Do you favor a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

[TDAS04]

Option 1 ideally, even if it doesn't seem possible now. 

[DavidB.]

Other: one state in which both peoples can peacefully live together should exist (normal; doesn't want ethnic cleansing of Jews; doesn't want ethnic cleansing of Palestinians; recognizes that Jews want to be able to live in the entire land and have a legitimate claim to it; recognizes that Palestinians want to be able to live in the entire land and have a legitimate claim to it; recognizes that most of the violence in the past decades stems from both peoples' fear to be stripped away from (a part of) the land).

[Zioneer]

Other: one state in which both peoples can peacefully live together should exist (normal; doesn't want ethnic cleansing of Jews; doesn't want ethnic cleansing of Palestinians; recognizes that Jews want to be able to live in the entire land and have a legitimate claim to it; recognizes that Palestinians want to be able to live in the entire land and have a legitimate claim to it; recognizes that most of the violence in the past decades stems from both peoples' fear to be stripped away from (a part of) the land).

That's actually a pretty level-headed statement coming from you. I suppose that the difference between you and others that say similar things is who gets the lion's share of the blame?

[SATW]

Yes, I support a two-state solution. But, as both PM Netanyahu and Opposition Leader Herzog have stated...it is not possible at the moment.

I oppose a One-State solution. Demographically, I do not see how Israel would remain a Jewish or Democratic State if a One-State solution is accepted.


That being said, I am strong supporter of Israel's minority populations - Israeli Arab Muslims, Israeli Arab Christians, the Arameans, Israeli Druze, and the Bahai'i. I believe they are Israeli citizens and should only leave if they want to leave. However, I also support making every Israeli citizen, Jewish or not Jewish, sign a loyalty pledge.

I've read parts of Caroline Glick's book, The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East, and it has some convincing arguments, but it did not convince me as a whole.


My settlements policy:

- I do support annexing most of Israel's current settlements, particularly those with 15,000+ plus residents.
- I oppose dividing Jerusalem. It is Israel's unified capital.
- I don't really support building new settlements in uninhabited land.
- I want Bethlehem and Hevron to be in Israel, but this isn't a top priority of mine.
- I support aspects of Lieberman's land swap plan, where Israel would give Arab villages to a Palestinian state in return for key Jewish settlements, or areas of religious significance (Hevron/Caves of the Patriarchs etc...), but only if the leadership of certain Arab villages want to leave.
- I am a strong defender of settlers who live in established settlements and will continue to be.

DavidB, how do you see Israel remaining a Jewish and Democratic State under a one-state plan?

[DavidB.]

That's actually a pretty level-headed statement coming from you. I suppose that the difference between you and others that say similar things is who gets the lion's share of the blame?

I'm not sure which others you mean -- I don't know many other Zionist one-staters who prefer a consociational solution. I think most people who disagree with me are two-staters. As for the blame game, that should be irrelevant when it comes to seeking a solution.

I think my disagreement with many posters stems from the way I treat Zionism (i.e. as the Jewish people's liberation movement) and from the fact that I am not willing to compromise on Jews' right to live in Judea and Samaria.

[SATW]

Yea, I think it's important to note DavidB represent the faction of the right that supports a one-state solution because they don't want to give up parts of biblical israel.

I represent the faction of the right that touts the two-state solution as a necessary step towards long-term stability and security, while still offering support to the settlers.

[DavidB.]

DavidB, how do you see Israel remaining a Jewish and Democratic State under a one-state plan?

In short: it doesn't. A consociational solution would entail that the country becomes a binational country. Both national communities have equal rights. They can keep their names (Israel and Palestine), flags and symbols as representation of their nation, just not as something "federal" or territorial in an exclusive sense.

The federal government will be half Jewish and half Palestinian. Both communities will be granted far-reaching autonomy on a non-territorial basis through decentralization. The federal government will be responsible for security, for safeguarding the institutional equilibrium (based on a far-reaching application of consociational principles, such as a minority veto for both segments on issues that relate to both national communities), for safeguarding both peoples' right to access holy places across the land, and for foreign policy (which should ideally be non-interventionist, in order to avoid new problems in a turbulent region, which could stir up the conflict between the communities).

The first decentral level will be the level of national community, where Jews decide on Jewish issues (education in Jewish communities, healthcare in Jewish communities...) and Palestinians decide on Palestinian issues. This is not something territorial.

The second decentral level will be the level of the territorial community. In general, territorial communities (i.e. villages, moshavim) will probably remain segregated on a national basis (i.e. being solely Jewish or Palestinian), but communities of course have the right to allow a number of people from the other community in, or to mix altogether -- that should be entirely up to the communities. For every Jewish village, an equivalent Palestinian village can be constructed in the nearby area, and vice versa -- if this wish exists. By doing so, both people's right to the entire land is safeguarded.

Cities should not be segregated on a national basis and will get a special status. Jews and Palestinians can live in all cities (however, the implementation of "territorial communities" within cities -- i.e. neighborhoods -- might be a possibility, though I'm not sure about the desirability of this). They need to be ruled through Jewish-Palestinian cooperation, at least if this is/becomes the demographic situation, which should look like cooperation in "normal" countries -- though in Jerusalem it could be prudent to come to a different, more consociational kind of arrangement.

This idea is based on the fact that both nations have a right to live across the entire country but should at the same time also have a right to national autonomy. It is not desirable for Palestinians to have Jews decide on issues that solely relate to the Palestinian community, and vice versa. Therefore, decentralization is important. Decentralization cannot take place on a territorial basis, because it would infringe on both people's rights to live across the entire land (though it can -- and should -- be applied on a communal level, but only for villages and small towns).

[Grand Wizard Lizard of the Klan]

: 3


But seriously I support one-state solution. Although it might be hard to keep in one piece as demographics future perspectives are on the side of Arabs as far as I know. I don't think that Israeli authorities will allow peaceful idyllic coexistence of both nations in one state knowing that sooner or later Arabs will be majority. So I guess one-state solution will be enacted when Israeli Jews will dominate in terms of demography also in Palestine. Maybe our Israeli posters will prove me wrong and I hope that they will.

[SATW]

with all due respect, DavidB, I can't support a plan like that. I just do not believe it will be realistic. But, it is an interesting idea, would it be like the U.K., essentially?

[Zioneer]

DavidB's plan sounds kind of like Bosnia-Herzegovina, from what little I know of B-H. I don't know enough on the issue to say much about that though.

[DavidB.]

with all due respect, DavidB, I can't support a plan like that. I just do not believe it will be realistic. But, it is an interesting idea, would it be like the U.K., essentially?

Is that really your main objection? "It is not realistic"? Do you really believe a peaceful two-state solution is realistic? We have been witnessing for more than twenty years that it is not.

The most realistic scenario, to be frank, is that the current status-quo will remain in place and that we will be fighting each other for generations and generations. I do not find that to be a particularly attractive prospect. I don't think at this point a peaceful two-state solution is any more realistic than my plan, and that's a good thing, for a two-state solution entails a denial of both nations' right to the entire land (which will surely lead to more violence, coming from both sides) and probably ethnic cleansing as well.

If, in such a two-state solution, Israel will not collapse because of new Israeli-Palestinian violence and indefensible borders, it might collapse because of violence between segments of Israeli Jewish society (which might lead to a democratic breakdown). Israeli Jewish society is dangerously divided. Just as a large segment of the Palestinian population is not willing to cede any territory (let alone give up Jerusalem -- two-state solution supporters who seriously believe Israel will get all of Jerusalem are living in a dream; at this point I think most people who claim to believe in a two-state solution but want to keep Jerusalem united are smart enough to know this is impossible and are simply lying), an important and growing segment of the Israeli population is not willing to cede any territory. Probably not a majority, but it is needless to say that things will look much uglier in 2016 or 2017 -- after the Gush Katif trauma -- than in 1995, and we all know what happened to Rabin back then. This is not something I like, but it is the reality on the ground with which every realistic person will have to cope and which every responsible person will take into account.

My plan would be more like Belgium (apart from the territorially-based power that Flanders and Wallonia have, which is a very important distinction) than like the UK, but in reality it will be unique and, in many respects, not at all like Belgium. And yes, the Belgian situation is monstruous... in Belgium. It doesn't have to be monstruous in Israel, and if it leads to peace without an infringement on both communities' autonomy and their right to live across the entire land, I'm already happy.

DavidB's plan sounds kind of like Bosnia-Herzegovina, from what little I know of B-H. I don't know enough on the issue to say much about that though.

The communities in Bosnia-Herzegovina are essentially territorium-based. That is absolutely not my idea for Israel.

[SATW]

And what makes you believe a non-territory based society like yours could work? you and I both know that the Palestinian Leadership, if you could even force them into this system, would not take things as equal. They would continue their hate-mongering.

I don't really care for an Israel-Palestine Relationship developing. I want to separate countries, that are at worst at a standstill with each other much Israel's relations with countries with the Saudis. Not good, but not bad either. I believe this is feasible at some point in the next 2 decades.

[SWE]

Obviously I support a no state solution, but Option 3 is the easiest to stomach.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Only Israel should exist. Other Arab countries should be forced to take in the refugees.

[DavidB.]

And what makes you believe a non-territory based society like yours could work? you and I both know that the Palestinian Leadership, if you could even force them into this system, would not take things as equal. They would continue their hate-mongering.

I don't really care for an Israel-Palestine Relationship developing. I want to separate countries, that are at worst at a standstill with each other much Israel's relations with countries with the Saudis. Not good, but not bad either. I believe this is feasible at some point in the next 2 decades.

What makes you think this couldn't work? And what makes you think a 2SS will be more likely within two decades, as opposed to less likely, now the demographic side of the argument (because I don't buy Glick's bullsh**t) and international opinion are both shifting away from Israel? The longer this takes, the more Palestinians are going to want to have it all and if I were them, I would want to have it all as well. Israel needs to be pro-active. If you snooze, you lose. Though still infinitely better than the worthless left, Bibi and his Likud shills are snoozing, and the Jewish people will be losing.

I think my idea of a consociational solution is basically the only chance for Israelis to maintain an acceptable degree of autonomy and to have the possibility to live across the entire land. The number of seats for Jews and Palestinians in the federal bodies should be fixed by constitutional means (and safeguarded by a veto for both sides) in order to remove the threat of one nation "outbreeding" the other.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Ideally, a two-state solution that incorporates both some areas of Israel and the Palestinian-majority nation of Jordan, which was carved out of roughly 70% of the British Mandate and given to an elitist Arab monarchy.

[DavidB.]

Ideally, a two-state solution that incorporates both some areas of Israel and the Palestinian-majority nation of Jordan, which was carved out of roughly 70% of the British Mandate and given to an elitist Arab monarchy.

You mean you want Jordan to take over some of J&S?

[Frodo]

Yes, though we will likely be faced with a one-state reality in which Israel increasingly resembles apartheid-era South Africa.  In which case, I would gladly throw my lot in with the BDS movement.  

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

How would a two state solution work in regards to the fact that Palestine isn't a contiguous nation?

And what makes you believe a non-territory based society like yours could work? you and I both know that the Palestinian Leadership, if you could even force them into this system, would not take things as equal. They would continue their hate-mongering.

I don't really care for an Israel-Palestine Relationship developing. I want to separate countries, that are at worst at a standstill with each other much Israel's relations with countries with the Saudis. Not good, but not bad either. I believe this is feasible at some point in the next 2 decades.

And that's the problem. Both sides are utterly convinced that the other side is unreasonable and out to get them, a situation which will cripple any proposed solution right off the bat (and, I don't think it's impossible to fix things even now). And as someone who basically feels the both peoples deserve to live in their homelands, I feel your solution is highly problematic. It's not healthy for the Israelis and Palestinians to both be condemned to be cordoned off and paranoid for the indefinite future.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Now integrating the Gaza Strip on the other hand will be ... an issue.

[Pyro]

I support the liberation of Palestine.

[tpfkaw]

Palestinian-majority

Not at the time!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not of the geographical entity historically called "Palestine" (or, indeed, Mandatory Palestine).

But anyway, ooh, 70%. That's almost but not quite as reasonable as ol' Cpl. H's proposal of Aug. '39, in which the Poles would get 99% of Poland. If they'd only accepted that deal they'd have gotten a lot more than what they ended up getting! Those excitable Poles – they never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

Since having 70% is so great, here's a hypothetical deal for you. Israel gets all of Jordan, and hell, let's throw in the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem (incl. holy sites) and a strip of land in the Negev to make it contiguous, while the Palestinians and Jordanians get the rest of Israel. Let's say that the populations and value of improvements to the land on both sides gets switched magically.

Good deal, or bad deal? If that's not the kind of deal that grabs ya, perhaps one is being un pequeño bit disingenuous?

[Kingpoleon]

Other: one state in which both peoples can peacefully live together should exist (normal; doesn't want ethnic cleansing of Jews; doesn't want ethnic cleansing of Palestinians; recognizes that Jews want to be able to live in the entire land and have a legitimate claim to it; recognizes that Palestinians want to be able to live in the entire land and have a legitimate claim to it; recognizes that most of the violence in the past decades stems from both peoples' fear to be stripped away from (a part of) the land).

Wouldn't a federal legislature(eleven appointed by the Israeli Governor/elected by Israeli legislature, eleven the same for Palestine, and the other three being elected by the people, one by Israelis, one by Palestines, and one nationwide) with very minor legislative powers be best with two decentralized governments?

[tpfkaw]

Regarding my previous post, to you Jews who choose the blue, avatar-wise. I honestly would have no issue if your argument were "we took it, we kicked them out, it was wrong, they have every right to be upset and, indeed, oppose it violently, but now we need to move on."

"Might makes right" is as valid an argument as any, and indeed was (is?) the foundational principle of diplomacy. But if you claim something was justified on post-1945, liberal internationalist, anticolonialist, antiracist grounds, then I think any criticisms on those grounds are fair game.

[Sir Mohamed]

Yes, that should happen quickly. It’s the only way to peace.