What do you think about one-state solution?

Show all answers

BUSH/ISRAEL =warcriminal

yo sup

i think its a cool idea but i doubt the zionists would consider it as they are greedy and only cares about their kind...
wish palestine al the best ma man

peace out!@

The Sushi King

I don't think the chosen ones will like that.
I think it is a great idea.
Perhaps it would be a true "promised land" finally.

King George

I think this is the most practical solution to the problem but is it feasable?? I don't think so, Jews would not agree to it for one and there is alot of animosity between the two groups that will not fade anytime soon. Jews want a Jewish -only state and hence try to cleanse all other ethinc groups from the country and Muslims fundemantalists would prefer a muslim ruled state with other groups have rights to live there and Christians are lost between the two. A secular one state with the seperation of Church and state should be modeled and stricktly inforced might work but not at the present time.
-------
and to respond to some of thise zionests here are some quotes:

David Ben-Gurion:

On July 12, 1937, Ben-Gurion wrote in his diary explaining the benefits of the compulsory population transfer (which was proposed in British Peel Commission):

"The compulsory transfer of the [Palestinian] Arabs from the valleys of the proposed Jewish state could give us something which we never had, even when we stood on our own during the days of the first and second Temples. . . We are given an opportunity which we never dared to dream of in our wildest imaginings. This is MORE than a state, government and sovereignty----this is national consolidation in a free homeland." (Righteous Victims, p. 142)

Similarly on August 7, 1937 he also stated to the Zionist Assembly during their debate of the Peel Commission:

". . . In many parts of the country new settlement will not be possible without transferring the [Palestinian] Arab fellahin. . . it is important that this plan comes from the [British Peel] Commission and not from us. . . . Jewish power, which grows steadily, will also increase our possibilities to carry out the transfer on a large scale. You must remember, that this system embodies an important humane and Zionist idea, to transfer parts of a people to their country and to settle empty lands. We believe that this action will also bring us closer to an agreement with the Arabs." (Righteous Victims, p. 143)

On the same subject, Ben-Gurion wrote in 1937:

"With compulsory transfer we [would] have a vast area [for settlement] .... I support compulsory transfer. I don't see anything immoral in it." (Righteous Victims, p. 144)

And in 1938, he also wrote:

"With compulsory transfer we [would] have vast areas .... I support compulsory [population] transfer. I do not see anything immoral in it. But compulsory transfer could only be carried out by England .... Had its implementation been dependent merely on our proposal I would have proposed; but this would be dangerous to propose when the British government has disassociated itself from compulsory transfer. .... But this question should not be removed from the agenda because it is central question. There are two issues here : 1) sovereignty and 2) the removal of a certain number of Arabs, and we must insist on both of them." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, 117)

On July 30, 1937 Yosef Bankover, a founding member and leader of Kibbutz Hameuhad movement and a member of Haganah's regional command of the coastal and central districts, stated that Ben-Gurion would accept the proposed Peel Commission partition plan under two conditions: 1) unlimited Jewish immigration 2) Compulsory population transfer for Palestinians. He stated that :

"Ben-Gurion said yesterday that he was prepared to accept the [Peel partition] proposal of the Royal commission but on two conditions: [Jewish] sovereignty and compulsory transfer ..... As for the compulsory transfer-- as a member of Kibbutz Ramat Hakovsh [founded in 1932 in central Palestine] I would be very pleased if it would be possible to be rid of the pleasant neighborliness of the people of Miski, Tirah, and Qalqilyah." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 70)

And regarding the Peel Commission, on June 9, 1937 he also stated:

"In my opinion we must insist on the Peel Commission proposal, which sees in the transfer the only solution to this problem. And I have now to say that it is worthwhile that the Jewish people should bear the greatest material sacrifices in order to ensure the success of transfer." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 70)

Ben-Gurion explained how compulsory population transfer could be implemented. He said in 1937:

".... because we will not be able to countenance large uninhabited areas absorb tens of thousands of Jews remaining empty .... And if we have to use force we shall use it without hesitation -- but only if we have no choice. We do not want and do not need to expel Arabs and take their places. Our whole desire is based on the assumption --- which has been collaborated in the course of all our activity in the country -- that there is enough room for us and the Arabs in the country and that if we have to use force - not in order to dispossess the Arabs from the Negev or Transjordan but in order to assure ourselves of the right, which is our due to settle there- then we have the force." (Righteous Victims, p. 142)

Ben-Gurion became obsessed about "transferring" the Palestinian Arabs out of Palestine, and he started to contemplate the mechanics and potential problems that could arise if "transfer" to be implemented. Ben-Gurion contemplated the "Arab Question" in "Eretz Yisrael" and wrote:

"We have to examine, first, if this transfer is practical, and secondly, if it is necessary. It is impossible to imagine general evacuation without compulsion, and brutal compulsion, There are of course sections of the non-Jewish population of the Land of Israel which will not resist transfer under adequate conditions to certain neighboring countries, such as the Druze, a number of Bedouin tribes in the Jordan Valley and the south, the Circassians and perhaps even the Metwalis [the Sh'ite of the Galilee]. But it would be very difficult to bring about resettlement of other sections of the [Palestinian] Arab populations such as the fellahin and the urban populations in neighboring Arab countries by transferring them voluntarily, whatever economic inducements are offered to them." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians. 129)

Similarly, he also added

"The possibility of large-scale transfer of a population by force was demonstrated, when the Greeks and the Turks were transferred [after WW I]. In the present war [referring to WW II] the idea of transferring a population is gaining more sympathy as a practical and the most secure means of solving the dangerous and painful problem of national minorities. The war has already brought the resettlement of many people eastern and southern Europe, and in the plans for the postwar settlements the idea of a large-scale population transfer in central, eastern, and southern Europe increasingly occupies a respectable place." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians. 129)

Moshe Sharett:
Moshe Sharett, the first Israeli foreign minister, wrote in 1914:

We have forgotten that we have not come to an empty land to inherit it, but we have come to conquer a country from people inhabiting it, that governs it by the virtue of its language and savage culture ..... Recently there has been appearing in our newspapers the clarification about "the mutual misunderstanding" between us and the Arabs, about "common interests" [and] about "the possibility of unity and peace between two fraternal peoples." ..... [But] we must not allow ourselves to be deluded by such illusive hopes ..... for if we ceases to look upon our land, the Land of Israel, as ours alone and we allow a partner into our estate- all content and meaning will be lost to our enterprise. (Righteous Victims, p. 91)

and more quotes can be found here

http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Famous-Zionist-Quotes/Story694.html

River Jordan

The people have always favored a normative democracy for Palestine proceeding without distinction as to race,color or creed. But the core of zionism is the idea of a purely Ethnic State,in which all rights are assigned to the selected ethnic group. Hitler had the same exact concept: any ethnic German could go to Germany and automatically qualify for citizenship; those who were not ethnic Germans were deprived of citizenship or permitted only a very limited form. Someone here made the statement that "no government has ever protected them for more than 200 years" etc. So far as history informs us they have never been persecuted anywhere on earth except Europe. They prospered throughout the Mideast until 1948. They've always prospered in the Americas. No pogroms. No death camps. There is no basis whatsoever for the safe-haven justification for imposing an Ethnic State on the Palestinians. The United States is not an Ethnic State,strictly reserved for pure Anglo-Saxons. People can migrate here and become citizens without proving they are Anglo-Saxon on their mother's side going back four generations. People never stop and think how appalling zionism is; try picking an ethnic group in your country and suggesting it be assigned exclusive rights,to be Lords of the Land. The zionist regime must be dissolved and replaced with a normal democracy without any privileges based on ethnicity. This does not involve "annihilation" of the jews. It simply means they will dwell in Palestine as civilized persons behaving in a civilized manner of they will be prosecuted for hate crimes. They have no right to kill Palestinians at random,steal their lands,bulldoze their homes or by any other means drive them out. Palestine needs a system of government based on equality,not privilege,least of all privilege based on ethnic discrimination.

PaliSupporter91 Ø§Ù„ÙÙ„Ø³Ø·ÙŠÙ†ÙŠ Ù…Ø¤ÙŠØ¯

A one Jewish State is outta the Question.
I think the realest thing to do is to 2 state plan, both Arab and Jewish.
However, I support the Idea of One free Palestinian state

Beautiful Sunset

I agree Palestine belongs 100% to the Palestinians.
The jews must accept that and everything will be peaceful in the Middle East.
The jews are the sole responsible hate factor due to their rabid fanaticism against the Arabs.
But don't worry Mr. Obama has a Muslim background so he will be able to see through the jew-lobby.
Something really special will happen in a few couple of months in Palestine.
bye bye

mark

It is going to be the only way out for both people. Most colonies ended up in one state for both the colonists and the native. Palestine is small country to be divided into 2 states. One democratic constitutional state for both Jews and Arabs.

Sandwich

I think in theory that is a perfect idea. However, both sides would undoubtedly reject this.

The Israeli Jews will never want to sacrifice majority control of the government because no government has ever protected the Jews for more than a few hundred years. Both religious Jews and Muslims will not want the country to be too secular, and this will make things tricky. And if this was every proposed, it would have to have precautions and education programs that work to eliminate the animosity between both groups that has built up over the last century, which would take two or three generations to really have effect.

Hopefully someday a solution is reached that works for everybody.

Well, if you mean that Muslims, Christians, and Jews can live in the same state together in harmony, that happened before "Israel." The country itself is originally known as Palestine, "Israel" is the name of the group of Zionists whom entered the already occupied area and forcefully established it as their own, because they want it for themselves, and that's the important thing. Some see it as a religious establishment, others see it as a "safe- haven" which is the more common term. A one-state solution can't happen when one nation wants to establish it as a single state supposedly for the Jewish people while it has been occupied years before they executed this, while the other wants all their wrongfully taken land back. Basically, you can't have a one- state solution with 2 different states, its impossible. The only way to create a one-state solution is to disestablish Israel, and reestablish Palestine as the single state, that way, if you want harmony, all people and religions can dwell there.

Maya

Palestine will never have a normal government by means of evolution; the comparison with South Africa is inaccurate. In that case the major states put considerable pressure on the government to abandon apartheid,so a peaceful resolution was possible. This will not occur in Palestine. No major state is or ever will seriously press for reform. For the Palestinians their situation is more analogous to French Algeria and their liberation and have to proceed along the same lines.

amfound2

Yep it is a great idea. God gave the land to the Jewish people and lets get all these other trouble makers out. They dont belong there anyway and they are all from the surrounding Arab nations. They were all kicked out of their respective countries.

Even arafat was kicked out of Jordon and Israel was the only country to let him in!!!!!
Send all the self made refugees back to their own lands and let Israel have her land back. She WILL get it one day as is prophesised in the Bible by God.

kismet

In my opinion, a one-state solution will not work simply because of all the animosity out there.
A two-state solution is much more logical and workable.

Warren S

A one state solution would be a failed state just like Lebanon. There the Christians have been mostly driven out and it is now completely Muslim dominated. To subject the Jewish people of Israel to that is something which they rightly would not accept. On the other hand, a two state solution would be a win-win situation for both peoples. When the Palestinians accept a two state solution then two states, Jewish Israel and Muslim Palestine, can live side by side in peace and security.

larry_lime

If that were the case, there wouldn't be an Israel Travel Section, and then this Question wouldn't need to be asked. Besides, the Palestinians would have have equal rights with their Palestinian brothers and sisters if males and females were to enjoy equal rights in Palestine. People should first put their own houses in order before telling others how theirs should be put in order (to paraphrase Jesus). Lets first see a democratically-functioning Palestinian state, and then maybe we'll be in a better position to consider this matter properly!

dandyl

A one state solution will never work.The idea of a binational state is not new; it was first proposed by prominent Jews such as Judah Magnes in the 1920s. As is the case today, however, the suggestion enjoyed no popular support.

The utopian view of the advocates of binationalism was that the Jews and Arabs both had legitimate claims to the land and should live in peace together in one state. This idea negated the Jewish right to its historic homeland and also assumed the Arabs were prepared to coexist peacefully with the Jews within the same state. This was proven wrong through two decades of violence by Arabs against Jews in Palestine, and by the Arab rejection of the British White Paper of 1939, which offered them just such an arrangement.

As early as 1937, it had become clear that the two peoples could not live together and needed to have states of their own. As a result, the Peel Commission proposed a partition in that year and the UN approved the same approach a decade later. Nothing has changed since that time to suggest any other solution can end the conflict.

Since Palestinian Arabs already constitute almost 45 percent of the population living between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, and their birth rate is double that of Israeli Jews, they would soon become the majority of the population in a binational state. The Jewish character of the nation would then erode and disappear, and Israeli Jews would lose political control over the one safe haven for Jews.

Given the historical mistreatment of minorities, especially Jews, in Arab lands, this idea would be a recipe for the persecution of Jews (and Christians).One proponent of the idea of a binational state suggested that an international force would protect the Jews, but no leader would entrust the fate of the Jewish people to such an unreliable guarantor. More important, if advocates of binationalism acknowledge that Jews would need protection in such a state, what is the basis for believing this is a solution to the conflict?There is no such thing as a secular or democratic state in the Arab world. Islam is the official state religion in nearly every Arab country. The only place where mention is made of a "secular, democratic Palestinian state" is in the West, where the slogan is used to generate sympathy.

The PLO has never been democratic. Leadership in the PLO is determined by bullets â€” not ballots. Representation is determined by the size of each faction's militia. Opponents are not voted out of power; they are murdered. Moreover, if anything, the PLO has become less secular in recent years, in part to counter the growing influence of Islamic groups such as Hamas, which would never countenance mention of such a state.

In 1947, the Arabs rejected the UN partition plan, which would have created a Palestinian state. From 1948-67, when the West Bank and Gaza were ruled by Arabs, no thought was given to forming such a state. It is therefore ironic that the Arabs demand that Israel do for the West Bank and Gaza what they were unwilling to do when they occupied the area.

While Israel long opposed the creation of a Palestinian state, today Israelis recognize this will be the outcome of negotiations and that the Palestinian Authority is already a state in all but name. Israel would feel more comfortable with a democratic neighbor, but it has not imposed any conditions on the type of government the Palestinians adopt in the territories they control.

If the Palestinians were content to have a state in the West Bank and Gaza, the prospects for a final settlement would be very good; however, they have consistently held out for much more. Prior to the Oslo agreements, the Palestinians laid claim to all of Israel, but they have subsequently recognized Israel's right to exist (though their rhetoric often suggests the dream of returning to their homes in Jaffa, Haifa and elsewhere has not died). Still, today they want not only the entire West Bank and Gaza but Jerusalem, which they demand as their capital.

harajuku lover

keep israel because israel is for us jews. it's the jewish homeland. muslims have just about every other middle eastern country. why are they so selfish?

MBC

It will never happen in the near future due to recent history and historical animosities going back centuries. Furthermore, the demographics would spell disaster for long-term self-determination for the Jewish people. Israel would never accept such a plan. To do so would be national suicide. The number of Arabs would overtake the number of Jews rather quickly.

K in Him

I appreciate your civil way of addressing this but i say an emphatic NO!!! Israel was and now is and should always be. Period.

I believe the more better solution is for the Arabs to give in and accept the current state and strive to be excellent citizens of where they now live a country called Israel.

There is no Eutopia nor is there any Muslim coallition that would allow the Jew to live and worship in peace.
Dreams are always nicer than reality.

Aaron

Bad idea, the beautiful people of Israel right now would be diluted quickly.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: