Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Is annexation and one state truly workable?
Its problematic....but then so is every other idea. It is however an approach that hasn't been as fully explored as others. I think on the West Bank front its more viable. On Gaza? Not so much.
Gaza tends to be more militant, the West Bank less so. Any two state solution is going to run into major problems because of Israel's insistence of making Jerusalem its capital, despite the fact that it sits in the center of territory that isn't its own. It would be like the US making Ottawa its capital. And canada saying otherwise.
Such an arrangement necessitates constant conflict as unless everyone visiting is airdropped, they would have to pass through non-israeli territory to get to their own capital. Tel Aviv makes more sense logistically. But the israeli's want Jerusalem.
Well, annex it. The territory and the entire west bank then becomes Israeli territory.Israel would love the territory. Its the source of most of the water used in the lower lands to the west. It includes Jerusalem and restores Israel to much of its Torah era boundaries.
The main issue is the people. Israel wants to maintain a 'uniquely Jewish character'. By annexing the territory they'd also have to annex the people. And that means many, many more Arab Israelis.
However......Arab Israelies are generally pretty peaceful. And Israel is going to have to do something about the people eventually. The longer it waits the more severe the issues will become. And have become.
By making them Arab Israelies with most rights, they remove much of the impetus of rebellion. You might even be able to get Arab financial support for Arab Israeli economic initiatives to improve the employment and education situation of west bank arabs.
Gaza....is a whole different ball of wax. But with Gaza they can literally quarenteen it. Not so much with the West Bank.
One that isn't often discussed....is the annexation by Israel of Palestinian territory. Making the Palestinians Israelis, a country that already has a large Arab Israeli population.
Polls of palestinians in the west bank have shown surprisingly strong support for such a proposal. It would also eliminate any claims of 'occupation'. As the territory would belong to Israel.
Do you have any links? And how do they envision such a state?
Is annexation and one state truly workable?
Its problematic....but then so is every other idea. It is however an approach that hasn't been as fully explored as others. I think on the West Bank front its more viable. On Gaza? Not so much.
Gaza tends to be more militant, the West Bank less so. Any two state solution is going to run into major problems because of Israel's insistence of making Jerusalem its capital, despite the fact that it sits in the center of territory that isn't its own. It would be like the US making Ottawa its capital. And canada saying otherwise.
Such an arrangement necessitates constant conflict as unless everyone visiting is airdropped, they would have to pass through non-israeli territory to get to their own capital. Tel Aviv makes more sense logistically. But the israeli's want Jerusalem.
Well, annex it. The territory and the entire west bank then becomes Israeli territory.Israel would love the territory. Its the source of most of the water used in the lower lands to the west. It includes Jerusalem and restores Israel to much of its Torah era boundaries.
The main issue is the people. Israel wants to maintain a 'uniquely Jewish character'. By annexing the territory they'd also have to annex the people. And that means many, many more Arab Israelis.
However......Arab Israelies are generally pretty peaceful. And Israel is going to have to do something about the people eventually. The longer it waits the more severe the issues will become. And have become.
By making them Arab Israelies with most rights, they remove much of the impetus of rebellion. You might even be able to get Arab financial support for Arab Israeli economic initiatives to improve the employment and education situation of west bank arabs.
Gaza....is a whole different ball of wax. But with Gaza they can literally quarenteen it. Not so much with the West Bank.
I admit, I haven't given serious thought to a one-state solution and have always supported 2 states but now that seems increasingly unlikely.
Questions though remain on rights because Israel wants to maintain it's "uniquely Jewish character" which is increasingly at odds with maintaining a secular government. You state "most rights" - what rights would they not have?
He's not into genecide. Satan is. God allows bad terrible things to happen to bring others closer to him to heaven. You can't go to heaven unless you suffer and we all suffer some more than othersIt's not what I'll do its what God will do. Many will parish. Life's not meant to be easy in fact it can be down right scary.The palistinians will never be given a state and Israel will never give up its land. It's in the bible. Israel is protected by the highest power. God. Christians and jews both know this. Muslims will go to hell fighting this unwinnable war.
Better to just accept it. Move on.
I don't tend to agree simply because I don't think rights should be based on religion (it's the cause of too many conflicts) - but...assuming that is true, what are you going to do with all these people involved in this?
Any God that is into genocide is not one I will follow. There's been enough genocide over religious differences. The ME is a mess.
Let's get back to the topic and not derail the thread into the history of Israel and Palestine (which frequently happens with these threads) - there are multiple, and probably equally accurate versions of history depending on one's perspective. Nothing is going to change that so we have to look at what we have now.
One group of people with a nation, who's security is threatened.
Another group of people with no nation and a second class status.
A third group residing in refugee camps.
Is annexation and one state truly workable?
Its problematic....but then so is every other idea. It is however an approach that hasn't been as fully explored as others. I think on the West Bank front its more viable. On Gaza? Not so much.
Gaza tends to be more militant, the West Bank less so. Any two state solution is going to run into major problems because of Israel's insistence of making Jerusalem its capital, despite the fact that it sits in the center of territory that isn't its own. It would be like the US making Ottawa its capital. And canada saying otherwise.
Such an arrangement necessitates constant conflict as unless everyone visiting is airdropped, they would have to pass through non-israeli territory to get to their own capital. Tel Aviv makes more sense logistically. But the israeli's want Jerusalem.
Well, annex it. The territory and the entire west bank then becomes Israeli territory.Israel would love the territory. Its the source of most of the water used in the lower lands to the west. It includes Jerusalem and restores Israel to much of its Torah era boundaries.
The main issue is the people. Israel wants to maintain a 'uniquely Jewish character'. By annexing the territory they'd also have to annex the people. And that means many, many more Arab Israelis.
However......Arab Israelies are generally pretty peaceful. And Israel is going to have to do something about the people eventually. The longer it waits the more severe the issues will become. And have become.
By making them Arab Israelies with most rights, they remove much of the impetus of rebellion. You might even be able to get Arab financial support for Arab Israeli economic initiatives to improve the employment and education situation of west bank arabs.
Gaza....is a whole different ball of wax. But with Gaza they can literally quarenteen it. Not so much with the West Bank.
I admit, I haven't given serious thought to a one-state solution and have always supported 2 states but now that seems increasingly unlikely.
Questions though remain on rights because Israel wants to maintain it's "uniquely Jewish character" which is increasingly at odds with maintaining a secular government. You state "most rights" - what rights would they not have?
Is annexation and one state truly workable?
Its problematic....but then so is every other idea. It is however an approach that hasn't been as fully explored as others. I think on the West Bank front its more viable. On Gaza? Not so much.
Gaza tends to be more militant, the West Bank less so. Any two state solution is going to run into major problems because of Israel's insistence of making Jerusalem its capital, despite the fact that it sits in the center of territory that isn't its own. It would be like the US making Ottawa its capital. And canada saying otherwise.
Such an arrangement necessitates constant conflict as unless everyone visiting is airdropped, they would have to pass through non-israeli territory to get to their own capital. Tel Aviv makes more sense logistically. But the israeli's want Jerusalem.
Well, annex it. The territory and the entire west bank then becomes Israeli territory.Israel would love the territory. Its the source of most of the water used in the lower lands to the west. It includes Jerusalem and restores Israel to much of its Torah era boundaries.
The main issue is the people. Israel wants to maintain a 'uniquely Jewish character'. By annexing the territory they'd also have to annex the people. And that means many, many more Arab Israelis.
However......Arab Israelies are generally pretty peaceful. And Israel is going to have to do something about the people eventually. The longer it waits the more severe the issues will become. And have become.
By making them Arab Israelies with most rights, they remove much of the impetus of rebellion. You might even be able to get Arab financial support for Arab Israeli economic initiatives to improve the employment and education situation of west bank arabs.
Gaza....is a whole different ball of wax. But with Gaza they can literally quarenteen it. Not so much with the West Bank.
I admit, I haven't given serious thought to a one-state solution and have always supported 2 states but now that seems increasingly unlikely.
Questions though remain on rights because Israel wants to maintain it's "uniquely Jewish character" which is increasingly at odds with maintaining a secular government. You state "most rights" - what rights would they not have?
I wouldn't sweat the "uniquely Jewish character" part too much. We have the same discussion here with folks about the "uniquely Christian character" of the USA. One reason that Israel never formalized a Constitution is that they suppressed this secular -- religious battle and moved beyond it. And the number of Arabs, Christians, in the Knesset shows that. I think you do the "2 state" solution and then work to NORMALIZE borders and green cards and migration so that eventually -- in 2340 -- it no longer matters.
Is annexation and one state truly workable?
Its problematic....but then so is every other idea. It is however an approach that hasn't been as fully explored as others. I think on the West Bank front its more viable. On Gaza? Not so much.
Gaza tends to be more militant, the West Bank less so. Any two state solution is going to run into major problems because of Israel's insistence of making Jerusalem its capital, despite the fact that it sits in the center of territory that isn't its own. It would be like the US making Ottawa its capital. And canada saying otherwise.
Such an arrangement necessitates constant conflict as unless everyone visiting is airdropped, they would have to pass through non-israeli territory to get to their own capital. Tel Aviv makes more sense logistically. But the israeli's want Jerusalem.
Well, annex it. The territory and the entire west bank then becomes Israeli territory.Israel would love the territory. Its the source of most of the water used in the lower lands to the west. It includes Jerusalem and restores Israel to much of its Torah era boundaries.
The main issue is the people. Israel wants to maintain a 'uniquely Jewish character'. By annexing the territory they'd also have to annex the people. And that means many, many more Arab Israelis.
However......Arab Israelies are generally pretty peaceful. And Israel is going to have to do something about the people eventually. The longer it waits the more severe the issues will become. And have become.
By making them Arab Israelies with most rights, they remove much of the impetus of rebellion. You might even be able to get Arab financial support for Arab Israeli economic initiatives to improve the employment and education situation of west bank arabs.
Gaza....is a whole different ball of wax. But with Gaza they can literally quarenteen it. Not so much with the West Bank.
I admit, I haven't given serious thought to a one-state solution and have always supported 2 states but now that seems increasingly unlikely.
Questions though remain on rights because Israel wants to maintain it's "uniquely Jewish character" which is increasingly at odds with maintaining a secular government. You state "most rights" - what rights would they not have?
I wouldn't sweat the "uniquely Jewish character" part too much. We have the same discussion here with folks about the "uniquely Christian character" of the USA. One reason that Israel never formalized a Constitution is that they suppressed this secular -- religious battle and moved beyond it. And the number of Arabs, Christians, in the Knesset shows that. I think you do the "2 state" solution and then work to NORMALIZE borders and green cards and migration so that eventually -- in 2340 -- it no longer matters.
Is annexation and one state truly workable?
Its problematic....but then so is every other idea. It is however an approach that hasn't been as fully explored as others. I think on the West Bank front its more viable. On Gaza? Not so much.
Gaza tends to be more militant, the West Bank less so. Any two state solution is going to run into major problems because of Israel's insistence of making Jerusalem its capital, despite the fact that it sits in the center of territory that isn't its own. It would be like the US making Ottawa its capital. And canada saying otherwise.
Such an arrangement necessitates constant conflict as unless everyone visiting is airdropped, they would have to pass through non-israeli territory to get to their own capital. Tel Aviv makes more sense logistically. But the israeli's want Jerusalem.
Well, annex it. The territory and the entire west bank then becomes Israeli territory.Israel would love the territory. Its the source of most of the water used in the lower lands to the west. It includes Jerusalem and restores Israel to much of its Torah era boundaries.
The main issue is the people. Israel wants to maintain a 'uniquely Jewish character'. By annexing the territory they'd also have to annex the people. And that means many, many more Arab Israelis.
However......Arab Israelies are generally pretty peaceful. And Israel is going to have to do something about the people eventually. The longer it waits the more severe the issues will become. And have become.
By making them Arab Israelies with most rights, they remove much of the impetus of rebellion. You might even be able to get Arab financial support for Arab Israeli economic initiatives to improve the employment and education situation of west bank arabs.
Gaza....is a whole different ball of wax. But with Gaza they can literally quarantine it. Not so much with the West Bank.
Is annexation and one state truly workable?
Its problematic....but then so is every other idea. It is however an approach that hasn't been as fully explored as others. I think on the West Bank front its more viable. On Gaza? Not so much.
Gaza tends to be more militant, the West Bank less so. Any two state solution is going to run into major problems because of Israel's insistence of making Jerusalem its capital, despite the fact that it sits in the center of territory that isn't its own. It would be like the US making Ottawa its capital. And canada saying otherwise.
Such an arrangement necessitates constant conflict as unless everyone visiting is airdropped, they would have to pass through non-israeli territory to get to their own capital. Tel Aviv makes more sense logistically. But the israeli's want Jerusalem.
Well, annex it. The territory and the entire west bank then becomes Israeli territory.Israel would love the territory. Its the source of most of the water used in the lower lands to the west. It includes Jerusalem and restores Israel to much of its Torah era boundaries.
The main issue is the people. Israel wants to maintain a 'uniquely Jewish character'. By annexing the territory they'd also have to annex the people. And that means many, many more Arab Israelis.
However......Arab Israelies are generally pretty peaceful. And Israel is going to have to do something about the people eventually. The longer it waits the more severe the issues will become. And have become.
By making them Arab Israelies with most rights, they remove much of the impetus of rebellion. You might even be able to get Arab financial support for Arab Israeli economic initiatives to improve the employment and education situation of west bank arabs.
Gaza....is a whole different ball of wax. But with Gaza they can literally quarenteen it. Not so much with the West Bank.
I admit, I haven't given serious thought to a one-state solution and have always supported 2 states but now that seems increasingly unlikely.
Questions though remain on rights because Israel wants to maintain it's "uniquely Jewish character" which is increasingly at odds with maintaining a secular government. You state "most rights" - what rights would they not have?
I wouldn't sweat the "uniquely Jewish character" part too much. We have the same discussion here with folks about the "uniquely Christian character" of the USA. One reason that Israel never formalized a Constitution is that they suppressed this secular -- religious battle and moved beyond it. And the number of Arabs, Christians, in the Knesset shows that. I think you do the "2 state" solution and then work to NORMALIZE borders and green cards and migration so that eventually -- in 2340 -- it no longer matters.
The US Declaration of independence doesn't declare the US a 'Christian nation', nor does US law exclude those who aren't Christians from being President, nor does US naturalization law automatically grant citizenship to any Christian that arrives, nor there a cross in the US flag.
Israel did and does all these things, save 'Jewish' in place of 'Christian'. With the Israeli Supreme Court doubling down on religion rather than bloodline, insisting that the 'Law of Return' exists only for practicing jews. With the PM pushing for Israel to be declared a Jewish State.
These aren't trivial issues. Equating them to the United States' 'christian character' would be a mistake. And it doesn't fully appreciate how thorny this particular issue is. A full 3rd of the Knesset has already voted to recognize Israel as the Jewish Homeland as part of Israeli 'Basic Law'.
Is annexation and one state truly workable?
Its problematic....but then so is every other idea. It is however an approach that hasn't been as fully explored as others. I think on the West Bank front its more viable. On Gaza? Not so much.
Gaza tends to be more militant, the West Bank less so. Any two state solution is going to run into major problems because of Israel's insistence of making Jerusalem its capital, despite the fact that it sits in the center of territory that isn't its own. It would be like the US making Ottawa its capital. And canada saying otherwise.
Such an arrangement necessitates constant conflict as unless everyone visiting is airdropped, they would have to pass through non-israeli territory to get to their own capital. Tel Aviv makes more sense logistically. But the israeli's want Jerusalem.
Well, annex it. The territory and the entire west bank then becomes Israeli territory.Israel would love the territory. Its the source of most of the water used in the lower lands to the west. It includes Jerusalem and restores Israel to much of its Torah era boundaries.
The main issue is the people. Israel wants to maintain a 'uniquely Jewish character'. By annexing the territory they'd also have to annex the people. And that means many, many more Arab Israelis.
However......Arab Israelies are generally pretty peaceful. And Israel is going to have to do something about the people eventually. The longer it waits the more severe the issues will become. And have become.
By making them Arab Israelies with most rights, they remove much of the impetus of rebellion. You might even be able to get Arab financial support for Arab Israeli economic initiatives to improve the employment and education situation of west bank arabs.
Gaza....is a whole different ball of wax. But with Gaza they can literally quarantine it. Not so much with the West Bank.
Jerusalem has always been the jewish capital. Jerusalem had no historical significance to so-called Palestinians until they wanted to make it an issue for a land grab.
name one other country that isn't allowed to maintain it's capital city. should new York be an international city because it's the financial center of the world?
Is annexation and one state truly workable?
Its problematic....but then so is every other idea. It is however an approach that hasn't been as fully explored as others. I think on the West Bank front its more viable. On Gaza? Not so much.
Gaza tends to be more militant, the West Bank less so. Any two state solution is going to run into major problems because of Israel's insistence of making Jerusalem its capital, despite the fact that it sits in the center of territory that isn't its own. It would be like the US making Ottawa its capital. And canada saying otherwise.
Such an arrangement necessitates constant conflict as unless everyone visiting is airdropped, they would have to pass through non-israeli territory to get to their own capital. Tel Aviv makes more sense logistically. But the israeli's want Jerusalem.
Well, annex it. The territory and the entire west bank then becomes Israeli territory.Israel would love the territory. Its the source of most of the water used in the lower lands to the west. It includes Jerusalem and restores Israel to much of its Torah era boundaries.
The main issue is the people. Israel wants to maintain a 'uniquely Jewish character'. By annexing the territory they'd also have to annex the people. And that means many, many more Arab Israelis.
However......Arab Israelies are generally pretty peaceful. And Israel is going to have to do something about the people eventually. The longer it waits the more severe the issues will become. And have become.
By making them Arab Israelies with most rights, they remove much of the impetus of rebellion. You might even be able to get Arab financial support for Arab Israeli economic initiatives to improve the employment and education situation of west bank arabs.
Gaza....is a whole different ball of wax. But with Gaza they can literally quarantine it. Not so much with the West Bank.
Jerusalem has always been the jewish capital. Jerusalem had no historical significance to so-called Palestinians until they wanted to make it an issue for a land grab.
name one other country that isn't allowed to maintain it's capital city. should new York be an international city because it's the financial center of the world?
I support the internationalization of Mecca and Medina
Is annexation and one state truly workable?
Its problematic....but then so is every other idea. It is however an approach that hasn't been as fully explored as others. I think on the West Bank front its more viable. On Gaza? Not so much.
Gaza tends to be more militant, the West Bank less so. Any two state solution is going to run into major problems because of Israel's insistence of making Jerusalem its capital, despite the fact that it sits in the center of territory that isn't its own. It would be like the US making Ottawa its capital. And canada saying otherwise.
Such an arrangement necessitates constant conflict as unless everyone visiting is airdropped, they would have to pass through non-israeli territory to get to their own capital. Tel Aviv makes more sense logistically. But the israeli's want Jerusalem.
Well, annex it. The territory and the entire west bank then becomes Israeli territory.Israel would love the territory. Its the source of most of the water used in the lower lands to the west. It includes Jerusalem and restores Israel to much of its Torah era boundaries.
The main issue is the people. Israel wants to maintain a 'uniquely Jewish character'. By annexing the territory they'd also have to annex the people. And that means many, many more Arab Israelis.
However......Arab Israelies are generally pretty peaceful. And Israel is going to have to do something about the people eventually. The longer it waits the more severe the issues will become. And have become.
By making them Arab Israelies with most rights, they remove much of the impetus of rebellion. You might even be able to get Arab financial support for Arab Israeli economic initiatives to improve the employment and education situation of west bank arabs.
Gaza....is a whole different ball of wax. But with Gaza they can literally quarenteen it. Not so much with the West Bank.
I admit, I haven't given serious thought to a one-state solution and have always supported 2 states but now that seems increasingly unlikely.
Questions though remain on rights because Israel wants to maintain it's "uniquely Jewish character" which is increasingly at odds with maintaining a secular government. You state "most rights" - what rights would they not have?
Similar limitations that exist for Arab-Israelies now: lacking access to the highest government offices. The PM for example would beyond them. But 99% of elected offices would be open.
Is annexation and one state truly workable?
Its problematic....but then so is every other idea. It is however an approach that hasn't been as fully explored as others. I think on the West Bank front its more viable. On Gaza? Not so much.
Gaza tends to be more militant, the West Bank less so. Any two state solution is going to run into major problems because of Israel's insistence of making Jerusalem its capital, despite the fact that it sits in the center of territory that isn't its own. It would be like the US making Ottawa its capital. And canada saying otherwise.
Such an arrangement necessitates constant conflict as unless everyone visiting is airdropped, they would have to pass through non-israeli territory to get to their own capital. Tel Aviv makes more sense logistically. But the israeli's want Jerusalem.
Well, annex it. The territory and the entire west bank then becomes Israeli territory.Israel would love the territory. Its the source of most of the water used in the lower lands to the west. It includes Jerusalem and restores Israel to much of its Torah era boundaries.
The main issue is the people. Israel wants to maintain a 'uniquely Jewish character'. By annexing the territory they'd also have to annex the people. And that means many, many more Arab Israelis.
However......Arab Israelies are generally pretty peaceful. And Israel is going to have to do something about the people eventually. The longer it waits the more severe the issues will become. And have become.
By making them Arab Israelies with most rights, they remove much of the impetus of rebellion. You might even be able to get Arab financial support for Arab Israeli economic initiatives to improve the employment and education situation of west bank arabs.
Gaza....is a whole different ball of wax. But with Gaza they can literally quarantine it. Not so much with the West Bank.
Jerusalem has always been the jewish capital. Jerusalem had no historical significance to so-called Palestinians until they wanted to make it an issue for a land grab.
name one other country that isn't allowed to maintain it's capital city. should new York be an international city because it's the financial center of the world?
Is annexation and one state truly workable?
Its problematic....but then so is every other idea. It is however an approach that hasn't been as fully explored as others. I think on the West Bank front its more viable. On Gaza? Not so much.
Gaza tends to be more militant, the West Bank less so. Any two state solution is going to run into major problems because of Israel's insistence of making Jerusalem its capital, despite the fact that it sits in the center of territory that isn't its own. It would be like the US making Ottawa its capital. And canada saying otherwise.
Such an arrangement necessitates constant conflict as unless everyone visiting is airdropped, they would have to pass through non-israeli territory to get to their own capital. Tel Aviv makes more sense logistically. But the israeli's want Jerusalem.
Well, annex it. The territory and the entire west bank then becomes Israeli territory.Israel would love the territory. Its the source of most of the water used in the lower lands to the west. It includes Jerusalem and restores Israel to much of its Torah era boundaries.
The main issue is the people. Israel wants to maintain a 'uniquely Jewish character'. By annexing the territory they'd also have to annex the people. And that means many, many more Arab Israelis.
However......Arab Israelies are generally pretty peaceful. And Israel is going to have to do something about the people eventually. The longer it waits the more severe the issues will become. And have become.
By making them Arab Israelies with most rights, they remove much of the impetus of rebellion. You might even be able to get Arab financial support for Arab Israeli economic initiatives to improve the employment and education situation of west bank arabs.
Gaza....is a whole different ball of wax. But with Gaza they can literally quarenteen it. Not so much with the West Bank.
I admit, I haven't given serious thought to a one-state solution and have always supported 2 states but now that seems increasingly unlikely.
Questions though remain on rights because Israel wants to maintain it's "uniquely Jewish character" which is increasingly at odds with maintaining a secular government. You state "most rights" - what rights would they not have?
I wouldn't sweat the "uniquely Jewish character" part too much. We have the same discussion here with folks about the "uniquely Christian character" of the USA. One reason that Israel never formalized a Constitution is that they suppressed this secular -- religious battle and moved beyond it. And the number of Arabs, Christians, in the Knesset shows that. I think you do the "2 state" solution and then work to NORMALIZE borders and green cards and migration so that eventually -- in 2340 -- it no longer matters.
The US Declaration of independence doesn't declare the US a 'Christian nation', nor does US law exclude those who aren't Christians from being President, nor does US naturalization law automatically grant citizenship to any Christian that arrives, nor there a cross in the US flag.
Israel did and does all these things, save 'Jewish' in place of 'Christian'. With the Israeli Supreme Court doubling down on religion rather than bloodline, insisting that the 'Law of Return' exists only for practicing jews. With the PM pushing for Israel to be declared a Jewish State.
These aren't trivial issues. Equating them to the United States' 'christian character' would be a mistake. And it doesn't fully appreciate how thorny this particular issue is. A full 3rd of the Knesset has already voted to recognize Israel as the Jewish Homeland as part of Israeli 'Basic Law'.
it is a matter of environment-------Israel is at odds with dozens of countries that call themselves "Islamic states" flags with crescent and-------laws marginalizing non
muslims/ There is no comparison------these little debates are silly
Is annexation and one state truly workable?
Its problematic....but then so is every other idea. It is however an approach that hasn't been as fully explored as others. I think on the West Bank front its more viable. On Gaza? Not so much.
Gaza tends to be more militant, the West Bank less so. Any two state solution is going to run into major problems because of Israel's insistence of making Jerusalem its capital, despite the fact that it sits in the center of territory that isn't its own. It would be like the US making Ottawa its capital. And canada saying otherwise.
Such an arrangement necessitates constant conflict as unless everyone visiting is airdropped, they would have to pass through non-israeli territory to get to their own capital. Tel Aviv makes more sense logistically. But the israeli's want Jerusalem.
Well, annex it. The territory and the entire west bank then becomes Israeli territory.Israel would love the territory. Its the source of most of the water used in the lower lands to the west. It includes Jerusalem and restores Israel to much of its Torah era boundaries.
The main issue is the people. Israel wants to maintain a 'uniquely Jewish character'. By annexing the territory they'd also have to annex the people. And that means many, many more Arab Israelis.
However......Arab Israelies are generally pretty peaceful. And Israel is going to have to do something about the people eventually. The longer it waits the more severe the issues will become. And have become.
By making them Arab Israelies with most rights, they remove much of the impetus of rebellion. You might even be able to get Arab financial support for Arab Israeli economic initiatives to improve the employment and education situation of west bank arabs.
Gaza....is a whole different ball of wax. But with Gaza they can literally quarenteen it. Not so much with the West Bank.
I admit, I haven't given serious thought to a one-state solution and have always supported 2 states but now that seems increasingly unlikely.
Questions though remain on rights because Israel wants to maintain it's "uniquely Jewish character" which is increasingly at odds with maintaining a secular government. You state "most rights" - what rights would they not have?
Similar limitations that exist for Arab-Israelies now: lacking access to the highest government offices. The PM for example would beyond them. But 99% of elected offices would be open.Is annexation and one state truly workable?
Its problematic....but then so is every other idea. It is however an approach that hasn't been as fully explored as others. I think on the West Bank front its more viable. On Gaza? Not so much.
Gaza tends to be more militant, the West Bank less so. Any two state solution is going to run into major problems because of Israel's insistence of making Jerusalem its capital, despite the fact that it sits in the center of territory that isn't its own. It would be like the US making Ottawa its capital. And canada saying otherwise.
Such an arrangement necessitates constant conflict as unless everyone visiting is airdropped, they would have to pass through non-israeli territory to get to their own capital. Tel Aviv makes more sense logistically. But the israeli's want Jerusalem.
Well, annex it. The territory and the entire west bank then becomes Israeli territory.Israel would love the territory. Its the source of most of the water used in the lower lands to the west. It includes Jerusalem and restores Israel to much of its Torah era boundaries.
The main issue is the people. Israel wants to maintain a 'uniquely Jewish character'. By annexing the territory they'd also have to annex the people. And that means many, many more Arab Israelis.
However......Arab Israelies are generally pretty peaceful. And Israel is going to have to do something about the people eventually. The longer it waits the more severe the issues will become. And have become.
By making them Arab Israelies with most rights, they remove much of the impetus of rebellion. You might even be able to get Arab financial support for Arab Israeli economic initiatives to improve the employment and education situation of west bank arabs.
Gaza....is a whole different ball of wax. But with Gaza they can literally quarantine it. Not so much with the West Bank.
Jerusalem has always been the jewish capital. Jerusalem had no historical significance to so-called Palestinians until they wanted to make it an issue for a land grab.
name one other country that isn't allowed to maintain it's capital city. should new York be an international city because it's the financial center of the world?
New York doesn't have any religious value. Jeruselum (and Mecca and Medina) do. I don't know if it should be under international rule, but I don't think it should be their capital. Places like that are held under a stewardship for the future - not ownership. Riyadh is the Saudi capital, not Mecca.
Let's get back to the topic and not derail the thread into the history of Israel and Palestine (which frequently happens with these threads) - there are multiple, and probably equally accurate versions of history depending on one's perspective. Nothing is going to change that so we have to look at what we have now.
One group of people with a nation, who's security is threatened.
Another group of people with no nation and a second class status.
A third group residing in refugee camps.
The entire region is devolving into a network of refugee camps.
The fatal mistake for Palestinians has ALWAYS been that they've never had the statesmen , the visionary communicators (like Mandela who sat his time in jail and STILL prevailed) or any USABLE form of organization or government. Had decades under the Ottoman Empire to consolidate leadership and government. And they just recently CANNED the Palestinian Authority thru Civil War and in-fighting.
Doesn't matter how many Muslims lived in the area and when. What matters is how many sought to make it a nation with a Palestinian identity.. Our native Americans had more natural political and organizational talents than these folks.. They governed and counciled and warred as organized nations. (aint no 45 Nations warring in Syria right now -- those are gangs.)
We can't GIVE them a nation under those conditions. Because it will not be strong enough to survive in that region on it's own.. ALL SOLUTIONS to an occupation that's gone on way too long involve Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan AND Israel. Because ANY government that will eventually represent the Palis needs some mentors and support.
And POSSIBLY -- at some point -- All those REAL nations who have bought into to making Palestine happen might have to draw a line and say " Those who WANT a Palestinian nation -- stay here." Those that don't support the one we're offereing -- "Get out"...
Is annexation and one state truly workable?
Its problematic....but then so is every other idea. It is however an approach that hasn't been as fully explored as others. I think on the West Bank front its more viable. On Gaza? Not so much.
Gaza tends to be more militant, the West Bank less so. Any two state solution is going to run into major problems because of Israel's insistence of making Jerusalem its capital, despite the fact that it sits in the center of territory that isn't its own. It would be like the US making Ottawa its capital. And canada saying otherwise.
Such an arrangement necessitates constant conflict as unless everyone visiting is airdropped, they would have to pass through non-israeli territory to get to their own capital. Tel Aviv makes more sense logistically. But the israeli's want Jerusalem.
Well, annex it. The territory and the entire west bank then becomes Israeli territory.Israel would love the territory. Its the source of most of the water used in the lower lands to the west. It includes Jerusalem and restores Israel to much of its Torah era boundaries.
The main issue is the people. Israel wants to maintain a 'uniquely Jewish character'. By annexing the territory they'd also have to annex the people. And that means many, many more Arab Israelis.
However......Arab Israelies are generally pretty peaceful. And Israel is going to have to do something about the people eventually. The longer it waits the more severe the issues will become. And have become.
By making them Arab Israelies with most rights, they remove much of the impetus of rebellion. You might even be able to get Arab financial support for Arab Israeli economic initiatives to improve the employment and education situation of west bank arabs.
Gaza....is a whole different ball of wax. But with Gaza they can literally quarenteen it. Not so much with the West Bank.
I admit, I haven't given serious thought to a one-state solution and have always supported 2 states but now that seems increasingly unlikely.
Questions though remain on rights because Israel wants to maintain it's "uniquely Jewish character" which is increasingly at odds with maintaining a secular government. You state "most rights" - what rights would they not have?
I wouldn't sweat the "uniquely Jewish character" part too much. We have the same discussion here with folks about the "uniquely Christian character" of the USA. One reason that Israel never formalized a Constitution is that they suppressed this secular -- religious battle and moved beyond it. And the number of Arabs, Christians, in the Knesset shows that. I think you do the "2 state" solution and then work to NORMALIZE borders and green cards and migration so that eventually -- in 2340 -- it no longer matters.
Is annexation and one state truly workable?
Its problematic....but then so is every other idea. It is however an approach that hasn't been as fully explored as others. I think on the West Bank front its more viable. On Gaza? Not so much.
Gaza tends to be more militant, the West Bank less so. Any two state solution is going to run into major problems because of Israel's insistence of making Jerusalem its capital, despite the fact that it sits in the center of territory that isn't its own. It would be like the US making Ottawa its capital. And canada saying otherwise.
Such an arrangement necessitates constant conflict as unless everyone visiting is airdropped, they would have to pass through non-israeli territory to get to their own capital. Tel Aviv makes more sense logistically. But the israeli's want Jerusalem.
Well, annex it. The territory and the entire west bank then becomes Israeli territory.Israel would love the territory. Its the source of most of the water used in the lower lands to the west. It includes Jerusalem and restores Israel to much of its Torah era boundaries.
The main issue is the people. Israel wants to maintain a 'uniquely Jewish character'. By annexing the territory they'd also have to annex the people. And that means many, many more Arab Israelis.
However......Arab Israelies are generally pretty peaceful. And Israel is going to have to do something about the people eventually. The longer it waits the more severe the issues will become. And have become.
By making them Arab Israelies with most rights, they remove much of the impetus of rebellion. You might even be able to get Arab financial support for Arab Israeli economic initiatives to improve the employment and education situation of west bank arabs.
Gaza....is a whole different ball of wax. But with Gaza they can literally quarenteen it. Not so much with the West Bank.
I admit, I haven't given serious thought to a one-state solution and have always supported 2 states but now that seems increasingly unlikely.
Questions though remain on rights because Israel wants to maintain it's "uniquely Jewish character" which is increasingly at odds with maintaining a secular government. You state "most rights" - what rights would they not have?
Similar limitations that exist for Arab-Israelies now: lacking access to the highest government offices. The PM for example would beyond them. But 99% of elected offices would be open.Is annexation and one state truly workable?
Its problematic....but then so is every other idea. It is however an approach that hasn't been as fully explored as others. I think on the West Bank front its more viable. On Gaza? Not so much.
Gaza tends to be more militant, the West Bank less so. Any two state solution is going to run into major problems because of Israel's insistence of making Jerusalem its capital, despite the fact that it sits in the center of territory that isn't its own. It would be like the US making Ottawa its capital. And canada saying otherwise.
Such an arrangement necessitates constant conflict as unless everyone visiting is airdropped, they would have to pass through non-israeli territory to get to their own capital. Tel Aviv makes more sense logistically. But the israeli's want Jerusalem.
Well, annex it. The territory and the entire west bank then becomes Israeli territory.Israel would love the territory. Its the source of most of the water used in the lower lands to the west. It includes Jerusalem and restores Israel to much of its Torah era boundaries.
The main issue is the people. Israel wants to maintain a 'uniquely Jewish character'. By annexing the territory they'd also have to annex the people. And that means many, many more Arab Israelis.
However......Arab Israelies are generally pretty peaceful. And Israel is going to have to do something about the people eventually. The longer it waits the more severe the issues will become. And have become.
By making them Arab Israelies with most rights, they remove much of the impetus of rebellion. You might even be able to get Arab financial support for Arab Israeli economic initiatives to improve the employment and education situation of west bank arabs.
Gaza....is a whole different ball of wax. But with Gaza they can literally quarantine it. Not so much with the West Bank.
Jerusalem has always been the jewish capital. Jerusalem had no historical significance to so-called Palestinians until they wanted to make it an issue for a land grab.
name one other country that isn't allowed to maintain it's capital city. should new York be an international city because it's the financial center of the world?
New York doesn't have any religious value. Jeruselum (and Mecca and Medina) do. I don't know if it should be under international rule, but I don't think it should be their capital. Places like that are held under a stewardship for the future - not ownership. Riyadh is the Saudi capital, not Mecca.
you understand how I feel about your opinion on this subject, right?
Is annexation and one state truly workable?
Its problematic....but then so is every other idea. It is however an approach that hasn't been as fully explored as others. I think on the West Bank front its more viable. On Gaza? Not so much.
Gaza tends to be more militant, the West Bank less so. Any two state solution is going to run into major problems because of Israel's insistence of making Jerusalem its capital, despite the fact that it sits in the center of territory that isn't its own. It would be like the US making Ottawa its capital. And canada saying otherwise.
Such an arrangement necessitates constant conflict as unless everyone visiting is airdropped, they would have to pass through non-israeli territory to get to their own capital. Tel Aviv makes more sense logistically. But the israeli's want Jerusalem.
Well, annex it. The territory and the entire west bank then becomes Israeli territory.Israel would love the territory. Its the source of most of the water used in the lower lands to the west. It includes Jerusalem and restores Israel to much of its Torah era boundaries.
The main issue is the people. Israel wants to maintain a 'uniquely Jewish character'. By annexing the territory they'd also have to annex the people. And that means many, many more Arab Israelis.
However......Arab Israelies are generally pretty peaceful. And Israel is going to have to do something about the people eventually. The longer it waits the more severe the issues will become. And have become.
By making them Arab Israelies with most rights, they remove much of the impetus of rebellion. You might even be able to get Arab financial support for Arab Israeli economic initiatives to improve the employment and education situation of west bank arabs.
Gaza....is a whole different ball of wax. But with Gaza they can literally quarantine it. Not so much with the West Bank.
Jerusalem has always been the jewish capital. Jerusalem had no historical significance to so-called Palestinians until they wanted to make it an issue for a land grab.
name one other country that isn't allowed to maintain it's capital city. should new York be an international city because it's the financial center of the world?
Is annexation and one state truly workable?
Its problematic....but then so is every other idea. It is however an approach that hasn't been as fully explored as others. I think on the West Bank front its more viable. On Gaza? Not so much.
Gaza tends to be more militant, the West Bank less so. Any two state solution is going to run into major problems because of Israel's insistence of making Jerusalem its capital, despite the fact that it sits in the center of territory that isn't its own. It would be like the US making Ottawa its capital. And canada saying otherwise.
Such an arrangement necessitates constant conflict as unless everyone visiting is airdropped, they would have to pass through non-israeli territory to get to their own capital. Tel Aviv makes more sense logistically. But the israeli's want Jerusalem.
Well, annex it. The territory and the entire west bank then becomes Israeli territory.Israel would love the territory. Its the source of most of the water used in the lower lands to the west. It includes Jerusalem and restores Israel to much of its Torah era boundaries.
The main issue is the people. Israel wants to maintain a 'uniquely Jewish character'. By annexing the territory they'd also have to annex the people. And that means many, many more Arab Israelis.
However......Arab Israelies are generally pretty peaceful. And Israel is going to have to do something about the people eventually. The longer it waits the more severe the issues will become. And have become.
By making them Arab Israelies with most rights, they remove much of the impetus of rebellion. You might even be able to get Arab financial support for Arab Israeli economic initiatives to improve the employment and education situation of west bank arabs.
Gaza....is a whole different ball of wax. But with Gaza they can literally quarenteen it. Not so much with the West Bank.
I admit, I haven't given serious thought to a one-state solution and have always supported 2 states but now that seems increasingly unlikely.
Questions though remain on rights because Israel wants to maintain it's "uniquely Jewish character" which is increasingly at odds with maintaining a secular government. You state "most rights" - what rights would they not have?
I wouldn't sweat the "uniquely Jewish character" part too much. We have the same discussion here with folks about the "uniquely Christian character" of the USA. One reason that Israel never formalized a Constitution is that they suppressed this secular -- religious battle and moved beyond it. And the number of Arabs, Christians, in the Knesset shows that. I think you do the "2 state" solution and then work to NORMALIZE borders and green cards and migration so that eventually -- in 2340 -- it no longer matters.
The US Declaration of independence doesn't declare the US a 'Christian nation', nor does US law exclude those who aren't Christians from being President, nor does US naturalization law automatically grant citizenship to any Christian that arrives, nor there a cross in the US flag.
Israel did and does all these things, save 'Jewish' in place of 'Christian'. With the Israeli Supreme Court doubling down on religion rather than bloodline, insisting that the 'Law of Return' exists only for practicing jews. With the PM pushing for Israel to be declared a Jewish State.
These aren't trivial issues. Equating them to the United States' 'christian character' would be a mistake. And it doesn't fully appreciate how thorny this particular issue is. A full 3rd of the Knesset has already voted to recognize Israel as the Jewish Homeland as part of Israeli 'Basic Law'.
And a "full 1/3" of the US congress would probably support some kind of watered-down Judean Christian heritage resolution.. Check this out ---- List of national flags depicting a cross - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
