EU Parliament overwhelmingly votes in favour of the country Palestine

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I still think a 3-state solution is the only viable one, but I could never see anyone convincing Egypt to take Gaza. Jordan taking the West Bank, maybe.

No one wants a 3-state solution except Americans who know nothing about Arabs.

I'm very aware: I said most viable, not most popular.

Similarly, I'd say that even though very few people claim to "want" large territory transfers between Israel and Palestine, I think that would have to be an integral part of any viable two-state solution.

Which is exactly why the two-state solution is not viable, especially as long on one side gets to decide unilaterally what gets transferred.

[YL]

On another note, how did the British EU delegation vote?

Lab, SNP, Green, LD, Plaid, Sinn Féin all seem to be yes.

UKIP were mostly no but quite a few abstained and one voted yes.

Con had quite a lot of abstentions, but those who voted seem to be 5 No, 3 Yes.

Both the UUP and DUP MEPs voted no.

[Famous Mortimer]

I still think a 3-state solution is the only viable one, but I could never see anyone convincing Egypt to take Gaza. Jordan taking the West Bank, maybe.

No one wants a 3-state solution except Americans who know nothing about Arabs.

I'm very aware: I said most viable, not most popular.

Similarly, I'd say that even though very few people claim to "want" large territory transfers between Israel and Palestine, I think that would have to be an integral part of any viable two-state solution.

Which is exactly why the two-state solution is not viable, especially as long on one side gets to decide unilaterally what gets transferred.

Why do you think making Palestine take the Arab triangle would make the two state solution non-viable?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I still think a 3-state solution is the only viable one, but I could never see anyone convincing Egypt to take Gaza. Jordan taking the West Bank, maybe.

No one wants a 3-state solution except Americans who know nothing about Arabs.

I'm very aware: I said most viable, not most popular.

Similarly, I'd say that even though very few people claim to "want" large territory transfers between Israel and Palestine, I think that would have to be an integral part of any viable two-state solution.

Which is exactly why the two-state solution is not viable, especially as long on one side gets to decide unilaterally what gets transferred.

Why do you think making Palestine take the Arab triangle would make the two state solution non-viable?

Because of all the choice plums Israel would insist on taking for itself.

A Palestine that is a collection of Bantustans and ghettos is not and never will be acceptable to the Palestinians.  A Palestine that includes none of Jerusalem is not and never will be acceptable.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

On another note, how did the British EU delegation vote?

Lab, SNP, Green, LD, Plaid, Sinn Féin all seem to be yes.

UKIP were mostly no but quite a few abstained and one voted yes.

Con had quite a lot of abstentions, but those who voted seem to be 5 No, 3 Yes.

Both the UUP and DUP MEPs voted no.

Regardless of any feelings about the Palestinian issue, I'm surprised any UKIPer would vote in favor of giving Brussels a say in the matter.

[Angel of Death]

Bringing Jordan into the equation is a transparent ploy to allow Israel to steal as much Palestinian land as possible without conceding too much in terms of demographics after annexation. With a Palestinian state no longer being viable, Jordan is then to absorb the large population centers.

[MalaspinaGold]

I still think a 3-state solution is the only viable one, but I could never see anyone convincing Egypt to take Gaza. Jordan taking the West Bank, maybe.

No one wants a 3-state solution except Americans who know nothing about Arabs.

I'm very aware: I said most viable, not most popular.

Similarly, I'd say that even though very few people claim to "want" large territory transfers between Israel and Palestine, I think that would have to be an integral part of any viable two-state solution.

Which is exactly why the two-state solution is not viable, especially as long on one side gets to decide unilaterally what gets transferred.

Why do you think making Palestine take the Arab triangle would make the two state solution non-viable?

Because of all the choice plums Israel would insist on taking for itself.

A Palestine that is a collection of Bantustans and ghettos is not and never will be acceptable to the Palestinians.  A Palestine that includes none of Jerusalem is not and never will be acceptable.

Agreed. Which is why the almost-completed Olmert-Abbas agreement, which gave East Jerusalem to Palestine, and only 2 (possibly 3) settlement blocs kept by Israel would objectively have been a decent agreement.

Anyway, no one has really been able to explain why the two state solution has become dead... Israeli settlers can always become citizens of Palestine (the Froman idea), or they can be evacuated, which would be ugly, but not a tenth as bad as what a clusterinks a one state solution would become.

[swl]

I read somewhere some Arab scholar (don't remember from which country) saying that Palestine would be better organized at the UAE, an association of several 'emirates'.