Newly Elected Muslim Congresswomen Favor Eliminating Israel

[Shusha]

You seem to be working awfully hard to avoid understanding my meaning. The NORM over the past 100 years or so, in regions where there is ethnic conflict and/or increased desire for self-determination of various ethnic and historical groups, is to partition the territories and create separate nations based generally along ethnic lines. Its the STANDARD. I have given numerous examples. There are others. To demand that conflicting ethnic communities "must be a one state solution" is to demand that India and Pakistan must remain one state. Or that Yugoslavia must remain unpartitioned. And the question on the table is why the STANDARD must be changed with Israel and Palestine.

It is not suddenly “bad” when the Jewish people want to do it, so so stop playing that card. It wears thin.

Not as thin as 2000 years of antisemitism. I'm going to call it when I see it. I will stop when I stop seeing it. Applying different standards to the Jewish people is problematic. People who insist that it "must be a one state solution" are creating NEW and DIFFERENT standards for the Jewish people.

Seperate but equal has seldom meant true equality for all effected. You do not like references to Apartheid but that seems awfully close to what you are advocating.

I'm advocating the rights of peoples to self-determine. I apply that right universally, to all peoples and to all national liberation movements. For you to compare that to apartheid is disengenuous at best, poisoning at worst. It reeks of the worst kind of argument from emotion because it requires a deliberate misunderstanding of the term "apartheid". I support, have always supported, yet another Arab State in the region. I continue to support that, though, admittedly, I am losing hope that they can accomplish that.

 

[Shusha]

Coyote

Also, just yesterday, I think, you asked Tinmore how a one state solution would guarantee the rights of the Jewish peoples, especially if the Jewish people are in a minority.

I'll return the question to you. In Tlaib's one state solution, how would you protect the Jewish peoples rights to equality?

 

[rylah]

Seperate equal in practice rather than theory.


Separate but equal - Wikipedia

In practice the separate facilities provided to African Americans were rarely equal; usually they were not even close to equal, or they did not exist at all. For example, according to the 1934–36 report of the Florida Superintendent of Public Instruction, the value of "white school property" in the state was $70,543,000, while the value of African-American school property was $4,900,000. The report says that "in a few south Florida counties and in most north Florida counties many Negro schools are housed in churches, shacks, and lodges, and have no toilets, water supply, desks, blackboards, etc. [See Station One School.] Counties use these schools as a means to get State funds and yet these counties invest little or nothing in them." High school education for African Americans was provided in only 28 of Florida's 67 counties.[2]​

People can and do self segregate, but that is in voluntary communities, not mandated by the government and social and economic mobility within the context of the entire country is still possible. I do not think that is the type of “seperate but equal” being suggested however.

In the case of the Palestinians, how would seperate but equal be reflected in the allocation of resources, development, quality of land and natural resources, land rights? How would it be reflected in the governance of the nation as a whole. Would it and could it it truly be equal in a nation that has defined itself as a Jewish homeland and where an increasingly powerful religious block is making the rules? And before you go there, no I am not criticizing only the Jews for the influence of religion in government. I totally believe in the seperation of Church and state in all religions. There are no examples I can think of where it well for all citizens.

In other words Tlaib wants 2 Arabs states and 1 state "for all nations" which they could flood with millions of hostile people. Yeah still trying to sprinkle over the fact that You both are suggesting the elimination of the only Jewish state under false pretense .

The exploitation of the African American civil rights movement to smear Israel is a racist attack on Jews in itself, it has connotations of skin color differentiation of Jews, and to add insult to injury You use it to further excuse the genocidal position of Tlaib and her team.

Too funny. And hypocritical. The exploitation of the Africa American civil rights movement...

Exploding Myths About 'Black Power, Jewish Politics'

And you like to use Martin Luther King to justify all things Israel. Exploitation? Indeed.

It is not exploitation to condemn seperate but equal ideologies.

The further You go the sillier the lies.
I ever mentioned Martin Luther King?

Another attempt to falsely associate Tlaib's genocidal ideologies regarding Jews with a righteous cause.

 

[Sixties Fan]

The Congress woman removing Israel from her “ map” and renaming the Entire area “ Palestine “ isn’t favoring their destruction?

Again, cite where she advocates for ‘eliminating’ Israel – not your inane, subjective inference.

When Muslims speak of a One State Solution, it means Muslims taking over Israel and eliminating it as a Jewish State with a majority Muslim.

Why does it have to be "One State". And what "separate but equal" is she referring to when there are no Jews in Gaza or Areas A and B?
No Jews in Jordan. No Jews in Saudi Arabia?

“One state,” she said in response to a question about whether she supports a one- or two-state solution. “It has to be one state. Separate but equal does not work. I’m only 42 years old but my teachers were of that generation that marched with Martin Luther King. This whole idea of a two-state solution, it doesn’t work.”

----------
Martin Luther was pro Israel.
Repeating that" a Two-state solution does not work" actually means that the Arab Palestinians and many other Muslims are going to continue to refuse to create a Palestine State as long as Israel exists.
They have rejected the Partitions of 1937 and 1947, declared war many times and continue not to want to even come and sit for negotiations since Arafat rejected the best deal they could have gotten, ever.

That is the way it has been since 1920 and will continue until the Palestinian and Muslim education continues to "educate" against the existence of Israel, in any shape or form.

What happens in the US is different from what happens in Israel, and
she and others cannot bring the US as an example.

Extreme Arabs are trying to destroy Israel as a country from within and outside.

The issues in the US are not about a minority wanting to create its own country out of parts of the US with violence, rockets, endless riots, rock throwing at American cars, etc.

When Palestinians like Sansour and Tlaib receive the anti Israel education they have, be it in Israel, Gaza, the PA or the USA, their message is going to be the very same as their Muslim leader in 1920:

No sovereign State for the Jews. Not now, not ever

This is the education he has left for the future generations which Abbas, the Saudis and all others are all too happy to teach their people.

"Palestine" replaces Israel | PMW


And who was their Muslim leader in 1920 who began the riots against the Jewish re-creation of their Nation on their ancient homeland?

How the Mufti of Jerusalem Created the Permanent Problem of Palestinian Violence - The Tower

What Hitler and the Grand Mufti Really Said

----------------

So, in reality:

One State Solution, in the eyes of Islam and the 1920 Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, and of Arafat, and of Abbas, and the PLO and of the next "leader" of the Palestinians, and of Hamas, so on and so forth..........


What do you think "One State Solution" in Palestine means?

Hard to say, because I really have not given serious consideration to one state, I have always been a proponent of multiple state or caliphate type ideas.

But now I wonder. There is as much Islamophobic as there is anti Semitic rhetoric swirling through out these arguments. 1920 is almost a century ago yet old history keeps being brought up to maintain the idea that only complete and largely unequal (based on results currently) seperation is possible. Maybe that isn’t so. What if we actually considered that?

This article is a good read, but too long to post all the interesting parts, I will post the concluding portion of it. Maybe it is time to start thinking in terms of one state.

An Israeli-Palestinian Confederation Can Work

Federation is a plan for integration. The United States and Germany are federations: unitary states with a central government, the only body that enters into foreign relations. An Israeli-Palestinian federation could have two national regions — like the bizonal/bicommunal federation concept in Cyprus — but the two peoples would sit in one legislature and share power in an executive. That’s hard to imagine for two nations that have been in a bitter struggle for 70 years. Indeed, the only government shared by Greek and Turkish Cypriots lasted just three years before it collapsed in 1963. Negotiations in Cyprus that began in 1968 have failed for 50 years. The inability to agree on a new formula for sharing power in a single government has stymied any resolution.

The idea of “parallel states” — proposed in Mathias Mossberg and Mark LeVine’s 2014 book, One Land, Two States — allows for complete geographic integration. Anyone could live anywhere, but an Israeli and a Palestinian living one floor apart in the same building would be subject to separate laws; “stacked states” seems more appropriate than “parallel,” implying two lines that never touch. This approach raises considerable legal, ethical, and practical problems, but beyond those, neither side truly wishes to blend people and cultures in a common physical space.

An Israeli-Palestinian confederation, by contrast, would start with the building blocks of two separate and territorially defined independent states. Promoted largely by the civil society group A Land for All, among others, the idea is that there would be two governments, two heads of state, and a border on or near the pre-1967 division, known as the Green Line. Each state would be sovereign and free to define its national character. But a confederation would diverge from the traditional two-state model by creating an agreement to share certain aspects of their sovereignty. The border would be porous, designed to facilitate rather than limit crossings. Freedom of movement — to tour, work, or study — would be the default.

Today, the reverse is the norm. All people are restricted from crossing boundaries; everyone theoretically needs a permit to go somewhere. In practice, Palestinians are severely constrained in their daily life. West Bank residents need a permit to travel anywhere inside Israel, including the settlements and Jerusalem, or between Gaza and the West Bank; an airport permit is almost unobtainable. The permit allowances are byzantine by design and are commonly denied, and checkpoints and the security wall make short distances into lengthy, tortuous trips for all Palestinians. Gazans are almost entirely trapped inside Gaza. Porous borders would release Palestinians from this suffocating constraint on their physical movement.

Israeli Jews face few movement restrictions today. Theoretically, they need a permit to visit the small, Palestinian-run Area A, where most Jews have little desire to be. In fact, there is no real barrier other than a warning sign — and they can glide through settler-designated checkpoints on the return. But full freedom of movement offers Israeli Jews, especially religious ones, something they may not have in a traditional two-state plan: access to the many holy sites inside the West Bank, such as the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron, Rachel’s Tomb near Bethlehem, and Joseph’s Tomb in Nablus — the last is almost inaccessible to Jews today. In a traditional two-state solution, these sites would be well inside Palestine, and the latter could close its border; this is one of numerous reasons Israelis, especially if they are religious, have little interest in reaching such a solution. The confederation model is predicated on open access.

Instead of carving up Jerusalem, the city would remain united under shared sovereignty as the capital of two states. Holy places would be governed by a special regime, possibly with international support, just like in earlier two-state plans. But the delicate urban fabric of Jerusalem would remain intact, with an added Palestinian capital in the east. The border between the two states could run widely around the city, rather than through it. An umbrella municipality of Israelis and Palestinians could run east and west boroughs.

Free movement and a united Jerusalem would require advanced security measures. Such measures could be grounded in the principle of strong security cooperation, based on the system set up by the Oslo Accords still in place today. At present, Israeli security figures commonly cite the ongoing cooperation with Palestinian Authority forces as the main reason there has not been more violence over the last decade. Living under occupation, Palestinians today deeply resent what they consider collaboration, or the “outsourcing” of Israel’s rule to their own security forces. But if Palestine were free under its own civilian government, coordinated security would protect the arrangement itself, serving people rather than controlling them.

The centerpiece of the confederation approach is allowing citizens of one side to live as permanent residents on the other while voting in national elections only in their country of citizenship. Israeli settlers who absolutely must live on holy ground could stay so long as they are law-abiding residents under Palestinian sovereignty; they could participate in local elections but would only vote for national representation in Israel. This will alienate settlers who insist on Jewish sovereignty — but it extends a hand to more moderate settlers who have long resented the left-wing expectation that they must all automatically uproot their homes.

The same provision is a creative concession to Palestinians, since it allows some refugees from 1948 back into Israel under the same terms: permanent residency, provided they are law-abiding and perhaps after Israeli security vetting. The numbers could be determined through mutual agreement. Those residents would vote in national elections only in Palestine and, like settlers, could vote in local Israeli elections. This concept responds to one of the most intractable problems in the conflict: Palestinians insist on recognition of their right to ancestral lands, while Israelis live in mortal fear of returning Palestinians demographically destroying the Jewish state by voting the Jewish government out of office.

In previous rounds of negotiations, the refugee issue has been among the greatest points of contention and remains so in public opinion surveys. Under the confederation proposal, neither side can dominate the national politics of the other, since they may only vote in the state of their national identity.

Other forms of infrastructural cooperation are less emotional but highly pragmatic. Today, the two sides already use the same currency and buy each other’s goods: In 2012, the Bank of Israel found that 81 percent of Palestinian exported goods were sold to Israel while the country sold about $4.5 billion worth of goods to the Palestinian Authority. These numbers have only grown since.

Israeli tech companies have begun hiring Palestinian programmers, quietly but successfully, providing an opportunity for Palestinians who are well-educated but unemployed. Deepening these ties through easier physical mobility and professional associations can only benefit both economies. All this can continue — again, minus Israel’s Oslo-era controls over Palestinian economic life through tax collection and controls over imports and exports. A professional economic council could help manage the difficulties of integrating a weaker economy with a much stronger one. This is a serious challenge. But the alternative of a separated Palestinian state with a hard border, and little access and mobility to Israel, could also lead to economic isolation — which could exacerbate rather than de-escalate the conflict.

Similarly, it hardly seems possible to manage natural resources and infrastructure separately; already, Gaza’s waste floats onto Israel’s nearby beaches, pollutes aquifers, and has forced desalination plants to shut down at times — all while Israel is now reviving its water-saving campaigns due to shortages. The traditional two-state solution would require coordination on essential environmental issues too, but the confederation model favors it in spirit and structure, facilitating both civil society and government coordination instead of making such cooperation the exception.

The liaison is ultimately voluntary. In a federation, secession can lead to war. A confederation approach allows each side the legal right to leave

In a federation, secession can lead to war. A confederation approach allows each side the legal right to leave. Legal secession can be peaceful, such as the referendum-based separation of Serbia and Montenegro in 2006 or Brexit (if it is ever implemented).


The attempt to combine policies from the two-state solution, while drawing on one-state ideas both for pragmatic and symbolic needs, makes this approach appealing for a small but eclectic group from Israel’s left and right, as well as some Palestinians and Arab citizens of Israel. Yossi Beilin, a former stalwart supporter and negotiator for a two-state solution, openly favors it, and President Rivlin has endorsed the idea, albeit without elaborating just what he means.

Only the future will tell whether Israelis and Palestinians choose to live closer together or further apart. But they are unlikely to reach a peace agreement that is only one or the other.
​

Did You just say a Caliphate was a valid option, and then proceed to accusing those who oppose the elimination of Israel with Islamophobia??

Hamas on USMB.

I was referring to a solution proposed earlier...by you I think....of rather than a second state, multiple Palestinian semi autonomous caliphate based on tribal affiliations. Is that no longer a valid option in your eyes?

Islamophobia indeed.

The Arabs are more than welcome to create their multiple semi caliphate based on tribal affiliations. In Gaza and Areas A and B.

Not in Israel, and not in Area C.

But they do not want it. They have been offered most of West Bank and refused it with Arafat at the helm, and Ehud Barak, as well.

And the plan Meron has with his activist friend ( a member of Fatah), is for all of the rest of the Palestine Mandate (Gaza, West Bank and Israel), to become One State.

"We consider ourselves one shared movement, divided into two separate branches – one Israeli and one Palestinian – both jointly and severally."

A Land for All


The above means absolutely nothing when it comes to Israel still being allowed to exist.

Do we need to actually guess what "The Two States, One Homeland"
means by either one, or especially by a Palestinian who is a member of Fatah, whose charter calls for the "Liberation of Palestine"?

https://fas.org/irp/dni/osc/fatah-charter.pdf


Judeophobia was created by Christianity and borrowed by Islam, not because there was something to be afraid of by any and all Jews, but because of all the myths created around the "killing of Jesus" and the Jewish rejection of Christianity and Christian salvation.


Islamophobia was created by some Muslims in order to make themselves look like the victims of of unfair prejudice and oppression, especially while Muslims from every corner of the world were going about hijacking planes, murdering athletes, wheelchair bound people, blowing buses, airports, attacking anyone who did not agree with them with cars, knives, explosives, raping, killing and injuring many in the name of Allah and how the world belongs to Islam.

----------
But there are those who do not know about how either came to be who will defend and protect the word Islamophobia at every opportunity......because the non Muslim world does really not have "anything" to be afraid of from Islam and its extreme adherents who believe that the world is going to some day become all Muslim.

 

[Shusha]

People can and do self segregate, but that is in voluntary communities, not mandated by the government and social and economic mobility within the context of the entire country is still possible. I do not think that is the type of “seperate but equal” being suggested however.

Funny, because you have just described Israel: people can and do self-segregate in voluntary communities not mandated by the government and social and economic mobility within the entire country is still possible. Israel is actually accomplishing this and doing so in the midst of an ethnic/cultural/religious conflict (war). (Its not perfect. And there are some real injustices.)

But how many of the Arab countries are accomplishing this? And why is that?

 

[Coyote]

You seem to be working awfully hard to avoid understanding my meaning. The NORM over the past 100 years or so, in regions where there is ethnic conflict and/or increased desire for self-determination of various ethnic and historical groups, is to partition the territories and create separate nations based generally along ethnic lines. Its the STANDARD. I have given numerous examples. There are others. To demand that conflicting ethnic communities "must be a one state solution" is to demand that India and Pakistan must remain one state. Or that Yugoslavia must remain unpartitioned. And the question on the table is why the STANDARD must be changed with Israel and Palestine.

You are right. I don’t understand. It sounds like you are advocating a two state solution. Which I have no argument on you with as long as there are no forced population transfers. That is no longer “the standard” and is widely regarded as a human rights violation.

It is not suddenly “bad” when the Jewish people want to do it, so so stop playing that card. It wears thin.

Not as thin as 2000 years of antisemitism. I'm going to call it when I see it. I will stop when I stop seeing it. Applying different standards to the Jewish people is problematic. People who insist that it "must be a one state solution" are creating NEW and DIFFERENT standards for the Jewish people.

You can call it what you want but if it means supporting actions that are no longer the norm, such as forced population transfers, particularly if it is into less desirable or resource poor areas based solely on ethnic identity, I will call it what it is: a reversion to a Apartheid era mentality. That is not a new and different standard for the Jewish people it is a reversion to a standard that is no longer considered acceptable by the civilized world.

You are using an out dated and barbaric model and then claiming it singles out the Jewish people of people speak up about it. That wears thin.

T

Seperate but equal has seldom meant true equality for all effected. You do not like references to Apartheid but that seems awfully close to what you are advocating.

I'm advocating the rights of peoples to self-determine. I apply that right universally, to all peoples and to all national liberation movements. For you to compare that to apartheid is disengenuous at best, poisoning at worst. It reeks of the worst kind of argument from emotion because it requires a deliberate misunderstanding of the term "apartheid". I support, have always supported, yet another Arab State in the region. I continue to support that, though, admittedly, I am losing hope that they can accomplish that.

[/QUOTE]

If you are talking about a two state solution then we really don’t have an argument. Two autonomous states based on voluntary population movements and citizenship.

But like you, I am increasingly skeptical.

I just read an article I found on a federation system. Maybe that is the way to go.

Outside powers should stay out, let the Israeli’s and Palestinians figure it out.

 

[Coyote]

People can and do self segregate, but that is in voluntary communities, not mandated by the government and social and economic mobility within the context of the entire country is still possible. I do not think that is the type of “seperate but equal” being suggested however.

Funny, because you have just described Israel: people can and do self-segregate in voluntary communities not mandated by the government and social and economic mobility within the entire country is still possible. Israel is actually accomplishing this and doing so in the midst of an ethnic/cultural/religious conflict (war). (Its not perfect. And there are some real injustices.)

But how many of the Arab countries are accomplishing this? And why is that?

If you are trying to get me to somehow justify what occurs in Arab countries I won’t.

 

[Coyote]

Again, cite where she advocates for ‘eliminating’ Israel – not your inane, subjective inference.

When Muslims speak of a One State Solution, it means Muslims taking over Israel and eliminating it as a Jewish State with a majority Muslim.

Why does it have to be "One State". And what "separate but equal" is she referring to when there are no Jews in Gaza or Areas A and B?
No Jews in Jordan. No Jews in Saudi Arabia?

“One state,” she said in response to a question about whether she supports a one- or two-state solution. “It has to be one state. Separate but equal does not work. I’m only 42 years old but my teachers were of that generation that marched with Martin Luther King. This whole idea of a two-state solution, it doesn’t work.”

----------
Martin Luther was pro Israel.
Repeating that" a Two-state solution does not work" actually means that the Arab Palestinians and many other Muslims are going to continue to refuse to create a Palestine State as long as Israel exists.
They have rejected the Partitions of 1937 and 1947, declared war many times and continue not to want to even come and sit for negotiations since Arafat rejected the best deal they could have gotten, ever.

That is the way it has been since 1920 and will continue until the Palestinian and Muslim education continues to "educate" against the existence of Israel, in any shape or form.

What happens in the US is different from what happens in Israel, and
she and others cannot bring the US as an example.

Extreme Arabs are trying to destroy Israel as a country from within and outside.

The issues in the US are not about a minority wanting to create its own country out of parts of the US with violence, rockets, endless riots, rock throwing at American cars, etc.

When Palestinians like Sansour and Tlaib receive the anti Israel education they have, be it in Israel, Gaza, the PA or the USA, their message is going to be the very same as their Muslim leader in 1920:

No sovereign State for the Jews. Not now, not ever

This is the education he has left for the future generations which Abbas, the Saudis and all others are all too happy to teach their people.

"Palestine" replaces Israel | PMW


And who was their Muslim leader in 1920 who began the riots against the Jewish re-creation of their Nation on their ancient homeland?

How the Mufti of Jerusalem Created the Permanent Problem of Palestinian Violence - The Tower

What Hitler and the Grand Mufti Really Said

----------------

So, in reality:

One State Solution, in the eyes of Islam and the 1920 Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, and of Arafat, and of Abbas, and the PLO and of the next "leader" of the Palestinians, and of Hamas, so on and so forth..........


What do you think "One State Solution" in Palestine means?

Hard to say, because I really have not given serious consideration to one state, I have always been a proponent of multiple state or caliphate type ideas.

But now I wonder. There is as much Islamophobic as there is anti Semitic rhetoric swirling through out these arguments. 1920 is almost a century ago yet old history keeps being brought up to maintain the idea that only complete and largely unequal (based on results currently) seperation is possible. Maybe that isn’t so. What if we actually considered that?

This article is a good read, but too long to post all the interesting parts, I will post the concluding portion of it. Maybe it is time to start thinking in terms of one state.

An Israeli-Palestinian Confederation Can Work

Federation is a plan for integration. The United States and Germany are federations: unitary states with a central government, the only body that enters into foreign relations. An Israeli-Palestinian federation could have two national regions — like the bizonal/bicommunal federation concept in Cyprus — but the two peoples would sit in one legislature and share power in an executive. That’s hard to imagine for two nations that have been in a bitter struggle for 70 years. Indeed, the only government shared by Greek and Turkish Cypriots lasted just three years before it collapsed in 1963. Negotiations in Cyprus that began in 1968 have failed for 50 years. The inability to agree on a new formula for sharing power in a single government has stymied any resolution.

The idea of “parallel states” — proposed in Mathias Mossberg and Mark LeVine’s 2014 book, One Land, Two States — allows for complete geographic integration. Anyone could live anywhere, but an Israeli and a Palestinian living one floor apart in the same building would be subject to separate laws; “stacked states” seems more appropriate than “parallel,” implying two lines that never touch. This approach raises considerable legal, ethical, and practical problems, but beyond those, neither side truly wishes to blend people and cultures in a common physical space.

An Israeli-Palestinian confederation, by contrast, would start with the building blocks of two separate and territorially defined independent states. Promoted largely by the civil society group A Land for All, among others, the idea is that there would be two governments, two heads of state, and a border on or near the pre-1967 division, known as the Green Line. Each state would be sovereign and free to define its national character. But a confederation would diverge from the traditional two-state model by creating an agreement to share certain aspects of their sovereignty. The border would be porous, designed to facilitate rather than limit crossings. Freedom of movement — to tour, work, or study — would be the default.

Today, the reverse is the norm. All people are restricted from crossing boundaries; everyone theoretically needs a permit to go somewhere. In practice, Palestinians are severely constrained in their daily life. West Bank residents need a permit to travel anywhere inside Israel, including the settlements and Jerusalem, or between Gaza and the West Bank; an airport permit is almost unobtainable. The permit allowances are byzantine by design and are commonly denied, and checkpoints and the security wall make short distances into lengthy, tortuous trips for all Palestinians. Gazans are almost entirely trapped inside Gaza. Porous borders would release Palestinians from this suffocating constraint on their physical movement.

Israeli Jews face few movement restrictions today. Theoretically, they need a permit to visit the small, Palestinian-run Area A, where most Jews have little desire to be. In fact, there is no real barrier other than a warning sign — and they can glide through settler-designated checkpoints on the return. But full freedom of movement offers Israeli Jews, especially religious ones, something they may not have in a traditional two-state plan: access to the many holy sites inside the West Bank, such as the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron, Rachel’s Tomb near Bethlehem, and Joseph’s Tomb in Nablus — the last is almost inaccessible to Jews today. In a traditional two-state solution, these sites would be well inside Palestine, and the latter could close its border; this is one of numerous reasons Israelis, especially if they are religious, have little interest in reaching such a solution. The confederation model is predicated on open access.

Instead of carving up Jerusalem, the city would remain united under shared sovereignty as the capital of two states. Holy places would be governed by a special regime, possibly with international support, just like in earlier two-state plans. But the delicate urban fabric of Jerusalem would remain intact, with an added Palestinian capital in the east. The border between the two states could run widely around the city, rather than through it. An umbrella municipality of Israelis and Palestinians could run east and west boroughs.

Free movement and a united Jerusalem would require advanced security measures. Such measures could be grounded in the principle of strong security cooperation, based on the system set up by the Oslo Accords still in place today. At present, Israeli security figures commonly cite the ongoing cooperation with Palestinian Authority forces as the main reason there has not been more violence over the last decade. Living under occupation, Palestinians today deeply resent what they consider collaboration, or the “outsourcing” of Israel’s rule to their own security forces. But if Palestine were free under its own civilian government, coordinated security would protect the arrangement itself, serving people rather than controlling them.

The centerpiece of the confederation approach is allowing citizens of one side to live as permanent residents on the other while voting in national elections only in their country of citizenship. Israeli settlers who absolutely must live on holy ground could stay so long as they are law-abiding residents under Palestinian sovereignty; they could participate in local elections but would only vote for national representation in Israel. This will alienate settlers who insist on Jewish sovereignty — but it extends a hand to more moderate settlers who have long resented the left-wing expectation that they must all automatically uproot their homes.

The same provision is a creative concession to Palestinians, since it allows some refugees from 1948 back into Israel under the same terms: permanent residency, provided they are law-abiding and perhaps after Israeli security vetting. The numbers could be determined through mutual agreement. Those residents would vote in national elections only in Palestine and, like settlers, could vote in local Israeli elections. This concept responds to one of the most intractable problems in the conflict: Palestinians insist on recognition of their right to ancestral lands, while Israelis live in mortal fear of returning Palestinians demographically destroying the Jewish state by voting the Jewish government out of office.

In previous rounds of negotiations, the refugee issue has been among the greatest points of contention and remains so in public opinion surveys. Under the confederation proposal, neither side can dominate the national politics of the other, since they may only vote in the state of their national identity.

Other forms of infrastructural cooperation are less emotional but highly pragmatic. Today, the two sides already use the same currency and buy each other’s goods: In 2012, the Bank of Israel found that 81 percent of Palestinian exported goods were sold to Israel while the country sold about $4.5 billion worth of goods to the Palestinian Authority. These numbers have only grown since.

Israeli tech companies have begun hiring Palestinian programmers, quietly but successfully, providing an opportunity for Palestinians who are well-educated but unemployed. Deepening these ties through easier physical mobility and professional associations can only benefit both economies. All this can continue — again, minus Israel’s Oslo-era controls over Palestinian economic life through tax collection and controls over imports and exports. A professional economic council could help manage the difficulties of integrating a weaker economy with a much stronger one. This is a serious challenge. But the alternative of a separated Palestinian state with a hard border, and little access and mobility to Israel, could also lead to economic isolation — which could exacerbate rather than de-escalate the conflict.

Similarly, it hardly seems possible to manage natural resources and infrastructure separately; already, Gaza’s waste floats onto Israel’s nearby beaches, pollutes aquifers, and has forced desalination plants to shut down at times — all while Israel is now reviving its water-saving campaigns due to shortages. The traditional two-state solution would require coordination on essential environmental issues too, but the confederation model favors it in spirit and structure, facilitating both civil society and government coordination instead of making such cooperation the exception.

The liaison is ultimately voluntary. In a federation, secession can lead to war. A confederation approach allows each side the legal right to leave

In a federation, secession can lead to war. A confederation approach allows each side the legal right to leave. Legal secession can be peaceful, such as the referendum-based separation of Serbia and Montenegro in 2006 or Brexit (if it is ever implemented).


The attempt to combine policies from the two-state solution, while drawing on one-state ideas both for pragmatic and symbolic needs, makes this approach appealing for a small but eclectic group from Israel’s left and right, as well as some Palestinians and Arab citizens of Israel. Yossi Beilin, a former stalwart supporter and negotiator for a two-state solution, openly favors it, and President Rivlin has endorsed the idea, albeit without elaborating just what he means.

Only the future will tell whether Israelis and Palestinians choose to live closer together or further apart. But they are unlikely to reach a peace agreement that is only one or the other.
​

Did You just say a Caliphate was a valid option, and then proceed to accusing those who oppose the elimination of Israel with Islamophobia??

Hamas on USMB.

I was referring to a solution proposed earlier...by you I think....of rather than a second state, multiple Palestinian semi autonomous caliphate based on tribal affiliations. Is that no longer a valid option in your eyes?

Islamophobia indeed.

The Arabs are more than welcome to create their multiple semi caliphate based on tribal affiliations. In Gaza and Areas A and B.

Not in Israel, and not in Area C.

But they do not want it. They have been offered most of West Bank and refused it with Arafat at the helm, and Ehud Barak, as well.

And the plan Meron has with his activist friend ( a member of Fatah), is for all of the rest of the Palestine Mandate (Gaza, West Bank and Israel), to become One State.

"We consider ourselves one shared movement, divided into two separate branches – one Israeli and one Palestinian – both jointly and severally."

A Land for All


The above means absolutely nothing when it comes to Israel still being allowed to exist.

Do we need to actually guess what "The Two States, One Homeland"
means by either one, or especially by a Palestinian who is a member of Fatah, whose charter calls for the "Liberation of Palestine"?

https://fas.org/irp/dni/osc/fatah-charter.pdf


Judeophobia was created by Christianity and borrowed by Islam, not because there was something to be afraid of by any and all Jews, but because of all the myths created around the "killing of Jesus" and the Jewish rejection of Christianity and Christian salvation.


Islamophobia was created by some Muslims in order to make themselves look like the victims of of unfair prejudice and oppression, especially while Muslims from every corner of the world were going about hijacking planes, murdering athletes, wheelchair bound people, blowing buses, airports, attacking anyone who did not agree with them with cars, knives, explosives, raping, killing and injuring many in the name of Allah and how the world belongs to Islam.

----------
But there are those who do not know about how either came to be who will defend and protect the word Islamophobia at every opportunity......because the non Muslim world does really not have "anything" to be afraid of from Islam and its extreme adherents who believe that the world is going to some day become all Muslim.

Nice way to justify anti Muslim hate.

 

[rylah]

The Congress woman removing Israel from her “ map” and renaming the Entire area “ Palestine “ isn’t favoring their destruction?

Again, cite where she advocates for ‘eliminating’ Israel – not your inane, subjective inference.

When Muslims speak of a One State Solution, it means Muslims taking over Israel and eliminating it as a Jewish State with a majority Muslim.

Why does it have to be "One State". And what "separate but equal" is she referring to when there are no Jews in Gaza or Areas A and B?
No Jews in Jordan. No Jews in Saudi Arabia?

“One state,” she said in response to a question about whether she supports a one- or two-state solution. “It has to be one state. Separate but equal does not work. I’m only 42 years old but my teachers were of that generation that marched with Martin Luther King. This whole idea of a two-state solution, it doesn’t work.”

----------
Martin Luther was pro Israel.
Repeating that" a Two-state solution does not work" actually means that the Arab Palestinians and many other Muslims are going to continue to refuse to create a Palestine State as long as Israel exists.
They have rejected the Partitions of 1937 and 1947, declared war many times and continue not to want to even come and sit for negotiations since Arafat rejected the best deal they could have gotten, ever.

That is the way it has been since 1920 and will continue until the Palestinian and Muslim education continues to "educate" against the existence of Israel, in any shape or form.

What happens in the US is different from what happens in Israel, and
she and others cannot bring the US as an example.

Extreme Arabs are trying to destroy Israel as a country from within and outside.

The issues in the US are not about a minority wanting to create its own country out of parts of the US with violence, rockets, endless riots, rock throwing at American cars, etc.

When Palestinians like Sansour and Tlaib receive the anti Israel education they have, be it in Israel, Gaza, the PA or the USA, their message is going to be the very same as their Muslim leader in 1920:

No sovereign State for the Jews. Not now, not ever

This is the education he has left for the future generations which Abbas, the Saudis and all others are all too happy to teach their people.

"Palestine" replaces Israel | PMW


And who was their Muslim leader in 1920 who began the riots against the Jewish re-creation of their Nation on their ancient homeland?

How the Mufti of Jerusalem Created the Permanent Problem of Palestinian Violence - The Tower

What Hitler and the Grand Mufti Really Said

----------------

So, in reality:

One State Solution, in the eyes of Islam and the 1920 Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, and of Arafat, and of Abbas, and the PLO and of the next "leader" of the Palestinians, and of Hamas, so on and so forth..........


What do you think "One State Solution" in Palestine means?

Hard to say, because I really have not given serious consideration to one state, I have always been a proponent of multiple state or caliphate type ideas.

But now I wonder. There is as much Islamophobic as there is anti Semitic rhetoric swirling through out these arguments. 1920 is almost a century ago yet old history keeps being brought up to maintain the idea that only complete and largely unequal (based on results currently) seperation is possible. Maybe that isn’t so. What if we actually considered that?

This article is a good read, but too long to post all the interesting parts, I will post the concluding portion of it. Maybe it is time to start thinking in terms of one state.

An Israeli-Palestinian Confederation Can Work

Federation is a plan for integration. The United States and Germany are federations: unitary states with a central government, the only body that enters into foreign relations. An Israeli-Palestinian federation could have two national regions — like the bizonal/bicommunal federation concept in Cyprus — but the two peoples would sit in one legislature and share power in an executive. That’s hard to imagine for two nations that have been in a bitter struggle for 70 years. Indeed, the only government shared by Greek and Turkish Cypriots lasted just three years before it collapsed in 1963. Negotiations in Cyprus that began in 1968 have failed for 50 years. The inability to agree on a new formula for sharing power in a single government has stymied any resolution.

The idea of “parallel states” — proposed in Mathias Mossberg and Mark LeVine’s 2014 book, One Land, Two States — allows for complete geographic integration. Anyone could live anywhere, but an Israeli and a Palestinian living one floor apart in the same building would be subject to separate laws; “stacked states” seems more appropriate than “parallel,” implying two lines that never touch. This approach raises considerable legal, ethical, and practical problems, but beyond those, neither side truly wishes to blend people and cultures in a common physical space.

An Israeli-Palestinian confederation, by contrast, would start with the building blocks of two separate and territorially defined independent states. Promoted largely by the civil society group A Land for All, among others, the idea is that there would be two governments, two heads of state, and a border on or near the pre-1967 division, known as the Green Line. Each state would be sovereign and free to define its national character. But a confederation would diverge from the traditional two-state model by creating an agreement to share certain aspects of their sovereignty. The border would be porous, designed to facilitate rather than limit crossings. Freedom of movement — to tour, work, or study — would be the default.

Today, the reverse is the norm. All people are restricted from crossing boundaries; everyone theoretically needs a permit to go somewhere. In practice, Palestinians are severely constrained in their daily life. West Bank residents need a permit to travel anywhere inside Israel, including the settlements and Jerusalem, or between Gaza and the West Bank; an airport permit is almost unobtainable. The permit allowances are byzantine by design and are commonly denied, and checkpoints and the security wall make short distances into lengthy, tortuous trips for all Palestinians. Gazans are almost entirely trapped inside Gaza. Porous borders would release Palestinians from this suffocating constraint on their physical movement.

Israeli Jews face few movement restrictions today. Theoretically, they need a permit to visit the small, Palestinian-run Area A, where most Jews have little desire to be. In fact, there is no real barrier other than a warning sign — and they can glide through settler-designated checkpoints on the return. But full freedom of movement offers Israeli Jews, especially religious ones, something they may not have in a traditional two-state plan: access to the many holy sites inside the West Bank, such as the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron, Rachel’s Tomb near Bethlehem, and Joseph’s Tomb in Nablus — the last is almost inaccessible to Jews today. In a traditional two-state solution, these sites would be well inside Palestine, and the latter could close its border; this is one of numerous reasons Israelis, especially if they are religious, have little interest in reaching such a solution. The confederation model is predicated on open access.

Instead of carving up Jerusalem, the city would remain united under shared sovereignty as the capital of two states. Holy places would be governed by a special regime, possibly with international support, just like in earlier two-state plans. But the delicate urban fabric of Jerusalem would remain intact, with an added Palestinian capital in the east. The border between the two states could run widely around the city, rather than through it. An umbrella municipality of Israelis and Palestinians could run east and west boroughs.

Free movement and a united Jerusalem would require advanced security measures. Such measures could be grounded in the principle of strong security cooperation, based on the system set up by the Oslo Accords still in place today. At present, Israeli security figures commonly cite the ongoing cooperation with Palestinian Authority forces as the main reason there has not been more violence over the last decade. Living under occupation, Palestinians today deeply resent what they consider collaboration, or the “outsourcing” of Israel’s rule to their own security forces. But if Palestine were free under its own civilian government, coordinated security would protect the arrangement itself, serving people rather than controlling them.

The centerpiece of the confederation approach is allowing citizens of one side to live as permanent residents on the other while voting in national elections only in their country of citizenship. Israeli settlers who absolutely must live on holy ground could stay so long as they are law-abiding residents under Palestinian sovereignty; they could participate in local elections but would only vote for national representation in Israel. This will alienate settlers who insist on Jewish sovereignty — but it extends a hand to more moderate settlers who have long resented the left-wing expectation that they must all automatically uproot their homes.

The same provision is a creative concession to Palestinians, since it allows some refugees from 1948 back into Israel under the same terms: permanent residency, provided they are law-abiding and perhaps after Israeli security vetting. The numbers could be determined through mutual agreement. Those residents would vote in national elections only in Palestine and, like settlers, could vote in local Israeli elections. This concept responds to one of the most intractable problems in the conflict: Palestinians insist on recognition of their right to ancestral lands, while Israelis live in mortal fear of returning Palestinians demographically destroying the Jewish state by voting the Jewish government out of office.

In previous rounds of negotiations, the refugee issue has been among the greatest points of contention and remains so in public opinion surveys. Under the confederation proposal, neither side can dominate the national politics of the other, since they may only vote in the state of their national identity.

Other forms of infrastructural cooperation are less emotional but highly pragmatic. Today, the two sides already use the same currency and buy each other’s goods: In 2012, the Bank of Israel found that 81 percent of Palestinian exported goods were sold to Israel while the country sold about $4.5 billion worth of goods to the Palestinian Authority. These numbers have only grown since.

Israeli tech companies have begun hiring Palestinian programmers, quietly but successfully, providing an opportunity for Palestinians who are well-educated but unemployed. Deepening these ties through easier physical mobility and professional associations can only benefit both economies. All this can continue — again, minus Israel’s Oslo-era controls over Palestinian economic life through tax collection and controls over imports and exports. A professional economic council could help manage the difficulties of integrating a weaker economy with a much stronger one. This is a serious challenge. But the alternative of a separated Palestinian state with a hard border, and little access and mobility to Israel, could also lead to economic isolation — which could exacerbate rather than de-escalate the conflict.

Similarly, it hardly seems possible to manage natural resources and infrastructure separately; already, Gaza’s waste floats onto Israel’s nearby beaches, pollutes aquifers, and has forced desalination plants to shut down at times — all while Israel is now reviving its water-saving campaigns due to shortages. The traditional two-state solution would require coordination on essential environmental issues too, but the confederation model favors it in spirit and structure, facilitating both civil society and government coordination instead of making such cooperation the exception.

The liaison is ultimately voluntary. In a federation, secession can lead to war. A confederation approach allows each side the legal right to leave

In a federation, secession can lead to war. A confederation approach allows each side the legal right to leave. Legal secession can be peaceful, such as the referendum-based separation of Serbia and Montenegro in 2006 or Brexit (if it is ever implemented).


The attempt to combine policies from the two-state solution, while drawing on one-state ideas both for pragmatic and symbolic needs, makes this approach appealing for a small but eclectic group from Israel’s left and right, as well as some Palestinians and Arab citizens of Israel. Yossi Beilin, a former stalwart supporter and negotiator for a two-state solution, openly favors it, and President Rivlin has endorsed the idea, albeit without elaborating just what he means.

Only the future will tell whether Israelis and Palestinians choose to live closer together or further apart. But they are unlikely to reach a peace agreement that is only one or the other.
​

Did You just say a Caliphate was a valid option, and then proceed to accusing those who oppose the elimination of Israel with Islamophobia??

Nice, Tlaib suggests an Arab version of another USSR,
and her supporters talk about a Caliphate "from the river to the sea".
Wonderful, one could only wish for enemies of Israel to expose themselves so proudly in their call to genocide.

Who is talking about a Caliphate from river to see? You are truly dishonest.

Hamas promises:
"On this day, as we are witnessing all that is happening with the grace of Allah, we are looking forwards to two important things, which are within sight:

1. Cleanse Palestine of the "filth of the Jews" by 2022
2. From the River to the Sea - establishment of Caliphate

Hamas, the most powerful Palestinian fraction, just recently declared an establishment of a Caliphate and genocide of Jews as national goals. You just mentioned a Caliphate as a viable solution, BDS talks about from the river to the sea, Tlaib removes Israel from the map.

As already stated, any support for a Palestinian cause is stuck in the paradigm between only 2 possible extreme outcomes - hardcore Islamist state in the version of a Caliphate or a pan-Arab socialist utopia,
both are essentially tyrannical imperialist ideologies.

 

[Mindful]

Clinton said that as he was preparing to leave the White House, Arafat thanked him for his work and called him a great man.

“I replied: ‘I am not a great man. I am a failure, and you have made me one,'” Clinton said.

 

[Shusha]

Would it and could it it truly be equal in a nation that has defined itself as a Jewish homeland ...

Would it and could it be truly equal in a nation which has defined itself as the Irish homeland?

Would it and could it be truly equal in a nation which has defined itself as the Catalan homeland?

Would it and could it be truly equal in a nation which has defined itself as the Kurdish homeland?

Would it and could it be truly equal in a nation which has defined itself as the Cherokee homeland?

Would it and could it be truly equal in a nation which has defined itself as the Indian homeland?

Would it and could it be truly equal in a nation which has defined itself as the Jordanian homeland?


The entire basis of our global nation-state system is self-definition and is often based on specific peoples and ethnicities and cultures. It works everywhere in the world. But it won't work in a Jewish state? Smells fishy.

 

[Coyote]

Nk

Would it and could it it truly be equal in a nation that has defined itself as a Jewish homeland ...

Would it and could it be truly equal in a nation which has defined itself as the Irish homeland?

Would it and could it be truly equal in a nation which has defined itself as the Catalan homeland?

Would it and could it be truly equal in a nation which has defined itself as the Kurdish homeland?

Would it and could it be truly equal in a nation which has defined itself as the Cherokee homeland?

Would it and could it be truly equal in a nation which has defined itself as the Indian homeland?

Would it and could it be truly equal in a nation which has defined itself as the Jordanian homeland?


The entire basis of our global nation-state system is self-definition and is often based on specific peoples and ethnicities and cultures. It works everywhere in the world. But it won't work in a Jewish state? Smells fishy.

None of those examples are of a religion.

Can you give me an example of a religious state?

 

[rylah]

New Muslim congresswomen favor eliminating Israel

I am so happy they stated that is the long term Goal. For that reason alone Israel will never give up any more territory or allow " Right of Return"

Where is the quote where they say they favor eliminating Israel?

The Congress woman removing Israel from her “ map” and renaming the Entire area “ Palestine “ isn’t favoring their destruction?

Show me what she has said

Ever hear “ Actions speak louder than words?” Tell us please what her elimination of Israel from the map be interpreted

Where did she actually say that?

Head of BDS in his own words:



I think Tlaib's personal and her team's support for the racist organization needs no proof, it's all shamelessly in the open.

 

[Shusha]

You can call it what you want but if it means supporting actions that are no longer the norm, such as forced population transfers, particularly if it is into less desirable or resource poor areas based solely on ethnic identity, I will call it what it is: a reversion to a Apartheid era mentality. That is not a new and different standard for the Jewish people it is a reversion to a standard that is no longer considered acceptable by the civilized world.

You are using an out dated and barbaric model and then claiming it singles out the Jewish people of people speak up about it. That wears thin.

Now you appear to be deliberately misrepresenting me. My posts on this thread are to point out why a TWO STATE solution is the global standard and that Tlaib, and others, claiming "two state solutions don't work" are spreading deliberate falsehoods.

I am in no way using an outdated or barbaric model. I am pointing out the STANDARD. And pointing out that its is Tlaib who is demanding a different standard for the Jewish people. You applying all this other stuff to my posts is a blatant attempt to discredit and demonize me as I have said no such thing!

 

[Shusha]

People can and do self segregate, but that is in voluntary communities, not mandated by the government and social and economic mobility within the context of the entire country is still possible. I do not think that is the type of “seperate but equal” being suggested however.

Funny, because you have just described Israel: people can and do self-segregate in voluntary communities not mandated by the government and social and economic mobility within the entire country is still possible. Israel is actually accomplishing this and doing so in the midst of an ethnic/cultural/religious conflict (war). (Its not perfect. And there are some real injustices.)

But how many of the Arab countries are accomplishing this? And why is that?

If you are trying to get me to somehow justify what occurs in Arab countries I won’t.

I'm pointing out why you shouldn't toss around words like "apartheid".

 

[Shusha]

Nk

Would it and could it it truly be equal in a nation that has defined itself as a Jewish homeland ...

Would it and could it be truly equal in a nation which has defined itself as the Irish homeland?

Would it and could it be truly equal in a nation which has defined itself as the Catalan homeland?

Would it and could it be truly equal in a nation which has defined itself as the Kurdish homeland?

Would it and could it be truly equal in a nation which has defined itself as the Cherokee homeland?

Would it and could it be truly equal in a nation which has defined itself as the Indian homeland?

Would it and could it be truly equal in a nation which has defined itself as the Jordanian homeland?


The entire basis of our global nation-state system is self-definition and is often based on specific peoples and ethnicities and cultures. It works everywhere in the world. But it won't work in a Jewish state? Smells fishy.

None of those examples are of a religion.

Can you give me an example of a religious state?

Did you really just bring up that canard? That the Jewish people are "just a religion"? And therefore don't qualify for the normal standards of our global system?

 

[Coyote]

You can call it what you want but if it means supporting actions that are no longer the norm, such as forced population transfers, particularly if it is into less desirable or resource poor areas based solely on ethnic identity, I will call it what it is: a reversion to a Apartheid era mentality. That is not a new and different standard for the Jewish people it is a reversion to a standard that is no longer considered acceptable by the civilized world.

You are using an out dated and barbaric model and then claiming it singles out the Jewish people of people speak up about it. That wears thin.

Now you appear to be deliberately misrepresenting me. My posts on this thread are to point out why a TWO STATE solution is the global standard and that Tlaib, and others, claiming "two state solutions don't work" are spreading deliberate falsehoods.

I am in no way using an outdated or barbaric model. I am pointing out the STANDARD. And pointing out that its is Tlaib who is demanding a different standard for the Jewish people. You applying all this other stuff to my posts is a blatant attempt to discredit and demonize me as I have said no such thing!

What I am going by is earlier statements where you seemed, to me, to justify forced population transfers, something that is no longer considered right and that seemed, to me, to apply to your argument here.

How is Tlaib claiming a different standard for Jewish people then say...Iraq (one albeit messed up state)? Why are people still trying to unify Cyprus? Her argument is no different than those on the Israeli side advocating for one state, Greater Israel. There are people advocating for one state, two states, semi autonomous regions, federations etc on both sides. So why is it, when Tlaib advocates for one state she is demonized for it and others are not? Why is SHE accused of applying a different standard for the Jewish and others are not?

One state is one of multiple ideas posited on both sides particularly now that a two state solution seems to be fading.

 

[Shusha]

What I am going by is earlier statements where you seemed, to me, to justify forced population transfers, something that is no longer considered right and that seemed, to me, to apply to your argument here.

Then you are misrepresenting me, as I have never suggested I support forced population transfers.

So why is it, when Tlaib advocates for one state she is demonized for it and others are not? Why is SHE accused of applying a different standard for the Jewish and others are not?

Because she said "two state solutions do not work". Two state solutions DO work. They have worked time and time and time again. They are the global standard in ethnic conflict.

 

[Coyote]

Nk

Would it and could it it truly be equal in a nation that has defined itself as a Jewish homeland ...

Would it and could it be truly equal in a nation which has defined itself as the Irish homeland?

Would it and could it be truly equal in a nation which has defined itself as the Catalan homeland?

Would it and could it be truly equal in a nation which has defined itself as the Kurdish homeland?

Would it and could it be truly equal in a nation which has defined itself as the Cherokee homeland?

Would it and could it be truly equal in a nation which has defined itself as the Indian homeland?

Would it and could it be truly equal in a nation which has defined itself as the Jordanian homeland?


The entire basis of our global nation-state system is self-definition and is often based on specific peoples and ethnicities and cultures. It works everywhere in the world. But it won't work in a Jewish state? Smells fishy.

None of those examples are of a religion.

Can you give me an example of a religious state?

Did you really just bring up that canard? That the Jewish people are "just a religion"? And therefore don't qualify for the normal standards of our global system?

Now who is saying stuff I did not say?

Is Jewish an ethnicity?
Yes.

Is it a religion?
Yes.

And like it or not that complicates the picture and noting that is not applying a different standard.

Is Israel a secular state? Not entirely. And there are tensions among Israeli themselves on whether a Jewish state (the implication being religion) can be both Jewish and a democracy. Those are all valid questions to ask. That is not holding Israel to a different standard because Israel labels ITSELF as the only real democracy with western values in the M.E., and nothing else comes even close.

What is the role of religion in Israeli civil society and government?

Who decides who is Jewish?

So asking for an example of a religious state is perfectly valid. It involves questions Israel’s secular Jews have also asked.

 

[rylah]

You can call it what you want but if it means supporting actions that are no longer the norm, such as forced population transfers, particularly if it is into less desirable or resource poor areas based solely on ethnic identity, I will call it what it is: a reversion to a Apartheid era mentality. That is not a new and different standard for the Jewish people it is a reversion to a standard that is no longer considered acceptable by the civilized world.

You are using an out dated and barbaric model and then claiming it singles out the Jewish people of people speak up about it. That wears thin.

Now you appear to be deliberately misrepresenting me. My posts on this thread are to point out why a TWO STATE solution is the global standard and that Tlaib, and others, claiming "two state solutions don't work" are spreading deliberate falsehoods.

I am in no way using an outdated or barbaric model. I am pointing out the STANDARD. And pointing out that its is Tlaib who is demanding a different standard for the Jewish people. You applying all this other stuff to my posts is a blatant attempt to discredit and demonize me as I have said no such thing!

What I am going by is earlier statements where you seemed, to me, to justify forced population transfers, something that is no longer considered right and that seemed, to me, to apply to your argument here.

How is Tlaib claiming a different standard for Jewish people then say...Iraq (one albeit messed up state)? Why are people still trying to unify Cyprus? Her argument is no different than those on the Israeli side advocating for one state, Greater Israel. There are people advocating for one state, two states, semi autonomous regions, federations etc on both sides. So why is it, when Tlaib advocates for one state she is demonized for it and others are not? Why is SHE accused of applying a different standard for the Jewish and others are not?

One state is one of multiple ideas posited on both sides particularly now that a two state solution seems to be fading.

Because when people talk about one Jewish state it doesn't mean elimination of a minority from it's only state.Actually it means an significant improvement in the status of the rights of local Arab population, no one suggests moving populations anywhere.

When Tlaib suggests one state it means complete regress in democracy, quality of life and security as well as forced transfer of hostile population which will inevitably result in another major confrontation,
for no reasonable excuse other than the inability to bear the notion that Jews are an equal nation.