Comments on: One State Solution

By: Mission accomplished: Times article undermines the one-state solution

Mission accomplished: Times article undermines the one-state solution — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 12:51:08 +0000

[...] Solution?" From the update on the blog site it was evidently controversial and it was reportedly removed from the Times homepage soon after it was posted. If the Times actually wanted to promote intelligent discussion of this important idea there is not [...]

By: georgia payday loans

georgia payday loans — Mon, 08 Aug 2011 21:53:40 +0000

nice blog here. I wish I could blog like you.. well, take it easy. happy new year

By: Shame on Sharm | KABOBfest

Shame on Sharm | KABOBfest — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 06:47:55 +0000

[...] After Sharm el Sheikh, the European leaders headed to Israel where they met with Olmert and debriefed him. They expressed a desire to see a renewed push for peace and a two-state solution. The British and French leaders called for Israel to pull its troops out of Gaza as soon as possible – any peace must begin there. Sarkozy explained that “what is at stake is the future of the state of Israel.” In other words, either a peaceful two-state solution is reached, or the state of Israel as we have come to know it is doomed. [...]

By: Roy

Roy — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 08:36:00 +0000

There is no war Roy, their is only military occupation and violence.

That isn't merely untrue, it's gibberish. There is no such thing as a military occupation without there being a war it was part of. If you've got hostile foreign troops on your soil, taking control, you're at war.

Also amusing is the notion of "military violence" on foreign people not being a war.

It's a war, and it's never been resolved. Hamas thinks it can merely demand everything it wants, and back it up with rocket attacks on civilians (which, somehow, you think is not waging war). You seem to think that's a good approach.

I don't. I think Hamas needs to surrender.

By: Arayus

Arayus — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 16:46:00 +0000

"Nope, you're backwards. You've lost the notion of what occupation is. It's part of war. You think it's a cause of war, but it isn't."

Arab-Israelis living with Israeli citizenship never rose up against Israel in any meaningful way. This is despite the fact that they live as second class citizens in Israel and face massive social discrimination. HOWEVER, despite all that they still have citizenship and the ability to live a somewhat decent life. For this reason they have been largely complacent despite calls from Israeli ministers to ethnically cleanse them or take away their voting rights or the recent ruling to ban their political parties from the upcoming election.

Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza however, live under a brutal military occupation, and just like any other human being on the planet they will resist ferociously. Their grievance is the brutal occupation and the inability to live a decent life.

There is no war Roy, their is only military occupation and violence. The only way to end both is to either give the Palestinians their own VIABLE state or give them Israeli citizenship. I prefer the latter solution, and so do many Palestinians.

Its all up to Israel. The Palestinians are more than ready.

By: Roy

Roy — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 14:15:00 +0000

If the occupation were a strategic and temporary necessity to secure Israel until peace were made with the Palestinians

I haven't argued that that's what it is. I said it's part of the war. Not some stopgap measure between war and peace. War that never quite ended.

By: Joe

Joe — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 14:14:00 +0000

I think the one state solution is the only viable option. The "territories" really don't look like a feasible state.

The Palestinians should be very generously compensated and awarded citizenship. I think this would even (over some time) lead to less racism in the Jewish community in Israel. The ****ers will just have to get along.

The only thing is, would Palestinians be happy with the name "Israel" or should it be one Palestine?

By: Sama Adnan

Sama Adnan — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 13:01:00 +0000

In the 1990s after the first Intifada, the Madrid talks and the Oslo Peace Accords, there was a real lull in the conflict and a chance for a genuine peace between the two peoples. However, Israel chose to solidify and extend its occupation, creating more facts on the ground and increasing the settler population from 90,000 in the West Bank and East Jerusalem in 1991 to 350,000 in the West Bank and East Jerusalem in 2000. If the occupation were a strategic and temporary necessity to secure Israel until peace were made with the Palestinians, Israel would not need to populate the West Bank.

By: Roy

Roy — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 12:04:00 +0000

As to which came first, the occupation or the war, depends on what war we're talking about.

There has been a continual state of war between Israel and various Arab states and groups since Israel's creation. Many of those wars were settled in the conventional way. The state of war with the Palestinians has never been settled.

The relationship between Israel and Palestinians has always been a wartime relationship. There are not multiple wars, there is one, continuous state of war that has different phases of fighting and cease-fires, but there has never been a negotiated peace to say "the war is over".

When did you think the war ever ended?

By: Shafiq

Shafiq — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 10:46:00 +0000

What war are we on about here?

The Israeli-Arab war from 1948?
The current war between Hamas and Israel?
The war between Israel and Palestinian territories since 1967?

As to which came first, the occupation or the war, depends on what war we're talking about.

And SouthAsianReader: Totally agree with you, which is why I think there SHOULDN'T be a two-state solution. It's not feasible in the long term.