CDZ "Two State" Solution?

[jwoodie]

Anyone looking at a map of Israel can see that the establishment of another hostile country on the West Bank is tantamount to suicide for Israeli security.

The only "two state solution" that could possibly work is just that: Two states under a single national jurisdiction (like the U.S.). There could even be something like a House and a Senate wherein a balance of power between population and political subdivisions could be maintained.

The KEY to such an arrangement would be that national security would be maintained in its current state unless BOTH states agreed to make changes. This might encourage West Bank residents to seek redress to their complaints through political action instead of guerrilla activity.

What say you?

 

[JoeB131]

Israel has only two options.

1) A two State solution.
2) Granting Arabs all the same rights as Jews.

Probably the two state solution will allow the Farce of Zionism to continue longer.

The best solution. Send the Europeans back to Europe where they came from.

 

[P F Tinmore]

It is already one state. Israel controls everything.

 

[jwoodie]

Any intelligent/analytical thoughts out there?

 

[Lipush]

Israel has only two options.

1) A two State solution.
2) Granting Arabs all the same rights as Jews.

Probably the two state solution will allow the Farce of Zionism to continue longer.

The best solution. Send the Europeans back to Europe where they came from.

How about looking at it from a none hateful prespective that may prove itself useful?

 

[oldsoul]

Anyone looking at a map of Israel can see that the establishment of another hostile country on the West Bank is tantamount to suicide for Israeli security.

The only "two state solution" that could possibly work is just that: Two states under a single national jurisdiction (like the U.S.). There could even be something like a House and a Senate wherein a balance of power between population and political subdivisions could be maintained.

The KEY to such an arrangement would be that national security would be maintained in its current state unless BOTH states agreed to make changes. This might encourage West Bank residents to seek redress to their complaints through political action instead of guerrilla activity.

What say you?

I don't see any option for a "two state" solution being ultimately viable. On one side you have Israel/Jews, they seem willing but only if they maintain security for themselves and are relatively assured of non-violent resolution to any issues that come up; on the other side you have the Palestinians (I know it's oversimplifying), they seem to only be willing if they have dominance over the Jews (granted the Jews would like the opposite as well). Neither will not agree unless they get the "West Bank" and most, if not all of Jerusalem (this is understandable as they are both important geographical areas for both groups).
So, basically you have two groups that will not agree to anything unless they both have the same things (can't happen), and they have shown that they cannot coexist in the same area (see the last 50 or so years of history). The only way there will ever be peace in the area is if one group gets what they want and the other group leaves, this will never happen, so there will never be peace. Maybe I am oversimplifying, and taking a pessimistic view, but this is how I see it.

 

[Lipush]

Anyone looking at a map of Israel can see that the establishment of another hostile country on the West Bank is tantamount to suicide for Israeli security.

The only "two state solution" that could possibly work is just that: Two states under a single national jurisdiction (like the U.S.). There could even be something like a House and a Senate wherein a balance of power between population and political subdivisions could be maintained.

The KEY to such an arrangement would be that national security would be maintained in its current state unless BOTH states agreed to make changes. This might encourage West Bank residents to seek redress to their complaints through political action instead of guerrilla activity.

What say you?

That is not going to work. The Palestinians have said they won't allow foreign governments to rule them, because, if to quote them, "It is no different from the occupation". And Israel won't be over enthusiastic about it either.

The American way of thinking is unfamiliar in this area. The American should try and think like the locals instead of trying to "Americanize" the Middle East. They've tried it before in Egypt and Syria, and it clearly doesn't work.

 

[oldsoul]

Anyone looking at a map of Israel can see that the establishment of another hostile country on the West Bank is tantamount to suicide for Israeli security.

The only "two state solution" that could possibly work is just that: Two states under a single national jurisdiction (like the U.S.). There could even be something like a House and a Senate wherein a balance of power between population and political subdivisions could be maintained.

The KEY to such an arrangement would be that national security would be maintained in its current state unless BOTH states agreed to make changes. This might encourage West Bank residents to seek redress to their complaints through political action instead of guerrilla activity.

What say you?

That is not going to work. The Palestinians have said they won't allow foreign governments to rule them, because, if to quote them, "It is no different from the occupation". And Israel won't be over enthusiastic about it either.

The American way of thinking is unfamiliar in this area. The American should try and think like the locals instead of trying to "Americanize" the Middle East. They've tried it before in Egypt and Syria, and it clearly doesn't work.

Quite true. The issue is not political in nature, as the west would like us to believe, this is a religious/spiritual issue, one for which there is no solution short of annihilation of one "side". Both groups believe they have a "mandate" from their respective God/religion to be the sole occupants/rulers over the area, if one gets what they want, the other will fight (physically or politically) to remove that group unless, and until, they are victorious or annihilated. It's really that simple once you get rid of all the blustering, posturing, and other various B.S.

 

[Lipush]

Anyone looking at a map of Israel can see that the establishment of another hostile country on the West Bank is tantamount to suicide for Israeli security.

The only "two state solution" that could possibly work is just that: Two states under a single national jurisdiction (like the U.S.). There could even be something like a House and a Senate wherein a balance of power between population and political subdivisions could be maintained.

The KEY to such an arrangement would be that national security would be maintained in its current state unless BOTH states agreed to make changes. This might encourage West Bank residents to seek redress to their complaints through political action instead of guerrilla activity.

What say you?

That is not going to work. The Palestinians have said they won't allow foreign governments to rule them, because, if to quote them, "It is no different from the occupation". And Israel won't be over enthusiastic about it either.

The American way of thinking is unfamiliar in this area. The American should try and think like the locals instead of trying to "Americanize" the Middle East. They've tried it before in Egypt and Syria, and it clearly doesn't work.

Quite true. The issue is not political in nature, as the west would like us to believe, this is a religious/spiritual issue, one for which there is no solution short of annihilation of one "side". Both groups believe they have a "mandate" from their respective God/religion to be the sole occupants/rulers over the area, if one gets what they want, the other will fight (physically or politically) to remove that group unless, and until, they are victorious or annihilated. It's really that simple once you get rid of all the blustering, posturing, and other various B.S.

I don't think one side has to be destroyed, it's too far our there, and people will not leave, that solution is for fools and radicals. However, it is obvious that two interests, or more, are combined, and the Palestinians want things that Israel won't take the risk of giving, and the other way around, so that is the main problem.

 

[oldsoul]

Anyone looking at a map of Israel can see that the establishment of another hostile country on the West Bank is tantamount to suicide for Israeli security.

The only "two state solution" that could possibly work is just that: Two states under a single national jurisdiction (like the U.S.). There could even be something like a House and a Senate wherein a balance of power between population and political subdivisions could be maintained.

The KEY to such an arrangement would be that national security would be maintained in its current state unless BOTH states agreed to make changes. This might encourage West Bank residents to seek redress to their complaints through political action instead of guerrilla activity.

What say you?

That is not going to work. The Palestinians have said they won't allow foreign governments to rule them, because, if to quote them, "It is no different from the occupation". And Israel won't be over enthusiastic about it either.

The American way of thinking is unfamiliar in this area. The American should try and think like the locals instead of trying to "Americanize" the Middle East. They've tried it before in Egypt and Syria, and it clearly doesn't work.

Quite true. The issue is not political in nature, as the west would like us to believe, this is a religious/spiritual issue, one for which there is no solution short of annihilation of one "side". Both groups believe they have a "mandate" from their respective God/religion to be the sole occupants/rulers over the area, if one gets what they want, the other will fight (physically or politically) to remove that group unless, and until, they are victorious or annihilated. It's really that simple once you get rid of all the blustering, posturing, and other various B.S.

I don't think one side has to be destroyed, it's too far our there, and people will not leave, that solution is for fools and radicals. However, it is obvious that two interests, or more, are combined, and the Palestinians want things that Israel won't take the risk of giving, and the other way around, so that is the main problem.

No, it's not radical or too far out there to say that neither side will stop unless they get what they want. They want the same thing. They can't both win, but they can both lose. That's what's happening now, they are both losing. Reminds me of a story where a king was trying to decide which woman was the real mother of a child. He finally ordered the child to be cut in half, and each woman would get one half. The real mother shouted that she wanted no part of it, to save her child's life. The king knew without question she was the real mother. Maybe we can learn something from that......

 

[irosie91]

Anyone looking at a map of Israel can see that the establishment of another hostile country on the West Bank is tantamount to suicide for Israeli security.

The only "two state solution" that could possibly work is just that: Two states under a single national jurisdiction (like the U.S.). There could even be something like a House and a Senate wherein a balance of power between population and political subdivisions could be maintained.

The KEY to such an arrangement would be that national security would be maintained in its current state unless BOTH states agreed to make changes. This might encourage West Bank residents to seek redress to their complaints through political action instead of guerrilla activity.

What say you?

That is not going to work. The Palestinians have said they won't allow foreign governments to rule them, because, if to quote them, "It is no different from the occupation". And Israel won't be over enthusiastic about it either.

The American way of thinking is unfamiliar in this area. The American should try and think like the locals instead of trying to "Americanize" the Middle East. They've tried it before in Egypt and Syria, and it clearly doesn't work.

Quite true. The issue is not political in nature, as the west would like us to believe, this is a religious/spiritual issue, one for which there is no solution short of annihilation of one "side". Both groups believe they have a "mandate" from their respective God/religion to be the sole occupants/rulers over the area, if one gets what they want, the other will fight (physically or politically) to remove that group unless, and until, they are victorious or annihilated. It's really that simple once you get rid of all the blustering, posturing, and other various B.S.

I don't think one side has to be destroyed, it's too far our there, and people will not leave, that solution is for fools and radicals. However, it is obvious that two interests, or more, are combined, and the Palestinians want things that Israel won't take the risk of giving, and the other way around, so that is the main problem.

No, it's not radical or too far out there to say that neither side will stop unless they get what they want. They want the same thing. They can't both win, but they can both lose. That's what's happening now, they are both losing. Reminds me of a story where a king was trying to decide which woman was the real mother of a child. He finally ordered the child to be cut in half, and each woman would get one half. The real mother shouted that she wanted no part of it, to save her child's life. The king knew without question she was the real mother. Maybe we can learn something from that......

not a useful analogy

 

[jwoodie]

Anyone looking at a map of Israel can see that the establishment of another hostile country on the West Bank is tantamount to suicide for Israeli security.

The only "two state solution" that could possibly work is just that: Two states under a single national jurisdiction (like the U.S.). There could even be something like a House and a Senate wherein a balance of power between population and political subdivisions could be maintained.

The KEY to such an arrangement would be that national security would be maintained in its current state unless BOTH states agreed to make changes. This might encourage West Bank residents to seek redress to their complaints through political action instead of guerrilla activity.

What say you?

That is not going to work. The Palestinians have said they won't allow foreign governments to rule them, because, if to quote them, "It is no different from the occupation". And Israel won't be over enthusiastic about it either.

The American way of thinking is unfamiliar in this area. The American should try and think like the locals instead of trying to "Americanize" the Middle East. They've tried it before in Egypt and Syria, and it clearly doesn't work.

I am not suggesting an "American" solution at all. Rather, I am reasoning a path that Israel might take to establish a political structure that would include official recognition of Palestinian autonomy without sacrificing external security. Perhaps a four-party arrangement (two secular and two religious) would bring about the type of political horse-swapping that could lead to constructive compromises.

 

[irosie91]

Anyone looking at a map of Israel can see that the establishment of another hostile country on the West Bank is tantamount to suicide for Israeli security.

The only "two state solution" that could possibly work is just that: Two states under a single national jurisdiction (like the U.S.). There could even be something like a House and a Senate wherein a balance of power between population and political subdivisions could be maintained.

The KEY to such an arrangement would be that national security would be maintained in its current state unless BOTH states agreed to make changes. This might encourage West Bank residents to seek redress to their complaints through political action instead of guerrilla activity.

What say you?

That is not going to work. The Palestinians have said they won't allow foreign governments to rule them, because, if to quote them, "It is no different from the occupation". And Israel won't be over enthusiastic about it either.

The American way of thinking is unfamiliar in this area. The American should try and think like the locals instead of trying to "Americanize" the Middle East. They've tried it before in Egypt and Syria, and it clearly doesn't work.

I am not suggesting an "American" solution at all. Rather, I am reasoning a path that Israel might take to establish a political structure that would include official recognition of Palestinian autonomy without sacrificing external security. Perhaps a four-party arrangement (two secular and two religious) would bring about the type of political horse-swapping that could lead to constructive compromises.

nice thought JW-----but while not blowing up each others kindergartens----DA JOOOOS got just as much factional issues as to da mooooslims. ----- while I am
optimistic NEITHER for -----over all agreement between the jewish factions with
each other-------or the arab factions---with each other------the fact must be faced----
Until the UMMAH give up the concept of MOOOOOSLIM LAND (all of the middle east-----all of the Indian subcontinent----all of the Iberian Penninsula to the
ends of the MOOOOSLIM milky way-------their ain't gonna be no peace anywhere---in the universe

 

[oldsoul]

Anyone looking at a map of Israel can see that the establishment of another hostile country on the West Bank is tantamount to suicide for Israeli security.

The only "two state solution" that could possibly work is just that: Two states under a single national jurisdiction (like the U.S.). There could even be something like a House and a Senate wherein a balance of power between population and political subdivisions could be maintained.

The KEY to such an arrangement would be that national security would be maintained in its current state unless BOTH states agreed to make changes. This might encourage West Bank residents to seek redress to their complaints through political action instead of guerrilla activity.

What say you?

That is not going to work. The Palestinians have said they won't allow foreign governments to rule them, because, if to quote them, "It is no different from the occupation". And Israel won't be over enthusiastic about it either.

The American way of thinking is unfamiliar in this area. The American should try and think like the locals instead of trying to "Americanize" the Middle East. They've tried it before in Egypt and Syria, and it clearly doesn't work.

Quite true. The issue is not political in nature, as the west would like us to believe, this is a religious/spiritual issue, one for which there is no solution short of annihilation of one "side". Both groups believe they have a "mandate" from their respective God/religion to be the sole occupants/rulers over the area, if one gets what they want, the other will fight (physically or politically) to remove that group unless, and until, they are victorious or annihilated. It's really that simple once you get rid of all the blustering, posturing, and other various B.S.

I don't think one side has to be destroyed, it's too far our there, and people will not leave, that solution is for fools and radicals. However, it is obvious that two interests, or more, are combined, and the Palestinians want things that Israel won't take the risk of giving, and the other way around, so that is the main problem.

No, it's not radical or too far out there to say that neither side will stop unless they get what they want. They want the same thing. They can't both win, but they can both lose. That's what's happening now, they are both losing. Reminds me of a story where a king was trying to decide which woman was the real mother of a child. He finally ordered the child to be cut in half, and each woman would get one half. The real mother shouted that she wanted no part of it, to save her child's life. The king knew without question she was the real mother. Maybe we can learn something from that......

not a useful analogy

I am sorry that you do not see the usefulness of this analogy. Maybe you could suggest a better one?

 

[oldsoul]

Anyone looking at a map of Israel can see that the establishment of another hostile country on the West Bank is tantamount to suicide for Israeli security.

The only "two state solution" that could possibly work is just that: Two states under a single national jurisdiction (like the U.S.). There could even be something like a House and a Senate wherein a balance of power between population and political subdivisions could be maintained.

The KEY to such an arrangement would be that national security would be maintained in its current state unless BOTH states agreed to make changes. This might encourage West Bank residents to seek redress to their complaints through political action instead of guerrilla activity.

What say you?

That is not going to work. The Palestinians have said they won't allow foreign governments to rule them, because, if to quote them, "It is no different from the occupation". And Israel won't be over enthusiastic about it either.

The American way of thinking is unfamiliar in this area. The American should try and think like the locals instead of trying to "Americanize" the Middle East. They've tried it before in Egypt and Syria, and it clearly doesn't work.

I am not suggesting an "American" solution at all. Rather, I am reasoning a path that Israel might take to establish a political structure that would include official recognition of Palestinian autonomy without sacrificing external security. Perhaps a four-party arrangement (two secular and two religious) would bring about the type of political horse-swapping that could lead to constructive compromises.

nice thought JW-----but while not blowing up each others kindergartens----DA JOOOOS got just as much factional issues as to da mooooslims. ----- while I am
optimistic NEITHER for -----over all agreement between the jewish factions with
each other-------or the arab factions---with each other------the fact must be faced----
Until the UMMAH give up the concept of MOOOOOSLIM LAND (all of the middle east-----all of the Indian subcontinent----all of the Iberian Penninsula to the
ends of the MOOOOSLIM milky way-------their ain't gonna be no peace anywhere---in the universe

This, in part, is my point. Neither side will willingly compromise.