T Nation

@ Jewbacca: Two State/One State?


(@Jewbacca…at first I was going to name this thread “The Solution”…but I thought that words that sounded like something coming out of the 1942 German Wansee Conference wouldn’t be good…)

My question is on your views on the Palestinian/Israel Issue.

First off; I don’t think that there is a peaceful solution when one side is; for all practical purposes; sworn by charter to the complete destruction and elimination of the other side. It seems to me that under such circumstances; the best that Israel do is continue to defend itself as best she can.

  1. For the more “optimistic”…is there a real path to Peace?

  2. Is that path a) two-State b) one-state or c) neither?

Other than continuing military and economic support; is there much that America…or more specifically an American President can really “do” to help the process?

What are your views and the views of those who are like-minded?

Thank you.


I think the only realistic paths to peace would be for the Arab-occupied areas to be annexed into Egypt or Jordan and they pacify the occupants.

Given Egypt has a border wall and travel restrictions on the Arabs in the territories they occupy that makes our walls look like a painted line on the pavement and Jordon has kept Arabs from the area in pretty squalid camps for 60 years, I don’t see that happening – they don’t want them in their countries, for a host of reasons.

A two-state solution will not work. The Arabs in that area have been used as pawns so long, brainwashed with hatred for so long, that they will never give up their goal of killing all the Jewish people and pushing us into the sea.

A one-state solution will not work because the Arabs from that area would not be peaceful citizens. (Note, this is not ALL Arabs – I grew up with predominately Arab-Israeli friends. They are generally proud Israelis, proudly serve in our military (although not subject to the draft), and interestingly the wealthiest and most educated group in Israel, on a per capita basis.


So, if I’m reading you right, you’re saying there is no solution. Which means status quo until kingdom come? That doesn’t seem realistic either.


If you’ve got a great idea that doesn’t involve my people being finally wiped from the Earth (the current favorite solution of liberals), I’m all ears.


That doesn’t answer my question. Do you see the status quo as something that can be sustained indefinitely?


The parties involved holding the sustained positions they do would seem to indicate that as the most likely outcome.

The right of return will never be offered and there is no branch of the Palestinian leadership who acknowledges Israel’s continued existence, never mind one who is capable of dropping that demand.


What is Israeli immigration like? What I mean is, what is the possibility that over the course of a few decades there is an arab majority that could alter politics enough to destroy Israel from within?


But the question I am posing is, is the status quo sustainable?


It is sustainable in its current state almost indefinitely. Neither side is backing down, and neither side is decreasing in numbers.

Barring a massive game changer, I cannot see it altering.


What is the main determinant of Arab A becoming productive citizen and Arab B becoming vessel of death? Exposure to fanatical religious directive?


If we could answer that question, we would be averting the deaths of thousands. We cannot, so we won’t.


The number of Palestinians is increasing at a significantly faster rate than is the number of Jewish Israelis. They (Jewish Israelis) will be in the minority by the year 2035:

My point is, the conflict is careering toward a demographic crisis, which may prove to be the “game changer” you mentioned. Thus, the status quo may not be a viable long-term solution.


The same was, and is, broadly true of Northern Irish Catholics. The Northern Irish question is a much simpler question with no answer. The Israel/ Palestine question may require a solution, but it is one to which I cannot see an answer to.

But I think we are talking at cross purposes here. I see no solution, sustainable or otherwise.


Well, at some point in the future, things are going to change–something is going to happen. Whether that something is a negotiated, mutually agreed upon event vs some sort of horrific, cataclysmic spasm of violence, I don’t know. But the situation will be resolved someday.

As we say in medicine, ‘Bleeding always stops.’


You said (K)ingdom come, already.


JB, would you be willing to cede Jerusalem as a capital if it meant peace? If so, would there be conditional access guarantees needed?


If the Lord tarries, as they say.


My home (Gush Katif) where I grew up was ceded. All that happened is they burned down everything and moved the rockets closer. So the question is based on an absurd hypothetical.





People generally forget that the entire area was really the dead-end remnants of the Ottoman Empire that was falling apart since the late 1800s. The maps were drawn by some English guy and (I think) a French artist. They did OK, but they were pretty much drawing lines about where the Jewish population was and about where the Arab population was. It was very imperfect, with legit beefs by basically anyone who wanted to have a beef.

I will also note that the people living in Arab-occupied parts of Judea and Samaria are largely the descendants of those who rejected the two-state solution (really the rejection of Israel) back 60 years ago. They were used by the Nazis (and later others) to stir-up problems with the Jewish part of the area and thus to trouble the British. So they kind of started off problematic.