• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Dave agrees with the Israeli right

Red_Dave

Libertarian socialist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
6,879
Reaction score
1,715
Location
Staffs, England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
The Israeli right has a new vision

For all that, it is not so hard to see why this once forbidden notion now appeals to Israel's nationalist camp. The two-state solution may be conventional wisdom across the globe, endorsed by almost all democratic governments, but for settlers and their allies the very idea reeks of trauma: any division of the land is assumed to entail the dismantling of the towns and villages they call home. For the devout, this means leaving places they regard as part of the ancient biblical homeland. Some threaten armed resistance; rightwing soldiers warn they will refuse any order to evacuate settlements. But if there's a single state, all that trauma can be avoided. "It's preferable for the Palestinians to become citizens of the state than for us to divide the country," says Knesset speaker and Likud MK Reuben Rivlin. What's more, there would be no place for the current wall, or separation barrier, that some rightists believe disfigures and artificially divides what should be the sacred, and whole, Land of Israel.
Seams a fair enough deal to me, the settlers don't have to leave and the Palestinians don't have to settle for being crammed into the OT.
 
Last edited:

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
19,755
Reaction score
6,217
Location
Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
The one-state solution was and still is the solution that is promoted by the radicals; from both the far-right and the far-left.
 

CJ 2.0

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
5,418
Reaction score
1,903
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The one-state solution was and still is the solution that is promoted by the radicals; from both the far-right and the far-left.
It also has the added advantage of being totally unworkable.

And is certain to generate a massive bloodbath, so it has that going for it too.
 

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
19,755
Reaction score
6,217
Location
Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
It also has the added advantage of being totally unworkable.

And is certain to generate a massive bloodbath, so it has that going for it too.
Yep. One needs to be very naive to think that this is where the conflict would end.
At least with the two states solution the Palestinians will have their own state and any further hostility from them will be hostility from a state, the much preferable kind of hostility.

With the one state solution we'll be risking a bloody civil war like never seen before.
 

Shayah

יותר מקו
Joined
Jul 16, 2006
Messages
865
Reaction score
388
Location
תל אביב
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
I don't think a single state would be viable for very long. It would be easy if Israelis and Palestinians were all secular people. But that isn't the case.
 

Shayah

יותר מקו
Joined
Jul 16, 2006
Messages
865
Reaction score
388
Location
תל אביב
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
With the one state solution we'll be risking a bloody civil war like never seen before.
I think so also. Lebanon is an example. A Middle East nation perpetually fractured by religious factions.
 

washunut

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
11,559
Reaction score
3,319
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Yep. One needs to be very naive to think that this is where the conflict would end.
At least with the two states solution the Palestinians will have their own state and any further hostility from them will be hostility from a state, the much preferable kind of hostility.

With the one state solution we'll be risking a bloody civil war like never seen before.
What you will have in a two state solution are splinter groups which the new nation can disavow. Not unlike Hezbellah in Lebanon. You will then have Israel completely surrounded by Hamas, Hezbellah and whatever name they use in the west bank. The US and UN have made it impossible for Israel to defend itself as these cowards hide in civilian populations.

I can't think of a solution which allows Israel to be a sustainable Jewish state in a world that considers it a strategic burden to support as does America's Petreus and Obama. Along with a highly critical UN.
 

ObamaYoMoma

Banned
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
81
Reaction score
10
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Seams a fair enough deal to me, the settlers don't have to leave and the Palestinians don't have to settle for being crammed into the OT.
Oh sure the Muslims get to use democracy to institutionalize Sharia, then the Jews become subjugated dhimmis in their own country. In case you don’t know what Sharia is, Sharia which is intrinsic to Islam, institutionalizes systematic persecution and often violent oppression of females and non-Muslims and incorporates draconian punishments such as lashings, stonings, beheadings, and amputations, while forbidding the freedom of conscience, the freedom of religion, and the freedom of speech, at the same time it also mandates death for apostates. Additionally, Sharia also commands Muslims to wage offensive jihad for the spread of Islam via the imposition of sharia as the sixth pillar of Islam. Hence, Islam more than being just a religion in effect is a totalitarian theo-political ideology that seeks to subjugate the world via the imposition of sharia.
 

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,795
Reaction score
10,133
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
A single state solution is not viable. It would defeat the original intent of Israel's re-establishment (a state for the Jewish people). It would have the risk of setting off a zero sum competition for power, including a possible ethnic conflict.
 

ObamaYoMoma

Banned
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
81
Reaction score
10
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
At least with the two states solution the Palestinians will have their own state and any further hostility from them will be hostility from a state, the much preferable kind of hostility.
That was the basic assumption when Sharon made the Jewicidal decision to unilaterally create Hamastan, and, of course, as we have seen the world fully supported Israel's "Cast Lead" operation...............oh wait!

The reality is the two state solution is taqiyya. It's sole purpose is to manipulate the West into weakening Israel until the final annihilation can happen, as the jihad against Israel is permanent.

Indeed, even if Israel made the mistake of creating two states, it would not stop Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria, etc. from trying to annihilate Israel, as all truces and treaties between Muslims and unbelievers are Hudnas that can be broken at anytime.
 

Red_Dave

Libertarian socialist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
6,879
Reaction score
1,715
Location
Staffs, England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Kinda seeing the same objections repeating themselves here.

1 It could result in a bloodbath

Assuming some kind of power-sharing system was put in place then I think it could be pulled off, this system has worked between Hutus and Tutsis in Burundi and they have a far worse history then Israelis and Palestinians (likewise we should remember that the Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland is a former I.R.A commander). Its fair to say that this system would need some very secure policing but im sure external assistance could be given for this (i.e peacekeepers, policemen, intelligence etc.) as its in the global interest that this problem is addressed.

2 It goes against the ethos of Israel's establishment: Its this ethos that is the problem. The establishment of a Jewish state has come at the expense of the right of those living there for generations to continue to live there (I wont get into the whole "there are no Palestinians argument" so lets just call them Arabs) This is why the two state solution has not worked in the past, the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza brought about little improvement in quality of life as the land was already agriculturally devastated due to overcrowding, this problem has a political root in that the majority of those living in Gaza are refugees or descendants of refugees. Simply cramming the Arabs into what left of their land is not a just solution and thus not sustainable. Hence why Arafat had to enforce Oslo by effectively creating a police state.

3 Religiosity: I would argue that religiosity is a symptom rather then a cause of the conflict, it was common to see cafe's serving alcohol in the Gaza strip untill the rise of Hamas towards the end of the first Intifadah, around this time you saw a sharp decline in quality of life due to a decline in the amount of jobs for Palestinians in Israel proper (Now that Jewish immigrants from the post-soviet world could do all the crappy jobs)and the obvious problems associated with the Israeli crackdown. It was at this time that the amount of mosques in the OT literally doubled in a few years (il get the exact stats if anyone wants) and Hamas went around attacking any establishment that served alcohol or was in any other way un-islamic. I think that the resolution of this conflict could resolve the extremism it creates, generally the more developed a place is the more educated people are and the more willing people are to endorse secularism/democracy. Lastly if we are to interpret Islam as a political system why hasnt Islamism enjoyed electoral support in places like Pakistan, Senegal or Mali?

Lastly is should be remembered that this solution offers alot to the Israeli's by saving them the trauma of using military action against their own people (which may be necessary in order to evacuate the settlements) something the Palestinians have already had to do twice.
 

Tashah

wʜɪтe яussɪaи
DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
18,379
Reaction score
9,227
Location
ישראל • אמריקה
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
This isn't Europe. It's the Middle East.

We've seen the brutal sectarian civil wars in Lebanon. There will be another shortly.

Thanks, but no thanks.
 

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
19,755
Reaction score
6,217
Location
Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Kinda seeing the same objections repeating themselves here.

1 It could result in a bloodbath

Assuming some kind of power-sharing system was put in place then I think it could be pulled off, this system has worked between Hutus and Tutsis in Burundi and they have a far worse history then Israelis and Palestinians (likewise we should remember that the Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland is a former I.R.A commander). Its fair to say that this system would need some very secure policing but im sure external assistance could be given for this (i.e peacekeepers, policemen, intelligence etc.) as its in the global interest that this problem is addressed.

2 It goes against the ethos of Israel's establishment: Its this ethos that is the problem. The establishment of a Jewish state has come at the expense of the right of those living there for generations to continue to live there (I wont get into the whole "there are no Palestinians argument" so lets just call them Arabs) This is why the two state solution has not worked in the past, the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza brought about little improvement in quality of life as the land was already agriculturally devastated due to overcrowding, this problem has a political root in that the majority of those living in Gaza are refugees or descendants of refugees. Simply cramming the Arabs into what left of their land is not a just solution and thus not sustainable. Hence why Arafat had to enforce Oslo by effectively creating a police state.

3 Religiosity: I would argue that religiosity is a symptom rather then a cause of the conflict, it was common to see cafe's serving alcohol in the Gaza strip untill the rise of Hamas towards the end of the first Intifadah, around this time you saw a sharp decline in quality of life due to a decline in the amount of jobs for Palestinians in Israel proper (Now that Jewish immigrants from the post-soviet world could do all the crappy jobs)and the obvious problems associated with the Israeli crackdown. It was at this time that the amount of mosques in the OT literally doubled in a few years (il get the exact stats if anyone wants) and Hamas went around attacking any establishment that served alcohol or was in any other way un-islamic. I think that the resolution of this conflict could resolve the extremism it creates, generally the more developed a place is the more educated people are and the more willing people are to endorse secularism/democracy. Lastly if we are to interpret Islam as a political system why hasnt Islamism enjoyed electoral support in places like Pakistan, Senegal or Mali?

Lastly is should be remembered that this solution offers alot to the Israeli's by saving them the trauma of using military action against their own people (which may be necessary in order to evacuate the settlements) something the Palestinians have already had to do twice.
With the current hostilities going on between the two parties a civil war is pretty much a bundled feature to the one-state solution, it'll just take us back to the 47 civil war only with way more casualties.
The Israelis have already had "the trauma of using military action against their own people" during the numerous evacuations of settlers from the West Bank, the Gaza Strip withdrawal and the Sinai withdrawal. I have no idea what are the Palestinian similar actions that you're referring to here, but Israel is already used to taking those kind of actions for the sake of peace.

The two state solutions remains the only viable solution if only due to the fact that both sides are still interested in having their own state and practicing their right to self-determination. The ethos of Israel's establishment is absolutely not the problem here, there would be no problem at all were the Palestinians to create their own state alongside the Jewish state.

Basically the one-state solution is a bit of a loony solution since it requires the Israeli people to dismantle their state after 62 years of prosperity for the sake of the creation of a united state with a people they share mutual hostility with. There is absolutely no valid reason for the Israeli people to even want such an outcome let alone take it on themselves to reach it.
That's why the one-state solution remains a surreal solution promoted only by the extremists factors in the conflict from both the far-left and the far-right, neither are capable of understanding that their goal is impractical at the least.
 

Red_Dave

Libertarian socialist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
6,879
Reaction score
1,715
Location
Staffs, England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
With the current hostilities going on between the two parties a civil war is pretty much a bundled feature to the one-state solution, it'll just take us back to the 47 civil war only with way more casualties.
The Israelis have already had "the trauma of using military action against their own people" during the numerous evacuations of settlers from the West Bank, the Gaza Strip withdrawal and the Sinai withdrawal. I have no idea what are the Palestinian similar actions that you're referring to here, but Israel is already used to taking those kind of actions for the sake of peace.

The two state solutions remains the only viable solution if only due to the fact that both sides are still interested in having their own state and practicing their right to self-determination. The ethos of Israel's establishment is absolutely not the problem here, there would be no problem at all were the Palestinians to create their own state alongside the Jewish state.

Basically the one-state solution is a bit of a loony solution since it requires the Israeli people to dismantle their state after 62 years of prosperity for the sake of the creation of a united state with a people they share mutual hostility with. There is absolutely no valid reason for the Israeli people to even want such an outcome let alone take it on themselves to reach it.
That's why the one-state solution remains a surreal solution promoted only by the extremists factors in the conflict from both the far-left and the far-right, neither are capable of understanding that their goal is impractical at the least.
I was refering the the repression by the PA of dissident factions after the Oslo agreement and the Fatah-Hamas conflict a few years ago. Anyhow although I would reinterate that power-sharing has worked in places far more violent and irrational then the Middle East, I think you make some very convincing points here. My only question is (assuming the status quo is not something you want to continue) how to sell the two state system when a significant portion of those on both sides will not accpet it as it stands now. The settlers wont accept being moved (and a significant proportion of Israeli society wont accept moving them if they dont belive it will get them anywhere) and the Palestinians wont accept any solution that doesnt adequatly adress the injustices done to them. I guess what this boils down to is whether the one state solution is any more impractical then a solution that has already proved to have been unsuccesful.
 
Last edited:

Manc Skipper

Wrinkly member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2008
Messages
32,735
Reaction score
21,591
Location
Southern England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
This isn't Europe. It's the Middle East.

We've seen the brutal sectarian civil wars in Lebanon. There will be another shortly.

Thanks, but no thanks.
The brutal sectarian civil war in Northern Ireland passed you by then.
 

Red_Dave

Libertarian socialist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
6,879
Reaction score
1,715
Location
Staffs, England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
The brutal sectarian civil war in Northern Ireland passed you by then.
And the fact that power sharing has worked reasonably well in places that make both Northern Ireland and the Middle East look like Switziland
 

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
19,755
Reaction score
6,217
Location
Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I was refering the the repression by the PA of dissident factions after the Oslo agreement and the Fatah-Hamas conflict a few years ago. Anyhow although I would reinterate that power-sharing has worked in places far more violent and irrational then the Middle East, I think you make some very convincing points here. My only question is (assuming the status quo is not something you want to continue) how to sell the two state system when a significant portion of those on both sides will not accpet it as it stands now. The settlers wont accept being moved (and a significant proportion of Israeli society wont accept moving them if they dont belive it will get them anywhere) and the Palestinians wont accept any solution that doesnt adequatly adress the injustices done to them. I guess what this boils down to is whether the one state solution is any more impractical then a solution that has already proved to have been unsuccesful.
Of course it is more impractical.
The two-states solution, while still not carrying major fruits, has not yet arrived at its end, and it is still played by both parties as by the international community.
It cannot be said, at this point of time, that it was unsuccessful - because it was yet to be implemented.
As to its "impractibility", there are several major problems that are and have been preventing the two-states solution from being implemented.

Those are;

(a) The 'Status of Jerusalem' - both parties lay claim to its eastern part.

While suggestions were made in the past, mainly by Israeli PMs, to divide the Eastern part into an Israeli part, a Palestinian part and an international part - such suggestions were always objected.

(b) The 'Palestinian refugees problem' - the Palestinians want the refugees and their offspring to settle in lands that are today Israeli, Israel opposes.

This Palestinian claim seems to be impractical as it is a demography changer. It would immidately make the Arabs a majority in the state of Israel and instead of a two-states solution we'd have a one-state solution.
Israeli PMs have offered in the past to take in some thousands of refugees (mainly the people who've actually lived there, not their offspring), and give compensations to others.
Such offers were refused.

(c) The 'Settlements issue' - The evacuation of the settlements from the West Bank.

Some of the settlements in the West Bank exist there for decades now, and some are actually little cities by now, so Israel wants them to remain in Israeli land and give 93-94% of the West Bank territory to the Palestinians in a final peace agreement. For the 6-7% of land that Israel will annex, it will give the Palestinians an equal amount of Israeli territory elsewhere in return.
That doesn't seem to be a major problem, but it needs to be negotiated on.

The rest of the problems include mainly Israeli security issues such as the Israeli requirement for a disarmed Palestinian state, the dismantling of terror organizations and the positioning of IDF soldiers on the border between Jordan and the future Palestinian state, for the role of inspection in the case of rocket launching and other forms of terrorism.
Besides that we also have the Palestinian demand for a consecutive land which casts a few problems.

However all of the above can indeed be settled in negotiations, hence the two-states solution remains practical while the one-state solution is not.
 

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
19,755
Reaction score
6,217
Location
Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
And the fact that power sharing has worked reasonably well in places that make both Northern Ireland and the Middle East look like Switziland
You mean it would look like Swiss cheese.
We all remember the Yugoslavia project, now add to that the fanatics and the zealots,
and the Middle Eastern diplomacy of "suicide bomb first negotiate later" and you get hell upon hell in the middle of hell.
 

Gardener

free market communist
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
26,661
Reaction score
15,927
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Simply cramming the Arabs into what left of their land is not a just solution and thus not sustainable.
Last time I looked Arab land amounted to something around 14 million square kilometers. Jewish land amounts to a mere 28 thousand square kilometers.


I'm not sure about British schools, but here in the states we learn enough math to understand the implications at a quite early age -- those of us who were paying any attention, anyway.
 

Red_Dave

Libertarian socialist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
6,879
Reaction score
1,715
Location
Staffs, England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Last time I looked Arab land amounted to something around 14 million square kilometers. Jewish land amounts to a mere 28 thousand square kilometers.


I'm not sure about British schools, but here in the states we learn enough math to understand the implications at a quite early age -- those of us who were paying any attention, anyway.
Fine maybe we can agree to call them Palestinian Arabs (being of course, Arabs, who lived in Palestine). This argument always made no sense to me anyhow, it sounded alot like saying that we can kick thousands of people out of Austria as Europeans already have the rest of Europe. Regardless of what you call these people they are prevented from living were they have done for generations purely on the basis of their ethnicity.
 
Last edited:

Tashah

wʜɪтe яussɪaи
DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
18,379
Reaction score
9,227
Location
ישראל • אמריקה
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
You mean it would look like Swiss cheese. We all remember the Yugoslavia project, now add to that the fanatics and the zealots, and the Middle Eastern diplomacy of "suicide bomb first negotiate later" and you get hell upon hell in the middle of hell.
299 US and French peace-keeping soldiers were killed in one day during he bloody Lebanese civil war. Northern Ireland? Please. When were battle tanks and artillery ever used in Northern Ireland? Europeans have no idea how brutal the Middle East is. They wanted no part in ending the bloodletting in European Bosnia. Yet they think it's a reasonable idea to compress two peoples together who have been fighting each other for well over 60 years. Idiotic and inexplicable.
 

Gardener

free market communist
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
26,661
Reaction score
15,927
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Fine maybe we can agree to call them Palestinian Arabs (being of course, Arabs, who lived in Palestine).
That all depends on one's agenda. The need to distinguish these Arabs from other Arabs only arose in recent times, and the reason for such has to do with framing the conflict. If one understands the conflict as between Jews and Arabs, then the population transfers of 700,000 Arabs from Jewish land and 900,000 Jews from Arab lands is placed in proper context. If one is only advocating against Jews, the 900,000 Jews forced from Arab lands is rationalized as unimportant because of the creation of this distinction.

This argument always made no sense to me anyhow, it sounded alot like saying that we can kick thousands of people out of Austria as Europeans already have the rest of Europe. Regardless of what you call these people they are prevented from living were they have done for generations purely on the basis of their ethnicity.
The nature of the 900,000 Jews who were forced from Arab lands has been pointed out to you time after time, but you CHOOSE to make no sense of it because of your agenda. Until you learn to balance your equation here, all you are indulging in is selective propaganda in pursuit of the interests of those who wish to destroy Israel.
 

Red_Dave

Libertarian socialist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
6,879
Reaction score
1,715
Location
Staffs, England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
299 US and French peace-keeping soldiers were killed in one day during he bloody Lebanese civil war. Northern Ireland? Please. When were battle tanks and artillery ever used in Northern Ireland? Europeans have no idea how brutal the Middle East is. They wanted no part in ending the bloodletting in European Bosnia. Yet they think it's a reasonable idea to compress two peoples together who have been fighting each other for well over 60 years. Idiotic and inexplicable.
I think many Americans be surprised at the intensity the Northern Ireland had at its height (tanks and artillery, of sorts were both used, as were death squads, terrorist attacks on civilians etc.) but I take you,re point that its in a different league from the M.E conflict. However the experience of Burundi, a place were people were hacking each other to death in the hundreds of thousands in a country you can barely make out on a map, would suggest that power sharing can work in more serious cases.
 

Red_Dave

Libertarian socialist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
6,879
Reaction score
1,715
Location
Staffs, England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
That all depends on one's agenda. The need to distinguish these Arabs from other Arabs only arose in recent times, and the reason for such has to do with framing the conflict. If one understands the conflict as between Jews and Arabs, then the population transfers of 700,000 Arabs from Jewish land and 900,000 Jews from Arab lands is placed in proper context. If one is only advocating against Jews, the 900,000 Jews forced from Arab lands is rationalized as unimportant because of the creation of this distinction.



The nature of the 900,000 Jews who were forced from Arab lands has been pointed out to you time after time, but you CHOOSE to make no sense of it because of your agenda. Until you learn to balance your equation here, all you are indulging in is selective propaganda in pursuit of the interests of those who wish to destroy Israel.
Well as ive said many times before (normally providing a link to the Left-authoritarian Von Misses insitute) many Arab governments have offered to take these refugees back (either unconditionally or in exchange for the return of Palestinian refugees). Though unlike the Palestinian Arabs, Jewish refugees in Israel have little reason to go back as they are, for the most part, alot better off. Likewise if its all about keeping Israel as a state with a Jewish majority then surely this is counter productive.

The need to distinguish these Arabs from other Arabs may well be another thing but so is the need to distinguish Ukrainians from Russians, the Welsh from the English, and Angolans from other Africans. This is hardly unique so i dont see the relevance.
 

ObamaYoMoma

Banned
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
81
Reaction score
10
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The Israeli right has a new vision



Seams a fair enough deal to me, the settlers don't have to leave and the Palestinians don't have to settle for being crammed into the OT.
But if there's a single state, all that trauma can be avoided. "It's preferable for the Palestinians to become citizens of the state than for us to divide the country," says Knesset speaker and Likud MK Reuben Rivlin.
However, one of the demands of the Palestinians is that any state created be Judenrein. If the Palestinians relented on that demand, the settlers could conceivably become the citizens of any Palestinian state that would be created, although as soon as Sharia gets imposed, they would become subjugated dhimmis.
 
Top Bottom