Palestinians and israelis. The one state solution. Can it work?

This is an amazing question, and I am not referring to its length.

You don't leave all your hate for Israel and Jews by declaring it.

You cannot misstate facts and then hope to build a thesis on it.

No, the Israelis did not "drive the Palestinians out." In fact, in 1948 the tern Palestinians referred to the Jews living in Israel, which had until then been called Palestine.

Since the early 20th century, it has been clear that the only way to satisfy the competing demands of Jews and Arabs in Israel/Palestine was to divide the land. For more than 70 years, since Britain's Lord Peel first proposed partitioning Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state, the Jews have accepted a two-state solution to the conflict.

Palestinian Position

To this day, the Palestinians do not accept the legitimacy of a Jewish state in what they consider Palestine.

Israeli Position

When the United Nations voted to partition Palestine into Jewish and Arab states, the Zionists accepted a compromise that left them with a national home in less than 20 percent of the area originally promised to them by the British.

.

It would take a very strong and persuasive leader of the One State to persuade the subjects to put aside differences and to live in harmony. The name of the country and flag would have to be different. They would have to adapt to the other's culture (which clashes because they're different... the current israel is liberal and not really religious whereas the Palestians side are more religious, the morals are different). I think it would create huge chaos especially on the Zionists side because of the distorted belief that Jews are entitled to that land. How can one change that kind of mentality? The Jews would have to become more open minded about other religions and cultures. I think feelings of hostility would still be on the Palestinians side who would still harbor negative feelings towards the israelis for stealing their land, the massacres and for making them suffer for so long. There would have to be strict laws and punishments that would prevent any type of segregation or discrimination. There would also have to be a law that clearly states that the leader of the country is not above the law (to prevent any future attempts to do harm towards a group like ethnic cleansing).

Conclusion: I say it's almost impossible because there will always be some underlining feeling of hatred and resentment.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Edit: Mohab: The examples you gave about the prophets are wonderful and you are right that they are examples that we can learn from. However, if I can note that the prophets were betrayed and hurt by their own people so its easier to forgive your own... just like how you can easily forgive a family member than somebody who is not a family member. You know our human nature and what can easily happen to our feelings and our reactions when we get hurt by an outside group especially if that other group has a feeling of superiority like in this case, a strong religious belief that they are God's chosen people who are entitled to that land no matter what and feels as though the other group doesn't belong there. And how can a group feel happy to be sharing a country with people who feel that their land was taken from them from the other group and that they were oppressed by that group and had families and friends who were victimized by the other group.

I honestly think that without these the issues you mention this is a mute topic because unfortunately we don't live in a Utopian society.It is very difficult to View things the way you are referring to because it isn't reality at this time.Peace is very far off because the disagreement comes down to religion and idealism misplaced or not. I want peace the world over but forgetting what has been ingrained in people for centuries will be difficult. The comparison to States of the USA is very intriguing.One State solution not yet too many variables too many loose ends.It did take a long time for after the US civil war for people to accept one country (and there are still those that oppose) but stranger things have happened.Hope yes immediate solution probably not.Oh and

I am neither Palestinian or Israeli.

Frankly speaking?No

You see, you forgot some basic points here.

First of all let me point some.

You said about the Muslim immigrants to USA. What is different here, is that we know who are the immigrants and who are the ''natives''.

Speaking Israel-Palestine. We don't. Or at least its not agreed.

So, who is going to adapt whos lifestyle?

As Muslims in Usa, had to integrate in USA lifestyle, now the immigrants have to do the same. But who is going to do it?

Another point is the equal right and representations.

How they are going to be represented to the parliament?(assuming that this is the political system).

Are the population equal? If not, having the same representatives is fair? If they don't have the same, isn't unfair to be ''always the majority to win''?

-I am talking from experience, since Cyprus issue haven't be resolved yet, and in some point, these are problems.

Do the tensions of about who's land is will stop?

no, i dont think so.

For me , the best solution is a double state, with mutual diplomatic relations. But in this case, both parties have to move back in their claims.

I don't want to sound racist or insulting but, the Israeli and Palestinian minds are a little bit backward.What I mean?

Switzerland, is a really devided country, in terms of ethnic composition.

French, Germans,Italians.

Allthough different ethnicities, still they managed to co-live together and built a very strong and powerfull country.

They put aside their racist nationalist nature, into built an harmonic society...

If what is left of the land of Israel occupied By arab Invaders becomes part of Israel Problem solved Integrate or leave solution

there Must never be a state of Terror next to Israel

For a guy who claims to be hiding his anti-Jewish anti-Israel prejudices, you are doing a very poor job.

Maybe facts would put you in the right frame of mind.

I cannot find any mention of Jerusalem in any of the translations of the Quran.

When Sura 17:001 was revealed in about the year 621, the "Sacred Mosque" already existed in Mecca, but where was "the Farthest Mosque?" It was apparently identified with places inside Arabia; either Medina, or a town called Ji'rana, about ten miles from Mecca, which Muhammad visited in 630.

Palestine had not yet been conquered by the Muslims, and CONTAINED NOT A SINGLE MOSQUE.

The first ruler of the Ummayad Dynasty (661 to 750), Mu'awiya, chose Jerusalem as the place where he ascended to the caliphate, and he and his successors engaged in a construction program in the city, religious edifices, a palace and roads, and they effectively treated it as their administrative capital.

The Ummayad Caliph, in 688 to 691, built the Dome of the Rock, right on the spot of the Jewish Temple. Then in 715, to build up the prestige of their dominions, the Umayyads built a second mosque on the Temple Mount, and called this one the "Farthest Mosque" (al-Masjid al Aqsa).

With this, the Umayyads retroactively gave Jerusalem a role in Muhammad's life, and inserted Jerusalem post hoc into the Quran, thus making it more important to Islam, for if "the Farthest Mosque" was in Jerusalem, then Muhammad's "night journey" and his subsequent ascension to heaven (mi'raj) also took place on the Temple Mount.

To summarize and make the history clearer, here is the timeline:

• Solomon's Temple built 958 to 951 BCE and destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar's Babylonian armies in 587 BCE.

• Second Temple (King Herod) built 37 to 4 BCE and destroyed by General Titus and his Roman soldiers in 70 CE.

• Muhammad born 572.

• Muhammad's alleged "night journey" and mi'raj 622.

• Muhammad died 632.

• Dome of the Rock built by Amir Abd-ul-Malik 688 to 691.

• Masjid al-Aqsa built 715.

In light of the chronology expressed above, several questions must be answered.

• What Temple did Muhammad visit, enter and pray at, before ascending to heaven??

• Since the Quran mentions an alleged journey of Muhammad's TO A MOSQUE THAT DID NOT EXIST during his lifetime, how should this be interpreted??

• Does the incompatibility of the dates quoted above increase your confidence in Muhammad as a prophet of the true and living God??

The Bonfils family photograph of the Dome of the Rock, taken in the late nineteenth century, shows just how important it was to the Muslims then, and this, allegedly one of Islam's holiest sites.

http://almashriq.hiof.no/general/700/770/779/histo...

It could well be that Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiya (638 to 700), a close relative of Muhammad, said, denigrating the notion that the prophet of Islam ever set foot on the Rock in Jerusalem; “These damned Syrians,” by which he means the Umayyads, “pretend that Allah put His foot on the Rock in Jerusalem, though [only] one person ever put his foot on the rock, namely Abraham.”

To answer you a one state solution realistically will never work.The idea of a one 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 a one state 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?

You don't know it yet, but you're a prophet. :p

The one state solution is not only possible, it will be the ONLY one possible, not because of Palestinians, but because of the settlement enterprise.

The Israelis have taken too much land and as the ongoing settlement enterprise [including the decision to demolish more Palestinian homes] continues, the chances for two states diminish even more.

So as an unbiased spectator who is neither Palestinian nor Israeli, I applaud your brave step and recommend strongly that the fight for a Palestinian state be changed to one that the world will find easier to both understand and support. Civil rights and equal representation.

As soon as Israel has completed its settlement enterprise, it will find itself responsible for all the Palestinians. :D

What the asker and many of the answerers have in common is a disdain for facts. And they love "facts" that are false, like the number of Arabs in Israel (then called Palestine) before the declaration of the state in 1948.

Here are some myths and the facts associated with them:

Myth 1: "The Gaza Strip is essentially an open-air prison for Palestinian refugees, guarded on all sides by the Israeli military."

Fact 1: No, not true. The Strip shares a border with Egypt, an Arab state.

----------------------------------------

Myth 2: "Gaza contains more than 1,200,000 Palestinians - over one third of them living in squalid refugee camps built in 1948 to hold the people forced out of their homes by the creation of modern-day Israel."

Fact 2: There are very few refugees left in Gaza. The children and grandchildren of these refugees are not, according to international law, refugees. They are only considered "refugees" because the Arab states have refused to resettle them or build them permanent housing. In addition, not all Palestinians who fled Israel in 1948 were "driven out." Some fled areas of fighting, some were expelled by Jewish forces, and some left of their own accord.

-------------------------------------------

Myth 3: "Gaza is one of the most densely populated places on the planet.

Fact 3: Not true. Most cities in the world are more densely populated than Gaza. Manhattan, for instance, is more densely populated than Gaza. Also Cairo. And many suburbs of major cities, as well.

.

The one-state solution seems like the only way to peace right now.

This is the 1-state solution:

1) Unify the West Bank, Gaza Strip with Current Israel as one country

2) All citizens of the new country will have equal rights regardless of faith (no privileges based on faith to any).

3) Palestinian refugees are allowed to return to their country (if they wish) and be compensated for their losses.

4) Jews who left Arab countries are allowed to return to their original countries (if they wish) and be compensated for their losses.

A 2-state solution doesn't seem too fair.

2-state solution:

1) Only parts of the West Bank and Gaza Strip

2) No East Jerusalem

3) No borders with the outside world

4) Majority of illegal settlements in West Bank to be annexed to Israel

5) No return for refugees

6) Water resources in the West Bank to be shared with Israel (currently Israel took over 83% of the water resources in the West Bank to the settlers who make 12% of the population of the West Bank)