A "One-State" Solution

[toomuchtime_]

The problem for the Israeli's is that they face the constant threat from people who hate them and who breed excessively. So a "One-State Solution" becomes a non-started because the said State would have to have some semblance of "democracy," and the Arabs would very quickly overwhelm the jews with numbers.

But what if Israel fortified its "constitution" (or whatever the founding document is) to make it cast in concrete that Israel will always and forever be a "Jewish State," then granted citizenship to everyone living in the whole territory (Israel, West Bank, Golan Heights - maybe not Gaza), who is willing to swear an oath of allegiance to the Israel State?

Many big obstacles are apparent, not the least of which is that once such a move were started, it could never be turned back.

But is it something worth exploring?

Why would Israel want to explore it?

 

[xyz]

But what if Israel fortified its "constitution" (or whatever the founding document is) to make it cast in concrete that Israel will always and forever be a "Jewish State," then granted citizenship to everyone living in the whole territory (Israel, West Bank, Golan Heights - maybe not Gaza), who is willing to swear an oath of allegiance to the Israel State?

It's an interesting topic and question, but I don't think it would happen.

Plus it would change the definition of "Jewsihness" over time if they do that. Of course, if they don't, then they will be accused of being undemocratic.

There are already Israeli Arabs, but if they grow in number substantially it's a different story.

I see the two state solution as more realistic. But I really don't know what will happen in 50-100 years.

 

[rylah]

But what if Israel fortified its "constitution" (or whatever the founding document is) to make it cast in concrete that Israel will always and forever be a "Jewish State," then granted citizenship to everyone living in the whole territory (Israel, West Bank, Golan Heights - maybe not Gaza), who is willing to swear an oath of allegiance to the Israel State?

It's an interesting topic and question, but I don't think it would happen.

Plus it would change the definition of "Jewsihness" over time if they do that. Of course, if they don't, then they will be accused of being undemocratic.

There are already Israeli Arabs, but if they grow in number substantially it's a different story.

I see the two state solution as more realistic. But I really don't know what will happen in 50-100 years.

The conclusion is based on lack of real demographic data.
Jewish birthrates surpass those of the Arabs, not only in Israel but also the rest of the middle east.
Even if Israeli sovereignty was applied in Judea Samaria today, providing Israeli citizenship to all the Arabs in the area, Jews remain around 65% majority.

 

[xyz]

But what if Israel fortified its "constitution" (or whatever the founding document is) to make it cast in concrete that Israel will always and forever be a "Jewish State," then granted citizenship to everyone living in the whole territory (Israel, West Bank, Golan Heights - maybe not Gaza), who is willing to swear an oath of allegiance to the Israel State?

It's an interesting topic and question, but I don't think it would happen.

Plus it would change the definition of "Jewsihness" over time if they do that. Of course, if they don't, then they will be accused of being undemocratic.

There are already Israeli Arabs, but if they grow in number substantially it's a different story.

I see the two state solution as more realistic. But I really don't know what will happen in 50-100 years.

The conclusion is based on lack of real demographic data.
Jewish birthrates surpass those of the Arabs, not only in Israel but also the rest of the middle east.
Even if Israeli sovereignty was applied in Judea Samaria today, providing Israeli citizenship to all the Arabs in the area, Jews remain around 65% majority.

I didn't say Arabs would become a majority, however it would still be a substantial number of people, and many Israelis would not want them to become citizens and I don't see this as happening in the near future.

 

[rylah]

But what if Israel fortified its "constitution" (or whatever the founding document is) to make it cast in concrete that Israel will always and forever be a "Jewish State," then granted citizenship to everyone living in the whole territory (Israel, West Bank, Golan Heights - maybe not Gaza), who is willing to swear an oath of allegiance to the Israel State?

It's an interesting topic and question, but I don't think it would happen.

Plus it would change the definition of "Jewsihness" over time if they do that. Of course, if they don't, then they will be accused of being undemocratic.

There are already Israeli Arabs, but if they grow in number substantially it's a different story.

I see the two state solution as more realistic. But I really don't know what will happen in 50-100 years.

The conclusion is based on lack of real demographic data.
Jewish birthrates surpass those of the Arabs, not only in Israel but also the rest of the middle east.
Even if Israeli sovereignty was applied in Judea Samaria today, providing Israeli citizenship to all the Arabs in the area, Jews remain around 65% majority.

I didn't say Arabs would become a majority, however it would still be a substantial number of people, and many Israelis would not want them to become citizens and I don't see this as happening in the near future.

I actually voted for a party that proposes exactly that, voted specifically for this solution,
they're in the govt. now.

 

[USAF 2023]

But what if Israel fortified its "constitution" (or whatever the founding document is) to make it cast in concrete that Israel will always and forever be a "Jewish State," then granted citizenship to everyone living in the whole territory (Israel, West Bank, Golan Heights - maybe not Gaza), who is willing to swear an oath of allegiance to the Israel State?

It's an interesting topic and question, but I don't think it would happen.

Plus it would change the definition of "Jewsihness" over time if they do that. Of course, if they don't, then they will be accused of being undemocratic.

There are already Israeli Arabs, but if they grow in number substantially it's a different story.

I see the two state solution as more realistic. But I really don't know what will happen in 50-100 years.

The conclusion is based on lack of real demographic data.
Jewish birthrates surpass those of the Arabs, not only in Israel but also the rest of the middle east.
Even if Israeli sovereignty was applied in Judea Samaria today, providing Israeli citizenship to all the Arabs in the area, Jews remain around 65% majority.

Within the “ 67 Borders” we hear so much about Jews make up approx. 80 Percent of the Population

 

[xyz]

But what if Israel fortified its "constitution" (or whatever the founding document is) to make it cast in concrete that Israel will always and forever be a "Jewish State," then granted citizenship to everyone living in the whole territory (Israel, West Bank, Golan Heights - maybe not Gaza), who is willing to swear an oath of allegiance to the Israel State?

It's an interesting topic and question, but I don't think it would happen.

Plus it would change the definition of "Jewsihness" over time if they do that. Of course, if they don't, then they will be accused of being undemocratic.

There are already Israeli Arabs, but if they grow in number substantially it's a different story.

I see the two state solution as more realistic. But I really don't know what will happen in 50-100 years.

The conclusion is based on lack of real demographic data.
Jewish birthrates surpass those of the Arabs, not only in Israel but also the rest of the middle east.
Even if Israeli sovereignty was applied in Judea Samaria today, providing Israeli citizenship to all the Arabs in the area, Jews remain around 65% majority.

I didn't say Arabs would become a majority, however it would still be a substantial number of people, and many Israelis would not want them to become citizens and I don't see this as happening in the near future.

I actually voted for a party that proposes exactly that, they are in the govt now, specifically for this solution.

So then it's like a choice thing, or everyone gets citizenship?

 

[rylah]

But what if Israel fortified its "constitution" (or whatever the founding document is) to make it cast in concrete that Israel will always and forever be a "Jewish State," then granted citizenship to everyone living in the whole territory (Israel, West Bank, Golan Heights - maybe not Gaza), who is willing to swear an oath of allegiance to the Israel State?

It's an interesting topic and question, but I don't think it would happen.

Plus it would change the definition of "Jewsihness" over time if they do that. Of course, if they don't, then they will be accused of being undemocratic.

There are already Israeli Arabs, but if they grow in number substantially it's a different story.

I see the two state solution as more realistic. But I really don't know what will happen in 50-100 years.

The conclusion is based on lack of real demographic data.
Jewish birthrates surpass those of the Arabs, not only in Israel but also the rest of the middle east.
Even if Israeli sovereignty was applied in Judea Samaria today, providing Israeli citizenship to all the Arabs in the area, Jews remain around 65% majority.

I didn't say Arabs would become a majority, however it would still be a substantial number of people, and many Israelis would not want them to become citizens and I don't see this as happening in the near future.

I actually voted for a party that proposes exactly that, they are in the govt now, specifically for this solution.

So then it's like a choice thing, or everyone gets citizenship?

Read the OP, I wholly agree with it.

 

[rylah]

But what if Israel fortified its "constitution" (or whatever the founding document is) to make it cast in concrete that Israel will always and forever be a "Jewish State," then granted citizenship to everyone living in the whole territory (Israel, West Bank, Golan Heights - maybe not Gaza), who is willing to swear an oath of allegiance to the Israel State?

It's an interesting topic and question, but I don't think it would happen.

Plus it would change the definition of "Jewsihness" over time if they do that. Of course, if they don't, then they will be accused of being undemocratic.

There are already Israeli Arabs, but if they grow in number substantially it's a different story.

I see the two state solution as more realistic. But I really don't know what will happen in 50-100 years.

The conclusion is based on lack of real demographic data.
Jewish birthrates surpass those of the Arabs, not only in Israel but also the rest of the middle east.
Even if Israeli sovereignty was applied in Judea Samaria today, providing Israeli citizenship to all the Arabs in the area, Jews remain around 65% majority.

Within the “ 67 Borders” we hear so much about Jews make up approx. 80 Percent of the Population

So You add another 1.2-1.5mil to the 2 million Israeli Arabs, how do they bridge the 4 million gap with those birthrates?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: A "One-State" Solution
⁜→ rylah, ILOVEISRAEL, xyz, et al,

There is a "Point of No Return." The question of Annexation and extending citizenship coverage for all Arab Palestinians of the Judea and Samaria Region, once it is decided and implemented cannot be reversed at it will become a politically locked-down commitment.

Within the “ 67 Borders” we hear so much about Jews make up approx. 80 Percent of the Population

So You add another 1.2-1.5mil to the 2 million Israeli Arabs, how do they bridge the 4 million gap with those birthrates?

(COMMENT)

Let's say, → just for a moment, that (hypothetically) all the active Jihadist, Fedayeen Activist, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric Fighters are neutralized (by some feat of magic) → you still have more than two generations of minors in the pipeline of Arab Palestinian education that have been indoctrinated to idolized the the jihadist ways, and grown to immortalize those like "Dalal al-Maghribi." That is another 30+ years of kids like "Ahed Tamimi." (Have you seen her lately?) That is a very high risk undertaking → one of which there is no visible light at the end of the tunnel yet... This is one of those exceptionally dangerous political determinations that is going to require great courage, enormous skill, and brute strength for a considerable period of time.

To even say, in the open, that such is being considered is something of a risk.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[JoeB131]

If your goal is the "end of Zionism", meaning the end of national liberation for the Jewish people, you are UPHOLDING apartheid not ending it.

Not at all. Most western democracies, Jews have the same rights everyone else has..

 

[Shusha]

If your goal is the "end of Zionism", meaning the end of national liberation for the Jewish people, you are UPHOLDING apartheid not ending it.

Not at all. Most western democracies, Jews have the same rights everyone else has..

Including the right to a national liberation movement resulting in a sovereign state?

 

[rylah]

RE: A "One-State" Solution
⁜→ rylah, ILOVEISRAEL, xyz, et al,

There is a "Point of No Return." The question of Annexation and extending citizenship coverage for all Arab Palestinians of the Judea and Samaria Region, once it is decided and implemented cannot be reversed at it will become a politically locked-down commitment.

Within the “ 67 Borders” we hear so much about Jews make up approx. 80 Percent of the Population

So You add another 1.2-1.5mil to the 2 million Israeli Arabs, how do they bridge the 4 million gap with those birthrates?

(COMMENT)

Let's say, → just for a moment, that (hypothetically) all the active Jihadist, Fedayeen Activist, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric Fighters are neutralized (by some feat of magic) → you still have more than two generations of minors in the pipeline of Arab Palestinian education that have been indoctrinated to idolized the the jihadist ways, and grown to immortalize those like "Dalal al-Maghribi." That is another 30+ years of kids like "Ahed Tamimi." (Have you seen her lately?) That is a very high risk undertaking → one of which there is no visible light at the end of the tunnel yet... This is one of those exceptionally dangerous political determinations that is going to require great courage, enormous skill, and brute strength for a considerable period of time.

To even say, in the open, that such is being considered is something of a risk.

Most Respectfully,
R

I agree the danger is real.
But the way I see it, terror comes from hope rather desperation.
Once You cut all hope for another national aspiration, dismantle the source that provides that infrastructure, not only do You minimize spread of the ideology among Arabs already having Israeli citizenship, but demonstrate a decisive victory with an iron wall placed in front of any animosity or contradictory claims.

Then comes the pledge of allegiance, Israeli education system, national service, police patrol instead of army, more accessible surveillance on the ground, Israeli criminal law. And then, all the carrots of a modern state and its markets. The order is opposite to what has been tried until now - carrots for hope without clear defeat, I propose carrots only for defeat.

Operatively an army is more restricted when a civilian population is involved, it is counterproductive to the purpose of its involvement, border police and undercover units are much more effective and rather than provide symbolic legitimacy for further confrontation, proven to be capable of creating more deterrence on the ground in the long run. You just don't get to play around with SWATS and undercover units like they do with 18 y.o. soldiers, and You don't get to go home to mommy for a nap after that.

 

[JoeB131]

Including the right to a national liberation movement resulting in a sovereign state?

Um, sure, if you can get a majority to agree through democratic process... you know, not bombing and terrorizing them into fleeing.

 

[rylah]

Including the right to a national liberation movement resulting in a sovereign state?

Um, sure, if you can get a majority to agree through democratic process... you know, not bombing and terrorizing them into fleeing.

Sure, because we all know that Hamas throwing their opposition off rooftops at the end of elections day is all about democracy.

And what the majority of Your western democracies did with the boats of fleeing Jews?

 

[Shusha]

Including the right to a national liberation movement resulting in a sovereign state?

Um, sure, if you can get a majority to agree through democratic process... you know, not bombing and terrorizing them into fleeing.

Um. Sure. Let's go with that. And while I appreciate the desire for peaceful resolution to conflict, I have questions.

Who has a right to vote? Thinking of places like Quebec and Canada; Spain and Catalonia; US and Haudenosaunee Nations: who has the right to vote for self-determination for peoples? What about when, as in the case of the Arab Palestinians, they have ALREADY been displaced? Do those in the diaspora have a right to vote as well? Their descendants? Or only those currently living in the territory?

See, where I think you are going with this is that everyone gets a vote -- both those who belong to the peoples seeking self-determination and those who do not. The problem with this is peoples seeking self-determination are often minorities. Therefore, you've made the rights of a peoples to self-determination subject to the whim of the majority. You are making peoples' rights subject to popular vote.

I believe this is both morally wrong and dangerous. Peoples' rights are inherent and are not subject to control by a majority.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: A "One-State" Solution
⁜→ JoeB131, Shusha, et al,

The phrase "National Liberation Movements" (NLMs) is a polite and politically correct way of addressing various grassroots anti-government activities that are normally (but not always) associated with low-intensity asymmetric conflicts over non-self-governing territories and the attempts to implement self-determination. What the Arab Palestinians of the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip like to think of as the State of Palestine (SoP), the once fledgling and nascent entity is displaying fewer and fewer signs of future potential.

The SoP is what some might consider as a "front company" for an organized criminal enterprise fleecing the donor nations of the world under the threat of lawlessness. Even within the last 60 days, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has been politicking with the Arab League to acquire pledges amounting to ≈ $1.2B/year (≈ $100 million per month). It will be interesting to see who contributes what, and for how long.

Including the right to a national liberation movement resulting in a sovereign state?

Um, sure, if you can get a majority to agree through democratic process... you know, not bombing and terrorizing them into fleeing.

Um. Sure. Let's go with that. And while I appreciate the desire for peaceful resolution to conflict, I have questions.

Who has a right to vote? Thinking of places like Quebec and Canada; Spain and Catalonia; US and Haudenosaunee Nations: who has the right to vote for self-determination for peoples? What about when, as in the case of the Arab Palestinians, they have ALREADY been displaced? Do those in the diaspora have a right to vote as well? Their descendants? Or only those currently living in the territory?

See, where I think you are going with this is that everyone gets a vote -- both those who belong to the peoples seeking self-determination and those who do not. The problem with this is peoples seeking self-determination are often minorities. Therefore, you've made the rights of a peoples to self-determination subject to the whim of the majority. You are making peoples' rights subject to popular vote.

I believe this is both morally wrong and dangerous. Peoples' rights are inherent and are not subject to control by a majority.

(COMMENT)

While we all hear this quite frequently, "rights of peoples to self-determination," there is no one, authoritative way to interpret this right. The meaning behind and the definition of self-determination (explicitly) makes it almost impossible for the International Community to respond to the ever-increasing number claims under this "right."

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

RE: A "One-State" Solution
⁜→ JoeB131, Shusha, et al,

The phrase "National Liberation Movements" (NLMs) is a polite and politically correct way of addressing various grassroots anti-government activities that are normally (but not always) associated with low-intensity asymmetric conflicts over non-self-governing territories and the attempts to implement self-determination. What the Arab Palestinians of the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip like to think of as the State of Palestine (SoP), the once fledgling and nascent entity is displaying fewer and fewer signs of future potential.

The SoP is what some might consider as a "front company" for an organized criminal enterprise fleecing the donor nations of the world under the threat of lawlessness. Even within the last 60 days, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has been politicking with the Arab League to acquire pledges amounting to ≈ $1.2B/year (≈ $100 million per month). It will be interesting to see who contributes what, and for how long.

Including the right to a national liberation movement resulting in a sovereign state?

Um, sure, if you can get a majority to agree through democratic process... you know, not bombing and terrorizing them into fleeing.

Um. Sure. Let's go with that. And while I appreciate the desire for peaceful resolution to conflict, I have questions.

Who has a right to vote? Thinking of places like Quebec and Canada; Spain and Catalonia; US and Haudenosaunee Nations: who has the right to vote for self-determination for peoples? What about when, as in the case of the Arab Palestinians, they have ALREADY been displaced? Do those in the diaspora have a right to vote as well? Their descendants? Or only those currently living in the territory?

See, where I think you are going with this is that everyone gets a vote -- both those who belong to the peoples seeking self-determination and those who do not. The problem with this is peoples seeking self-determination are often minorities. Therefore, you've made the rights of a peoples to self-determination subject to the whim of the majority. You are making peoples' rights subject to popular vote.

I believe this is both morally wrong and dangerous. Peoples' rights are inherent and are not subject to control by a majority.

(COMMENT)

While we all hear this quite frequently, "rights of peoples to self-determination," there is no one, authoritative way to interpret this right. The meaning behind and the definition of self-determination (explicitly) makes it almost impossible for the International Community to respond to the ever-increasing number claims under this "right."

Most Respectfully,
R

There is a difference between a future claim and a present reality.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

The problem for the Israeli's is that they face the constant threat from people who hate them and who breed excessively. So a "One-State Solution" becomes a non-started because the said State would have to have some semblance of "democracy," and the Arabs would very quickly overwhelm the jews with numbers.

But what if Israel fortified its "constitution" (or whatever the founding document is) to make it cast in concrete that Israel will always and forever be a "Jewish State," then granted citizenship to everyone living in the whole territory (Israel, West Bank, Golan Heights - maybe not Gaza), who is willing to swear an oath of allegiance to the Israel State?

Many big obstacles are apparent, not the least of which is that once such a move were started, it could never be turned back.

But is it something worth exploring?

Lebanon began as a Christian state.


Just look at it now .

 

[JoeB131]

Sure, because we all know that Hamas throwing their opposition off rooftops at the end of elections day is all about democracy.

And what the majority of Your western democracies did with the boats of fleeing Jews?

Right, the imaginary rooftops.... I thought gays were being thrown off of those.

See, where I think you are going with this is that everyone gets a vote -- both those who belong to the peoples seeking self-determination and those who do not. The problem with this is peoples seeking self-determination are often minorities. Therefore, you've made the rights of a peoples to self-determination subject to the whim of the majority. You are making peoples' rights subject to popular vote.

Um, yeah.... That's the thing. I'm all for a popular vote. sometimes the candidate I like doesn't even win.

I believe this is both morally wrong and dangerous. Peoples' rights are inherent and are not subject to control by a majority.

What about the rights of the Palestinians? Oh, that's right, they don't have any rights... they have stuff you want!