For some Palestinians, one state with Israel is better than none - Los Angeles Times

Well put.

She described some of her son's recent duties close to the recent Yom HaAtzma'ut celebration, and how he felt bad upon having to ask an Arab man in car with his family to step out and remove his shirt so he could see he was not carrying a bomb. Her son did not like having to do this thing to this man, moreso because he felt for the children seeing there father exposed this way. But he did, understanding that bombs have been uncovered on men traveling in cars with women and children.

Checking people for concealed bombs is not pleasant-- but of course the consequences of not checking them for bombs are even more unpleasant!

krishna,

I do have a quibble with putting Palestinians in quotation marks. No matter what the history of the region and its peoples, at some point a group of people came to self-identify as Palestinian, and the term is well understood as to whom it refers. And in net discourse, especially since "air quotes" have come into our gesture vocabulary, that usage takes on a quality of disdain. Since this article presupposes there is a Palestinian people, and considering how emotions run on this subject, I think leaving out the quotes is a good idea.

Beyond that, let's all not jack this thread by further discussing the quotes.

OK-- I'll omit them in the future-- I have no problem with that.

Thank you very much.

"You're Welcome" :)

I'm highly skeptical of the one-state solution, though this article did address many of the concerns with that prospect. Actually, I read this article before stumbling on this seed...it's quite idealistic to my mind, especially for such a cynical region...

...then again, if I were a Palestinian Arab I think I'd feel as though I were between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, you're basically a second-class citizen in Israel; on the other hand, would you really want to be under Hamas or Fatah rule? I read a seeded article not long ago about Palestinians who said they would resist being absorbed into a Palestinian state.

And then what about Jerusalem? The borders between the West Bank and Israel? And does anyone else find the idea of Gaza and the West Bank being so geographically separated as an obstacle to lasting peace? What to do about that!?!

Wow, I didn't expect to find an Internet connection in this old hotel, but nevertheless, that's what I have here :)

Miss j, I remember your analogy about "divorce/marriage" — except that you now have changed the term to become a "dignified divorce". However, a divorce presupposes that a marriage has already taken place at some point, which isn't exactly the case here. I think we can probably agree that a marriage without "love" is bound to fail, but please allow me to introduce an extended term too — "marriage of convenience" — which might be close to what you mean by "economic federation" ;)

While I believe some kind of a one-state solution (marriage of convenience) is the only viable one, I also have to admit that it won't be a reality in any near future, if ever. Israelis are not prepared to share their land with the former inhabitants, and it would take a very lengthy and massive pressure from the international world to change that. That's what happened to South Africa some years ago, but as long as the US and EU unconditionally support Israel, not much progress will be made. And since giving up land for peace, by some, should be regarded a fantasy, we can most likely forget about the two-state solution, too.

Anyway, I would like to share an experience I had today, which I think is quite relevant to the discussion:

This afternoon I had the pleasure of meeting a beautiful Israeli woman, who works for the same publishing house as I am cooperating with here in Prague. She was very eager to discuss the current Palestine-Israel situation and it soon turned out that she was strongly in favour of a bi-national system, which she regarded the only possible solution to justice and peace. She also found it crucial that it would be a secular system — neither Jewish, nor Muslim. Being a Christian herself, by the way.

But there was a catch. When I later asked her why she didn't live in Israel any longer, she shortly responded: "Wrong race, I'm an Arab." I couldn't tell by the colour of her skin, but she then told me a long, sad story about how she had met a Czech Jew, whom she wanted to marry. That turned out to be rather difficult, so they went to Prague to get married, and then returned to live together in his flat in Tel Aviv. But that didn't fare well in the racist state of Israel. They were constantly met with all kinds of discrimination and chicaneries from the local authorities, colleagues and others, and when he finally lost his job, they decided to move to the Czech Rep. Luckily, he never gave up his Czech citizenship.

After work we were joined by her husband and we all went out for a drink. When I later asked him what he thought would be the best solution to the Palestine-Israel conflict, he replied that he didn't believe a peaceful solution was possible at all. Israelis are very well aware that within the next 20-25 years, Arabs will become a majority in the country, and they are never going to let this happen. To survive as a Jewish state, Israel will have to speed up the ethnic cleansing of the Arabs in order to maintain a status quo. That's what he called the hidden Zionist agenda behind Israel's policy of today.

I think this scenario is very realistic and thus it becomes rather meaningless to discuss the various hypothetically solutions to the conflict. Religion, racism and crimes against humanity seem to be the biggest obstacles to peace. War and Jihad the most realistic outcome. I hope time will prove me wrong some sunny day...

Just discovered this. Good article, interesting thread. I see many similarities from a historical context to a British botch-up in Israel as well as the partition of India around the same time. Interestingly, in the case of Israel, it was as a single state with potential for failure, while in the case of India, a two-state solution that still left enough room for failure. I mean failure of the solution.

That was then, what we have now as far as Israel goes is a result of that botch-up (not helped by input from Europe/US since that has not always appeared to put the interests of the people of the region (Jews, Christians, Palestinians, etc) at the heart of proposals to end the nightmare for all. Personally, I am not in favour of a two-state solution now. The reason why I use the partition of India in this comment is because that is an example of exactly why it can never be a solution. In the case of India, the unresolved aspect - Kashmir - remains an issue and continues to act as a reminder why partitioning communities can never bring lasting peace. Also think about Berlin in the pre-Germany unification days.

I like the idea of a confederation - Keld's analogy of a marriage of convenience is apt. I think it can work if given a chance. But for that to happen, there are so many disparate barriers that all sides have to work to remove as stumbling blocks. Especially external influences that act as barriers. I would like to believe that a way can be found to overcome or remove those barriers so that this solution has a fighting chance. Has to be the only real option for lasting peace. The surprising thing is that once all sides accept that and start planting seeds of hope in their own quarters, the benefits can catch on quite quickly. Hope is a very wonderful seed. It grows like wildfire in next to no time.

Thanks Miss J. Great work at moderation. I tend to slip into a long unbroken rant of verbal diarrhoea on some of your wonderful gems. Hope I have not done that here - hit me with a stick if my comment does not make sense:-)

And I have yet to see an explanation as to how Egypt and Jordan made peace treaties with Israel without regard to the fate of the territories.

Many peopole seem to have the believe that the Israelis are rsacist bigots who all hate Arabs-- and that the Arabs all sympathize with and love the Palestinianas. Of course both views are incorrect.

Many Arabs do not liek the Palestinians at all--particularly their neighbours. (After all, they tried to overthrow the government of Jordan by force...).

Here's a really informative TV interview of a retired Egyptian general-- it provides some good insights about his views of the Palestinians.

I would add that I don't think it is fair to call only Israeli society racist

That is a standard propaganda ploy. The fact is-- it is no more or less racist than any other western country. However, many Israeli Arabs feel it certainly isn't as bad as the Arb propagandists would have you believe:

Two polls released last week, from Keevoon Research, Strategy & Communications and the Arabic-language newspaper As-Sennara, survey representative samples of adult Israeli Arabs on the issue of joining the PA, and they corroborate what Gheit says. Asked, "Would you prefer to be a citizen of Israel or of a new Palestinian state?" 62 percent want to remain Israeli citizens and 14 percent want to join a future Palestinian state. Asked, "Do you support transferring the Triangle [an Arab-dominated area in northern Israel] to the Palestinian Authority?" 78 percent oppose the idea and 18 percent support it.

Many peopole seem to have the believe that the Israelis are rsacist bigots who all hate Arabs

Many people seem to believe that all Arabs are racist bigots who hate the Jews, too, which is also incorrect.

Just discovered this. Good article, interesting thread. I see many similarities from a historical context to a British botch-up in Israel as well as the partition of India around the same time. Interestingly, in the case of Israel, it was as a single state with potential for failure, while in the case of India, a two-state solution that still left enough room for failure. I mean failure of the solution.

Actually, that's inaccurate. In both cases two states were supposed to be created at independence. There was supposed to be a Palestinian state next to an Israeli state. And, there would have been.

However, what happened was-- surrounding Arab states told Arabs in Israel that they would "drive the kufr into the sea" -- and the Atabs would have it all!
Five Arab countries attacked. When a cease fire was declared-- the Jews were present in more land than they would have had if the Arabs had left well enough alone.

And-- the areras that were supposed to have been a new Arab country called "Palestine" were not formed into a Palestinian state-- becasue the other Arabs didn't let them!

In fact, Egypt occupied Gaza (Arab propagandists never seem to mention that)-- preventing it from being a Palestinian state! They never mention the Egyptian occupation-- of what should've been Palestine...why?

And the West Bank-- which was supposed to become the other part of an Arab country called "Palestine" was not merely "occupied" by the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan-- the area that should've become Palestine-- was annexed by Transjordan (who then changed their name to "Jordan"-- because they were no longer mere "across" the Jordan river-- but now also had land on the west bank as well.

So-- the reason that the new country of Palestine did not come into being as planned --was that one Arab country began an occupation of part-- another annexed it!

Especially external influences that act as barriers.

I'm not sure what you are referring to. Both Abbas and Olmert want peace-- the only thing standing in the way is the fact that Hamas is not willing to compromise-- they want it all! They are committed to the destruction of Israel...

Krishna,

about

external influences that act as barriers

From the part of the pro-Israeli camp, heed what leading statesmen in Israel have to say. Like Jeremy Ben-Ami, son of one of the founders of the country recently said as reported in the Washington Post and seeded by Killfile - 5 Myths About Being Pro-Israel . All five myths are especially relevant – they are copied below:

1. American Jews choose to back candidates largely on the basis of their stance on Israel.
2. To be strong on Israel, you have to be harsh to the Palestinians.
3. The Rev. John Hagee and his fellow Christian Zionists are good for the Jews.
4. Talking peace with your enemies demonstrates weakness.
5. George W. Bush is the best friend Israel has ever had.

Provide effective support to those Israelis on the ground who have been working towards long term solutions for all in Israel. Like Gush Shalom founded by Uri Avnery. I have seen activities by this organization denounced by many who should know better.

Abbas and Olmert

You will of course be familiar with the recent news event on Olmert - Israeli Police Seize Documents in Olmert Probe. Clearly under investigation so no conclusions can be drawn. Just bringing it up as an example of external influences.

And from the part of the anti-Israeli camp, get smarter at not playing the tune of the terrorists and extremists. They are the monsters who yearn a platform to feed their evil. And they are actually far smarter at how they use low-tech tools for high impact results. Many who appear to be on the pro-Israel side unwittingly (and some deliberately) serve the agenda of those extremists. You too Krishna. Almost on virtually any seed or article that has Israel, Palestine, Islam or Muslim as a key subject that you appear on that I have noticed. For all the blunders of the US State Dept in recent years, their recent edict on certain terms to avoid is actually very prudent.

the only thing standing in the way is the fact that Hamas is not willing to compromise-

You have been very active in the recent seed which shows some encouraging signs of a change. As I have said before, there is a huge difference between the language of peace and one of war. It is not good enough to wait for the other guy to start before one does too. Those who take the first step show a mark of boldness and a passion for peace. That is how trust is garnered and how hope can flourish. It matters not much to you, me or anyone else here on the Vine. But for those millions in Israel and Palestine, it is the difference between life and death. I know where I'd rather be, friend. On their side, no question.

You makes your bed. You lies in it:-)

Many who appear to be on the pro-Israel side unwittingly (and some deliberately) serve the agenda of those extremists. You too Krishna.

Now isn't that funny-- I had thought that it was you who were unwittingly serving ther agenda of those extremists!

Perhaps it we both stopped making these accusations (and after all, let's face it, no matter what you and I say here-- we persoally are not going to stand in the way of peace in the mid-east if others there sincerely want it).
And-- let's face it-- us trading accusations about supporting terrorism is...well-- a bit off topic, to say the least!

So--let's make a deal-- if you stop accusing me of serving the agenda of the extremists-- then I won't accuse you of it as well? OK?

Now-- back to the topic being discussed.

It matters not much to you, me or anyone else here on the Vine.

I resent the implication that it does not matter to me whether or not these people die. That's the second personal attack in one comment. I have reported your comment as inflammatory-- so let's cut the personal attacks and inuendos-- and dfiscuss the topic-- OK?

You will of course be familiar with the recent news event on Olmert - Israeli Police Seize Documents in Olmert Probe. Clearly under investigation so no conclusions can be drawn. Just bringing it up as an example of external influences.

No other agenda then? (in my opinion, there are many things standing in the way of peace-- and that's not one of them. I wonder-- what's the real reason you mention it?)

You have been very active in the recent seed which shows some encouraging signs of a change.

And I've noticed the same thing about you-- you too have shown signs of considerable improvement! I am encouraged by your progress as well!

Now-- back to the topic being discussed.

Bravo. No more name-calling, name-trading, day-trading, insider-trading, etc.

;0

Now-- back to the topic being discussed.

Bravo. No more name-calling, name-trading, day-trading, insider-trading, etc.

I agree. We should stick to the topic. OTOH, I suppose sometimes COH violations must be confronted. I suppose its a trade off...

I agree. We should stick to the topic. OTOH, I suppose sometimes COH violations must be confronted. I suppose its a trade off...

Such is life.... ;)

I agree. We should stick to the topic. OTOH, I suppose sometimes COH violations must be confronted. I suppose its a trade off...

Such is life.... ;)

All in all a fair trade