Two State solution?

[Il Medico]

Okay, there has been a lot of debate on how to bring peace to Palestine. There is the American/ Zionist version, Fuck the Palestinians. The Hamas version, Death to Israel! And finally the two state solution, which seems most acceptable. The question is which lands should go to who and who gets Jerusalem? Or should Jerusalem become a independent state, with open boarder to both countries? Any thoughts?

[Steve_j]

The Arab Initiative. That would keep everyone happy, Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria..... And would leave Iran out in the cold. Would give Israel a chance to build a healthy relationship with their neighbours, one that isnt based on fear.

But also there is the one state solution, makes most sense to me. 1 state all people treated equally. If any hard line religious fanatics want to keep on fighting about it, stick them in a little place in the desert and let them kill eachother.

[Revy]

I used to support the two state solution. But a one state solution makes more sense to me. The state would be neither Arab/Islamic nor Jewish but a neutral secular democratic republic.

All the arguments for keeping a "Jewish state" tend to go like this: There's a bunch of Arab states, why can't the Jewish people have one? Don't you remember the Holocaust, if Jews don't have a state, they won't be safe from that happening again! Or the Lord said it, so the End Times can be ushered in , and we can convert them all to Christianity! :rolleyes:

[Killfacer]

I used to support the two state solution. But a one state solution makes more sense to me. The state would be neither Arab/Islamic nor Jewish but a neutral secular democratic republic.

All the arguments for keeping a "Jewish state" tend to go like this: There's a bunch of Arab states, why can't the Jewish people have one? Don't you remember the Holocaust, if Jews don't have a state, they won't be safe from that? Or the Lord said it, so the End Times can be ushered in , and we can convert them all to Christianity! :rolleyes:

I thought it was more to do with the fact that the Isrealies would never agree to it, therefor a two state soloution is the only option.

[mikelepore]

It's individual people who have rights, not states. Any people should be allowed to live, work and go to school in any community in the world that they choose to settle in. The two-state proposal is not acceptable because, while it would be more just than that Zionism which has oppressed the Palestinian people, it still has the fault of saying all you people in this one demographic group are to go over here and all you other people in that other demographic group are to go over there. It overlooks actual human beings while attempting to handle abstract groupings. We should be radical enough to demand everyone's right to make a home anywhere. For those who don't like living next door to people who are members of a different religion or speak different languages, their unfamiliarity with other people is the cause of that discomfort in the first place. The more often the people of different ethnic groups find themselves living in integrated neighborhoods, the sooner their children's or grandchildren's generation will lose all discomfort associated with the cultural rainbow. In short, I think the solution for Palestine has to be the same solution that already worked well for Montgomery, Alabama fifty years ago. Is this really so radical? It seems so obvious to me, but this possibility is hardly ever mentioned.

[FreeFocus]

The only "just" solution (using that loosely, because we're still talking about states here) is a one-state solution. In any just arrangement for peace, an Israeli settler state can't still be in existence.

[BobKKKindle$]

The ultimate objective of communists should be to have no states at all, of course. However, the primary objective should be the creation of a single state encompassing the whole of historic Palestine that gives equal rights to all citizens regardless of which ethnic or religious group they belong to, including equal representation in political institutions, equal access to economic resources, as well as equal access to religious sites. Those who argue that two-states is the only possible solution not only fail to realize that this solution will not provide an effective end to all of the injustices that have been suffered by the Palestinian people, it is also based on the premise that Palestinians and Jews cannot live together - despite the long history of interaction between the two communities prior to the growth of the Zionist movement in the 1930s. It needs to be continuously emphasized that Israel is not the same as other capitalist states - it is a state that was established to enhance the interests of one ethnic group in particular at the expense of other groups that inhabit the region, and this inherently racist feature is reflected in all aspects of Israeli society and politics, including Israel's persistent refusal to allow Palestinians who were expelled during the Naqba to return to their homes and property. In addition, Israel's function as a component of the capitalist world-system is to operate as a forward base for the major imperialist powers in the Middle East, a region or key strategic and economic importance, and the elimination of this function, and hence the end of imperialism in the Middle East, can only come about as a result of Israel's destruction.

[Black Dagger]

Moved to politics.

[Il Medico]

I agree that one state solution would be better, however, seeing the unlikeliness of Israel and it's brand of imperialism "Zionism" agreeing to this, the next best thing is a two state solution. With perhaps a third state being Jerusalem, which can be the secular one, open to both sides.

On another note, isn't it sad how the oppressed have become the oppressors. Kind of a mirror of what happened with the bourgeois class struggles.

[STJ]

I think a two state solution is best. But i don't think it will happen in my lifetime there is far to much distrust on both sides.

[teenagebricks]

Ideally I would have it as two united states, how England and Wales is, but I don't see that happening so I'm torn on the issue. On the one hand a one state solution is what is right in my opinion, since Israel is the product of an imperialist agenda, but on the other hand that just isn't possible at this point in time, so two states if we're talking realistically. If there was a Palestinian state and an Israeli state I think Israel would need to be seriously moderate.

[Red Rebel]

The two state solution will not work because there will never be an equal state between Israel and Palestine. There needs to be ONE STATE where both peoples live together. Jews would live with Muslims. Muslims with Christians. Everyone getting along regardless of religion, race, national origin, ect. What a radical concept, neighbours living in harmony.

Would work a lot better a lot quicker if you got rid of the ruling class that was promoting this "impossible" dilemma.

[manic expression]

The two state solution leaves a lot of problems, especially the fact that it is difficult to imagine the Palestinian state being respected or left unmolested by Zionism. However, the larger problem is that with the election of Netanyahu and Lieberman, the two state solution has been made impossible by the hard line of the Israeli rulers. Therefore, we should push for a one state solution, which would be far more beneficial for the Palestinian and Jewish peoples than continued division.

[Glenn Beck]

Palestine is not viable as a sovereign state but rather as essentially a colony of Israel. This is what the two-state solution entails. The best historical analogue I can think of is South Africa's Bantustans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bantustan). The only solution is a democratic state for all the people of Palestine, rather than some kind of exclusive chauvinist state.

Furthermore the two-state solution is neither a solution nor a compromise as many characterize it. In reality many elements of the Israeli political elite support the two-state solution because it provides them with a way to deal with their "Palestinian problem" without having to redress any grievances the Palestinian people might have and would give them a separate, discrete, more easily managed Palestinian population rather than having an oppressed population spread throughout regions of their own national territory. It is essentially a policy of segregation and would continue the dispossession and oppression of the Palestinians rather than end it. This is why radical socialists generally oppose it.

[progressive_lefty]

The two-state solution is thoroughly rejected by many on the pro-Israel right. Supporting the two-state solution would involve ending the settlements, settlements that are defended by the ADL among other organisations.

[Revy]

The one-state solution would be like Belgium is structured. There are differences culturally between two regions but they are still the same nation.

[Il Medico]

The one-state solution would be like Belgium is structured. There are differences culturally between two regions but they are still the same nation.
Yes, but with a lot of problems. Remember last year Belgium didn't have a government for weeks. Total Chaos. In a less stable region like the middle east that could spell war.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

If Israel retreats to the positions given to them in 1947, I will accept it, otherwise I won't.

[Guerrilla22]

Yeah a single state where everyone has equal rights and opprotunities sounds great and I'd be all in favor of it, however at least in the time being it isn't a plausible option as long as the leadership establishment of Israel remains in tact.

A two state solution really isn't a solution either for the same reason. Lots of countries and people have suggested this for some time now and again the main obstacle is that the Israeli government and their US backers refuse to even consider a Palestinian state.

[Poppytry]

All you guys who propose a "one-state solution" clearly have no knowledge of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.

To begin with, you cannot have a one state without giving everyone the vote. If Israel gave the vote to the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank alongside the 1m Arabs already living in Israel then the Arabs would have the upper hand demographically and therefore in elections Arab candidates would be elected. Maybe not immediately as the approximate 5m people living in the occupied territories are nearly half kids. But in ten-fifteen years time. So there is not a chance in hell that a one state solution is feasible unless they take away the vote from the Palestinians which they cannot do as the entire world would exert their pressure.

A two state solution can only work if the Palestinian state is completely free and sovereign. The state proposed to Arafat in the 2000 Camp David Accords meant the new Palestinian state would have permanent Israeli Military presence, an Israeli road passing directly through the West Bank in order to give Israel access to the Dead Sea. The proposed state was also to be demilitarized and Israel would have control over its air space. So to be honest I don't blame Arafat for declining the offer.

So the real question is, if a reasonably center left politician like Barak offered this, what the hell is right wing nationalist scum like Netanyahu going to offer?

[BobKKKindle$]

So there is not a chance in hell that a one state solution is feasible unless they take away the vote from the Palestinians which they cannot do as the entire world would exert their pressure.In every state that has a mixed ethnic population there is always the possibility that the majority will be able to use their power to exert control over the minority and enact discriminatory legislation - that's why we have things like constitutions, federalism, and power-sharing to limit what the state can do and encourage good relations between different ethnic group. More importantly, your entire argument is based on the assumption that Palestinians would want to create an anti-Jewish government, and enact anti-Jewish laws, whereas the attainment of a unitary state would most likely come about as a result of Palestinian and Israel workers rejecting all forms of racism, including Zionism, and forging a united working-class movement, such that even if the government was comprised solely of non-Jewish personnel, the oppression of a Jewish minority would not necessarily follow, even in the absence of the safeguards mentioned above. For that reason, I don't think you're argument is very credible. In fact, it's a downright reactionary argument because allowing Palestinian refugees to return and become Israeli citizens as they are legally entitled to do under the terms of UN resolution 194 would also shift the ethnic balance in favour of Palestinians and possibly undermine Israel's identity as a Jewish state, and so we can only assume that you believe that implementing resolution 194 is either not possible, or not something we should endorse.

The fact of the matter is that the electoral weight of Jews inside Israel is declining anyway because Arab communities tend to have higher birth-rates than the Jewish majority, and because of this, the government has already been forced to adopt policies that provoke opposition from ultra-reactionary groups but are seen by politicians as necessary to ensure that the Israeli state is able to maintain its current role, i.e. a state that privileges Jews at the expense of other ethnic groups. For example, the withdrawal of settlers from Gaza in 2005 was enforced not because the Israeli state actually cares about the legality or legitimacy of the occupation, but because the growth of the settlement movement was undermining the Jewish population within Israel itself. The Israeli state will eventually run out of things it can do to postpone the problem, and it is as this point that the state will be pressured to introduce an overt system of apatheid instead of the current system which operates mainly through semi-formal and informal mechanisms, whereby Israel's Arab population will be deprived of the vote, and have their political representatives terrorized.

[Poppytry]

In every state that has a mixed ethnic population there is always the possibility that the majority will be able to use their power to exert control over the minority and enact discriminatory legislation - that's why we have things like constitutions, federalism, and power-sharing to limit what the state can do and encourage good relations between different ethnic group. More importantly, your entire argument is based on the assumption that Palestinians would want to create an anti-Jewish government, and enact anti-Jewish laws, whereas the attainment of a unitary state would most likely come about as a result of Palestinian and Israel workers rejecting all forms of racism, including Zionism, and forging a united working-class movement, such that even if the government was comprised solely of non-Jewish personnel, the oppression of a Jewish minority would not necessarily follow, even in the absence of the safeguards mentioned above. For that reason, I don't think you're argument is very credible. In fact, it's a downright reactionary argument because allowing Palestinian refugees to return and become Israeli citizens as they are legally entitled to do under the terms of UN resolution 194 would also shift the ethnic balance in favour of Palestinians and possibly undermine Israel's identity as a Jewish state, and so we can only assume that you believe that implementing resolution 194 is either not possible, or not something we should endorse.

The fact of the matter is that the electoral weight of Jews inside Israel is declining anyway because Arab communities tend to have higher birth-rates than the Jewish majority, and because of this, the government has already been forced to adopt policies that provoke opposition from ultra-reactionary groups but are seen by politicians as necessary to ensure that the Israeli state is able to maintain its current role, i.e. a state that privileges Jews at the expense of other ethnic groups. For example, the withdrawal of settlers from Gaza in 2005 was enforced not because the Israeli state actually cares about the legality or legitimacy of the occupation, but because the growth of the settlement movement was undermining the Jewish population within Israel itself. The Israeli state will eventually run out of things it can do to postpone the problem, and it is as this point that the state will be pressured to introduce an overt system of apatheid instead of the current system which operates mainly through semi-formal and informal mechanisms, whereby Israel's Arab population will be deprived of the vote, and have their political representatives terrorized.

Put everything you have said in the first paragraph into the context of the Middle East. You speak of constitutions power sharing deals etc. You are forgetting that Israel is supposed to be a Jewish Homeland. What makes you think they want to share power? let alone allow a Arab government to take charge and rely on a constitution. You say my entire argument is based on the assumption that the Palestinians would want a anti jewish and pro arab state. I think my assumption is very true. A population locked inside walls surrounded by the IDF for generations and kicked out of their homeland. Instead of asking my why I think they cannot cooperate try asking yourself why you think they can cooperate? .. Face it.. this is no class struggle.

At the start of the second paragraph you say that this transition of demogrraphics is already occuring as the Arabs have a higher birthrate. The population of Israel excluding the occupied territories is about 7.5m the Arabs represent about 1m of that 7.5m. That must be one hell of a birth rate to threaten the Jewish dominance in the allocation of franchise.

[ArabRASH]

I agree that a one state solution is ideal, but it won't happen as long as Zionism still exists. So let's all work for a two state solution and maybe take it from there? As for Jerusalem either split it into two, east for palestine, west for israel, or make it an international city like Danzig after WWI(one or two i forget i think it was one).

Or of course theres the brilliant suggestion by the onion:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28369?utm_source=EMTF_Onion
hahahaha

[Holden Caulfield]

i used to support a two state solution, but the situation on the ground, with Israeli settlements, issues over water control, issues over territorial divides, etc have since made me support a one state solution.

I have faith in the working class of both Palestine and Israel, the likes of Arafat and other bourgeois politicians have done nothing for the people of (the geographical region of) Palestine,

[Poppytry]

I agree that a one state solution is ideal, but it won't happen as long as Zionism still exists. So let's all work for a two state solution and maybe take it from there? As for Jerusalem either split it into two, east for palestine, west for israel, or make it an international city like Danzig after WWI(one or two i forget i think it was one).

Or of course theres the brilliant suggestion by the onion:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28369?utm_source=EMTF_Onion
hahahaha

Lmfaoo I loved that onion article thanks...

On Tuesday, guerrilla fighters made up of an uneasy Palestinian-Papuan alliance attacked an Irish Protestant church near the Golan Heights, killing 121 Irish worshippers with nerve gas before being repelled by a nearby faction of Protestant-sympathizing Zapatista rebels from the Chiapas region of Mexico.

Taken out of context that would send any political geek of the rails.

Anyway back to the more serious stuff.. I doubt Jerusalem will ever be split in two with east for the Palestinians as the eastern half contains much of the holy Jewish sites such as that wall they love. My college research into the 1967 war showed that although Israel was fighting in defense even after the ceasefire the IDF fought on just to secure the old city. An international city is what the UN rcommended in its 1947 partition plan.. but we all know how that turned out.

[BobKKKindle$]

You are forgetting that Israel is supposed to be a Jewish Homeland.That's exactly why Israel cannot be allowed to exist - it's a state that explicitly aims to enhance the interests of one ethnic and religious group in particular at the expense of those who do not fit into that group, which has resulted in Jewish workers being tied to their ruling class, and rendered incapable of revolutionary struggle at the current point in time. Or, to put it more precisely, a Jewish state cannot be tolerated. This is a distinction that should be made because there are some left-wing activists inside Israel who advocate an "Israel for all its citizens" whereby the occupied territories would be incorporated into an Israel that gives all of its citizens equal rights regardless of which ethnic group they belong to, or which religious they affiliate themselves with, with Palestinians being given Israeli citizenship and full voting rights, such that, in practical terms, a one-state solution would be implemented, even if the state goes by the name of Israel. You seem to have a very pessimistic view of what Israeli and Palestinian workers are capable of as you assume that workers from the different communities will always hate each other and view the other community an enemy, and are therefore incapable of living in the same state, without one community trying to use state power to oppress the other. This position totally ignores the fact that Arabs and Jews lived in relative peace with each other for centuries, with commercial exchanges and even some degree of intermarriage between the two communities, prior to the influx of Zionist settlers, and the creation of the Israeli state in 1948. I take a more optimistic view - I think that, with the right leadership, in the form of a revolutionary party that gives full support to the liberation struggle that is being conducted by the Palestinian masses, and opposes Zionism in all its varieties as an inherently racist and divisive ideology, the divisions between Israeli and Palestinian workers can be smashed, and a united movement can be generated, against the bourgeoisie. This is not something that can be achieved within a short space of time, but to reject the possibility of a one-state solution on the basis of what working-class consciousness is like now, is both short-righted and reactionary.

I also find it interesting that your argument - the prospect of anti-Jewish retribution in the event of a single state - was the same argument that was put forward by the proponents of Apartheid before the collapse of that system of oppression in South Africa, as it was asserted that the black population would oppress the white minority. This, needless to say, has not happened. How do you reconcile this with your views on what would happen in a united Palestine?


That must be one hell of a birth rate to threaten the Jewish dominance in the allocation of franchise. Indeed, but the Zionist leadership can think in the long-term. Moreover, Israel's electoral system means that parties always need to enter into a coalition in order to obtain a parliamentary majority and form a government, and so a greater share of seats for Arab parties, resulting from an increase in the Arab population as a proportion of the total, would still be a cause for concern, as it might lead to the main parties being forced to make a coalition with parties that they would rather not associate themselves with.


i used to support a two state solution, but the situation on the ground, with Israeli settlements, issues over water control, issues over territorial divides, etc have since made me support a one state solution.Your party disagrees, so do you think the SP is wrong on this issue?

[Holden Caulfield]

That's exactly why Israel cannot be allowed to exist
Actually: The Jews are suppost to return to the 'holy land' until the temple of Soloman is rebuilt, according to the scriptures.


Your party disagrees, so do you think the SP is wrong on this issue? Thats what I've just said Bob, I haven't widely studied the situation but from what I do know i cannot see a two state solution as being viable.

I disagree with the SP on a few issues, you should know this,

[mykittyhasaboner]

Actually: The Jews are suppost to return to the 'holy land' until the temple of Soloman is rebuilt, according to the scriptures.
To reiterate what Bob Said: Which is exactly why the state of Israel has no right to existence. What it says in this or that scripture doesn't really matter at all; what matters is how Israel got there, and it certainly wasn't because of any scriptures.

[Holden Caulfield]

To reiterate what Bob Said: Which is exactly why the state of Israel has no right to existence. What it says in this or that scripture doesn't really matter at all; what matters is how Israel got there, and it certainly wasn't because of any scriptures.

yes but if you can beat people in an argument with their own logic it makes you feel so smug. :cool:
Edit: To clarify i mean this in reference to religious Zionists not Bobkindles

[Sarah Palin]

I'm for the two state solution, but I feel that, as demonstrated in the past, Israel feels they can just exponentially expand their borders. I'm afraid they would just roll right over the new Palestinian state, without sufficient pressure from outside bodies to let it be.

[Guerrilla22]

whereby Israel's Arab population will be deprived of the vote, and have their political representatives terrorized.

They haven't already?

[Yehuda Stern]

All you guys who propose a "one-state solution" clearly have no knowledge of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.


Heh. This should be interesting. Let's have a look.


To begin with, you cannot have a one state without giving everyone the vote.
The hell I can't. In a Palestinian workers' state, reactionaries who want to put Palestinians back in their ghettos wouldn't be able to vote for anything. A revolutionary state defends itself from the counterrevolution.


If Israel gave the vote to the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank alongside the 1m Arabs already living in Israel then the Arabs would have the upper hand demographically and therefore in elections Arab candidates would be elected.

Oh no! And then those Arabs would have... DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS! And they would be able to actually decide their own fate instead of being oppressed and murdered by the Zionists!

Well. That can't be allowed. Obviously I'm the one who has no knowledge of the "conflict," because I always expected a Palestinian workers' state to mean that Jewish capitalists are still the rulers in practice, just that Israel gets more credited internationally - you know, like those nice ANC and SACP boys did in South Africa.


I agree that a one state solution is ideal, but it won't happen as long as Zionism still exists. So let's all work for a two state solution and maybe take it from there?

That's what all the 'radical left' has been saying in Israel for ages now. In practice, that and the phony 'peace process' have served as a smokescreen for the further building of settlements and for morea ggressive wars and oppression. You are right, though, that there cannot be a Palestinian state while Zionism exists - which is exactly why one has to fight for the socialist revolution in the Middle East.

[Poppytry]

Heh. This should be interesting. Let's have a look.

"to begin with, you cannot have a one state without giving everyone the vote"

The hell I can't. In a Palestinian workers' state, reactionaries who want to put Palestinians back in their ghettos wouldn't be able to vote for anything. A revolutionary state defends itself from the counterrevolution.

"If Israel gave the vote to the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank alongside the 1m Arabs already living in Israel then the Arabs would have the upper hand demographically and therefore in elections Arab candidates would be elected."

Oh no! And then those Arabs would have... DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS! And they would be able to actually decide their own fate instead of being oppressed and murdered by the Zionists!


I have no idea what you are going on about. Israel will never accept a one state model and those are the reasons why. They would be handing the country over to the Palestinians. Errr the one thing they have been trying to stop since 1948. If you haven't noticed my avatar is a Palestinian boy throwing a rock at an IDF tank. Im 100% in support of the liberation of Palestine but I'm also realistic and know that Israel will never support a one state solution.

[Yehuda Stern]

And do you only support solutions that can win Israel's support?

[Pogue]

No state solution!

No seriously.

[Poppytry]

And do you only support solutions that can win Israel's support?

No, but it is clear that without Israeli support little can be achieved. For example ... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8055105.stm A solution to this issue unfortunately can only happen with Israeli backing another example being the continuation of the construction of Israeli settlements in the West Bank which is against international law but no action is taken against Israel. Yet if any other nation was to breach international law they would be publicly denounced by many western head of states. I find it hard to believe we will see any drastic changes within the conflict with Netanyahu in power.. having read his book "a place amongst nations" this becomes even clearer. Constantly throughout the book he rampants on about the failures and bloodthirstiness of the Arabs and never questions Israel policy.

[Yehuda Stern]

Do you not think of the option of making a revolution which will overthrow Zionism, and thus there will be no question of Israel agreeing or disagreeing?

[GX.]

No, but it is clear that without Israeli support little can be achieved. I always thought Israel were the ones didn't want to see a Palestinian state, but little did I know, all this time people weren't being supportive enough, always beating up on poor little moderate, peace-loving Israel. I guess billions of dollars in "aid" and the ability to act however they want basically without reproach isn't support enough, either.

[Comrade Anarchist]

There wont be peace as long as their is religion. The muslims will always try to destroy the jews that are anywhere in the arabian peninsula. So the best plan everyone; become atheists.:D

[FreeFocus]

There wont be peace as long as their is religion. The muslims will always try to destroy the jews that are anywhere in the arabian peninsula. So the best plan everyone; become atheists.:D

This is ignorant when you consider the historical record. For hundreds of years, Muslims and Jews have lived in the region in relative peace. The religious conflict in the Middle East is not nearly as pronounced as it was in Europe. During the Inquisition, Jews fled, guess where? To the Muslim areas of the Maghreb and Middle East. The Arab-Israeli conflict is, first and foremost, a political conflict with religious rationalization.

However, I do agree with the last part, although it shouldn't be suggested in such a chauvinistic way. Moreover, you place the blame only on Muslims, which gives us a hint at your prejudices.

[Comrade Anarchist]

This is ignorant when you consider the historical record. For hundreds of years, Muslims and Jews have lived in the region in relative peace. The religious conflict in the Middle East is not nearly as pronounced as it was in Europe. During the Inquisition, Jews fled, guess where? To the Muslim areas of the Maghreb and Middle East. The Arab-Israeli conflict is, first and foremost, a political conflict with religious rationalization.

However, I do agree with the last part, although it shouldn't be suggested in such a chauvinistic way. Moreover, you place the blame only on Muslims, which gives us a hint at your prejudices.

Yes in history the jews lived with muslims and fled with them because they had a common enemy the power house catholic church but the jews never had their own major territory or state they always just lived in muslim land.

i only gave one example; im not prejudice
i blame the jews for being ignorant to their government oppression of muslims.
i blame the christian nations for siding with jews just because there are more jew voters than muslim voters.
i blame the muslims for being damn stupid. they wouldnt except a two state solution because they dont want the jews having any land in their homeland.

[gorillafuck]

Yes in history the jews lived with muslims and fled with them because they had a common enemy the power house catholic church but the jews never had their own major territory or state they always just lived in muslim land.

i only gave one example; im not prejudice
i blame the jews for being ignorant to their government oppression of muslims.
i blame the christian nations for siding with jews just because there are more jew voters than muslim voters.
i blame the muslims for being damn stupid. they wouldnt except a two state solution because they dont want the jews having any land in their homeland.
You're buying into the whole idea that this is based on religion, which is completely false.

[reddevil]

clearly, one bi-national state is the best solution. however, i wouldn't object to a two state solution provided a better deal is presented than at present. This means:
Israel must withdraw to the 1967 borders
ALL settlements must be dismantled
The Palestinian refugees of 1948 must be allowed to return to their homes
The Palestinian state must be permitted to militarise
East Jerusalem must be the capital of the new Palestinian state.

[Sort It Out Frosty]

I'd like to opt for the "no state" solution - the only realistic one for peace in Palestine/Israel. As long as there are military states there will be war between them. The Palestinian and Israeli ruling-classes have a common interest in fighting each other, it binds their populations to them as loyal subjects in the name of religion/survival/national self-determination/etc. As Randolph Bourne said during WW1 of the USA:


War is the health of the State. It automatically sets in motion throughout society those irresistible forces for uniformity, for passionate cooperation with the Government in coercing into obedience the minority groups and individuals which lack the larger herd sense. The machinery of government sets and enforces the drastic penalties; the minorities are either intimidated into silence, or brought slowly around by a subtle process of persuasion which may seem to them really to be converting them. Of course, the ideal of perfect loyalty, perfect uniformity is never really attained. The classes upon whom the amateur work of coercion falls are unwearied in their zeal, but often their agitation instead of converting, merely serves to stiffen their resistance. Minorities are rendered sullen, and some intellectual opinion bitter and satirical. But in general, the nation in wartime attains a uniformity of feeling, a hierarchy of values culminating at the undisputed apex of the State ideal, which could not possibly be produced through any other agency than war. Loyalty - or mystic devotion to the State - becomes the major imagined human value. Other values, such as artistic creation, knowledge, reason, beauty, the enhancement of life, are instantly and almost unanimously sacrificed, and the significant classes who have constituted themselves the amateur agents of the State are engaged not only in sacrificing these values for themselves but in coercing all other persons into sacrificing them.

"War is the Health of the State", Randolph Bourne, 1918

Hamas and the IDF have more in common than either have with either ordinary Palestinians or ordinary Israelis. If Palestine became an "independent" state it would simply be a smaller Iran. Who wants that?

What we need is a confederal anti-state solution. A anarchist solution. Let Palestinian and Israeli working people sit down together without military, religious or political leaders and give peace a fucking chance...

[GX.]

First someone was arguing that Israel doesn't have enough support in its desire for a two-state solution. Now we hear that there are Palestinian and Israeli states fighting against each other to protect state interests. How many people can be so ignorant of reality?

[Sort It Out Frosty]

First someone was arguing that Israel doesn't have enough support in its desire for a two-state solution. Now we hear that there are Palestinian and Israeli states fighting against each other to protect state interests. How many people can be so ignorant of reality?

You? Rough guess... :laugh:

Come on, lets hear what the Palestinian people have in common with Hamas who execute trade unionists, people who disagree with clerical fundamentalism, etc. I can't wait to hear this from some armchair supporter of murderous fascists in other countries.

[Yehuda Stern]

Come on, lets hear what the Palestinian people have in common with Hamas who execute trade unionists, people who disagree with clerical fundamentalism, etc. I can't wait to hear this from some armchair supporter of murderous fascists in other countries.

I don't know. But do you know what these "trade unionists" and "people who disagree with clerical fundamentalism" have to do with Fatah in Israel? They are mostly members of the former, which collaborates with the latter. You, of course, swallow everything the imperialist and Zionist media tell you is right - but some of those don't take their words at face value.

As far as being an armchair revolutionary, I'm a member of an active organization in Israel which participates in all demonstration against Zionism and Israeli state terror. Where have you been? I haven't seen you there.

[Sort It Out Frosty]

I don't know. But do you know what these "trade unionists" and "people who disagree with clerical fundamentalism" have to do with Fatah in Israel? They are mostly members of the former, which collaborates with the latter. You, of course, swallow everything the imperialist and Zionist media tell you is right - but some of those don't take their words at face value.

:laugh: Yeah...


As far as being an armchair revolutionary, I'm a member of an active organization in Israel which participates in all demonstration against Zionism and Israeli state terror. Where have you been? I haven't seen you there.Really? I was the guy in the balaclava.

On a more serious note, I'm a member of an active organisation which doesn't do apologetics for fascists, gangsters and religious wing-nuts. I'm amazed how people somehow calling themselves "socialists" still come out with support for inter-bourgeois conflicts. Don't get me wrong, of course I support the struggle of the Palestinian people against colonialism and ethnic cleansing. Intafada - great. PLO or Hamas or whatever other ruling-class bunch of militaristic twats want power - fuck right off.

[GX.]

You? Rough guess... :laugh:

Come on, lets hear what the Palestinian people have in common with Hamas who blablabla
Ah, so then Hamas is this "ruling class" with "subjects" and a military force which "fights" Israel that you were talking about? And the Palestinian struggle is really about creating a "smaller Iran?" Actually, what are you talking about? Are you even sure? :confused:

[redSHARP]

i support the fantasy version; Palestine along with the israeli working class, rise up and overthrown the upper religious elite, say "fuck off america and the other nations" (as one can realize, the other arab nations can not care anyless about plaestine and their heroic actions), and live together in a united country. this would be a decent solution; not perfect but a start.

the two state solution would fail due to a few reasons:

1. who gets jerusalem
2. what about trade and border rights?
3. imperialist nations interfering
4. would israel respect the palestine borders?
5. would the arab nations respect both borders?
6. citizenship rights, such as israelis living in the westbank, are they palestinian or israeli?
7. palestinians who want their ancestoral lands

the single state solution, can work if everyone works together, palestinain and israelis, coming together and everyone getting an equal share. that wont work because of both hardliners and would degenerate into a civil war.

unless both sides put aside their hate and religous crap, and work together, only then can true peace come. that and the outside power players leaves israel/palestine to their own destiny.

[Yehuda Stern]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies2/lol.gif Yeah...

Use all the smilies you want. It doesn't change the fact that you take imperialist propaganda at face value.


On a more serious note, I'm a member of an active organisation which doesn't do apologetics for fascists, gangsters and religious wing-nuts.

I don't apologize for anyone. Those who collaborate with Israel and the PLO would suffer just as badly if Hamas was a Marxist group. Perhaps even more.

[Sort It Out Frosty]

You are a nutcase ent ya? Haha... :laugh:

[Yehuda Stern]

Not a nutcase - just a genuine communist who uses arguments instead of smilies. You should try it sometime, should you have the ability.