civil War started in 1975 and Syria invaded in 1976. Israel had nothing to do with either of those.
(also worth mentioning is their Nazi-like laws against the Palestinians)
What would make this the "best" solution? Different nations exist for various reasons, and the reasons would seem to apply double in the case of Israel. Forcing them to live as one state would likely be the recipe for a different set of neverending problems.A one state solution is the best way to fulfill that goal.
If they could work out a two state solution that both sides agree to, that would be great. But that doesn't look possible anymore.What would make this the "best" solution? Different nations exist for various reasons, and the reasons would seem to apply double in the case of Israel. Forcing them to live as one state would likely be the recipe for a different set of neverending problems.
And that really just leaves a one state solution as the real possibility, the choice is whether its a bi-national, apartheid state or a state with equal rights for all.
Personally, the latter sounds better to me.
What other possibilities do you see?
At least not as long as the Palestinians turn down deals like Olmert offered.If they could work out a two state solution that both sides agree to, that would be great. But that doesn't look possible anymore....
(let's not forget that 70% of Palestinians oppose a one state solution)
What a load of clownish propaganda.If they could work out a two state solution that both sides agree to, that would be great. But that doesn't look possible anymore.
And that really just leaves a one state solution as the real possibility, the choice is whether its a bi-national, apartheid state or a state with equal rights for all.
Personally, the latter sounds better to me.
What other possibilities do you see?
First of all it is the Palestinians who rejected what everyone else in the world sees a reasonable deal, and rejected it only because it did not include the destruction of Israel via the importation of millions of hostile Palestinians.
Second that does not only leave the one state solution, there is no reason why the Palestinian territories need to be part of any state -- so long as they remain belligerent they can continue to be an internationally administered or Israeli administered territory.
The "no state" solution is a very real possibility. The Palestinians are so greedy in their desire to destroy Israel that they have repeatedly let slip the chance to have their own state. There is no reason why they should have any state, the territory can be UN administered in perpetuity and that would be GREATLY preferred to the bloody resumption of the 1947 civil war, aka the "one state" bloodbath.
It's premature to declare the two state solution dead. I think claims to the contrary are more or less threats to force a resumption of negotiations ("I don't want to light this fuse, but I will unless...").If they could work out a two state solution that both sides agree to, that would be great. But that doesn't look possible anymore.
And that really just leaves a one state solution as the real possibility, the choice is whether its a bi-national, apartheid state or a state with equal rights for all.
Personally, the latter sounds better to me.
What other possibilities do you see?
I've heard for a long time that everyone knows the real endgame. A state for the Palestinians more or less on the 1967 borders, with negotiated swaps for existing settlements, some share or representation in Jerusalem, some token repatriation for some of the refugees and their descendants with compensation for the others. It won't be palatable to everyone, but that's peace for you.
In comparison, the one state solution is just drawing a border around all the existing problems and hoping for the best. The histories and values and aspirations of the parties involved are just too different to offer much hope of a functioning state.
As I mentioned before, a three state solution makes a lot of sense to me. It's hard enough imagining Hamas and the PA getting along, never mind throwing Jewish politics into the soup. I admit there are problems with that as well, but I can't help but wonder if it's an idea that might smooth the path to peace if it was seriously considered.
One less desirable possibility I see is Israel throwing up its hands and deciding that indefinite status quo is the best they can hope for.
Kerry recently said he gives Israel 2 years left for the two state solution. Given the expansion in the settlements over the last few years that sounds reasonable.It's premature to declare the two state solution dead. I think claims to the contrary are more or less threats to force a resumption of negotiations ("I don't want to light this fuse, but I will unless...").
I've heard for a long time that everyone knows the real endgame. A state for the Palestinians more or less on the 1967 borders, with negotiated swaps for existing settlements, some share or representation in Jerusalem, some token repatriation for some of the refugees and their descendants with compensation for the others. It won't be palatable to everyone, but that's peace for you.
In comparison, the one state solution is just drawing a border around all the existing problems and hoping for the best. The histories and values and aspirations of the parties involved are just too different to offer much hope of a functioning state.
As I mentioned before, a three state solution makes a lot of sense to me. It's hard enough imagining Hamas and the PA getting along, never mind throwing Jewish politics into the soup. I admit there are problems with that as well, but I can't help but wonder if it's an idea that might smooth the path to peace if it was seriously considered.
One less desirable possibility I see is Israel throwing up its hands and deciding that indefinite status quo is the best they can hope for.
The issue seems to be that Israel seems to be very happy to be in a position where they can continue expansion and colonization through settlements. They don't seem to understand that they have colonized so much land as to make the two state solution not viable without dealing with moving half a million people. Fuji has talked of a plan to try to give Gaza to Egypt and the West Bank to Jordan, or the bits left of it, as a possible solution. Though I can't see the other countries as happy to take on Israel's problems for them.
More likely is that Israel continues the expansion status quo until the Palestinians realize that they will never negotiate a viable state and instead fight for equal rights and demographic control.
Precisely the deal that Olmert offered and Abbas turned down just a few years ago....
I've heard for a long time that everyone knows the real endgame. A state for the Palestinians more or less on the 1967 borders, with negotiated swaps for existing settlements, some share or representation in Jerusalem, some token repatriation for some of the refugees and their descendants with compensation for the others. It won't be palatable to everyone, but that's peace for you....
Kerry may be right, but I suspect he may also be trying to impart a sense of urgency by naming a timeframe; a task with no deadline never gets done. It also makes sense that he wants to get a peace deal during Obama's last term, hence 2-3 years max.Kerry recently said he gives Israel 2 years left for the two state solution. Given the expansion in the settlements over the last few years that sounds reasonable.
The issue seems to be that Israel seems to be very happy to be in a position where they can continue expansion and colonization through settlements. They don't seem to understand that they have colonized so much land as to make the two state solution not viable without dealing with moving half a million people. Fuji has talked of a plan to try to give Gaza to Egypt and the West Bank to Jordan, or the bits left of it, as a possible solution. Though I can't see the other countries as happy to take on Israel's problems for them.
More likely is that Israel continues the expansion status quo until the Palestinians realize that they will never negotiate a viable state and instead fight for equal rights and demographic control.
It's understandable that the Palestinians don't want to be in a situation where Israel changes the facts on the ground and gets a more favorable position the longer negotiations last, hence their demand for the settlement freeze. Still, Netanyahu has a point when he says that the last freeze gained nothing at all. My opinion is, he should offer a freeze in the most sensitive areas as a goodwill gesture to resume peace talks.
Having Egypt and/or Jordan permanently resume their pre-1967 control simply isn't on; the Palestinians just have too much invested (in the non-financial sense) in having their own state. But I wonder if a useful treaty arrangement would be an agreement which would give Egypt temporary guardianship over Gaza until the Hamas-PA friction is resolved and elections are held again. They would maintain law and order, stop rocket attacks on Israel, then hand over control to the elected body.
I think the basic problem with the one-state solution is that it has nothing to offer to Israel. They would have nothing to lose in resisting this to the bitter end.
Good post.Kerry may be right, but I suspect he may also be trying to impart a sense of urgency by naming a timeframe; a task with no deadline never gets done. It also makes sense that he wants to get a peace deal during Obama's last term, hence 2-3 years max.
It's understandable that the Palestinians don't want to be in a situation where Israel changes the facts on the ground and gets a more favorable position the longer negotiations last, hence their demand for the settlement freeze. Still, Netanyahu has a point when he says that the last freeze gained nothing at all. My opinion is, he should offer a freeze in the most sensitive areas as a goodwill gesture to resume peace talks.
Having Egypt and/or Jordan permanently resume their pre-1967 control simply isn't on; the Palestinians just have too much invested (in the non-financial sense) in having their own state. But I wonder if a useful treaty arrangement would be an agreement which would give Egypt temporary guardianship over Gaza until the Hamas-PA friction is resolved and elections are held again. They would maintain law and order, stop rocket attacks on Israel, then hand over control to the elected body.
I think the basic problem with the one-state solution is that it has nothing to offer to Israel. They would have nothing to lose in resisting this to the bitter end.
I would add on that the Israeli leaders reflect the perception of the Israeli public. They elected Netanyahu essentially out of frustration with hopelessness of trying to negotiate any sort of deal with the Palstinians. Both because of Olmert's failure to reach a deal despite giving it a real try, and because of the ongoing claims by Hamas that they will never accept Israel under any circumstance--rhetoric they backed up with hundreds upon hundreds of rockets. So the Israeli public reacted by electing hardliners who can deal with unreasonable people.
But I think if there were signs that the Palestinians were sincerely interested in a deal, and all that was holding it back was an obstinate Israeli government--I think the Israelis would do what they have done many times before, and elect some sort of moderate party to go in and see if it can get done.
Its true, but since there is hardly enough land left for a viable Palestinian state, an amount which shrinks by the week, the two state solution is rapidly becoming a non-starter.I think the basic problem with the one-state solution is that it has nothing to offer to Israel. They would have nothing to lose in resisting this to the bitter end.
Even the last offer was fairly pathetic, with a tunnel between Gaza and the West Bank. All it would take is for Abbas to finally honour his threat and shut down the PA, and let Israel run the west bank.
Then just change the fight to a non-violent protest for equal rights and the vote. It would be a PR nightmare for Israel, which they would probably find unstoppable.
Fortunately for Israel, he seems much more interested in maintaining his own power then in working for his people.
Besides generic hatred of Israel, what drugs are you on? Do you think that instead of unimpeded access between the two, the Palestinians would rather drive to Jordan, fly to Egypt then drive to Gaza?Its true, but since there is hardly enough land left for a viable Palestinian state, an amount which shrinks by the week, the two state solution is rapidly becoming a non-starter.
Even the last offer was fairly pathetic, with a tunnel between Gaza and the West Bank....
Don't know how that's fortunate for Israel unless you think 'working for his people' is following the lead of Hamas and launching terror attacks.Fortunately for Israel, he seems much more interested in maintaining his own power then in working for his people.
I would hardly call a tunnel 'unimpeded access'.Besides generic hatred of Israel, what drugs are you on? Do you think that instead of unimpeded access between the two, the Palestinians would rather drive to Jordan, fly to Egypt then drive to Gaza?
Its also unlikely that Palestinians would settle for a series of bantustans for a state.
So, then you believe a two state solution was never possible on 1967 borders. You are some kind of fanatic...I would hardly call a tunnel 'unimpeded access'.
Its also unlikely that Palestinians would settle for a series of bantustans for a state.
What would happen if Israel called his bluff, and didn't run the West Bank?All it would take is for Abbas to finally honour his threat and shut down the PA, and let Israel run the west bank.
Why the hell not? Do you think Palestinians are afraid of subterranean roadways?I would hardly call a tunnel 'unimpeded access'.
Stop being an idiot and take a look at the map that Abbas drew for Olmert's proposal. Completely contiguous Palestinian state.Its also unlikely that Palestinians would settle for a series of bantustans for a state.
Its the gratuitous 'you are a fanatic' type comment on the end of every statement that really puts your commentary in place, Mr Ford.So, then you believe a two state solution was never possible on 1967 borders. You are some kind of fanatic...
The first sentence breaks capital guys commandments of debate with no 2, though shalt not misrepresent or exaggerate an opponents argument to make to make them easier to attack, but then the second is just another random insult. As if thinking that Palestinians would settle for a bantustan classifies me as a 'fanatic'.
