Reply #8: There are other possibilities... [View All]

than either the status quo or a one-state 'solution'.

I know you've said that because of the increase in Israeli settlements, a two-state solution is no longer possible. But why? Why not just insist that the settlements be relinquished as part of the two-state solution? People who formed settlements in the last 10 or 15 years KNEW that a two-state solution was being considered, and that therefore their settlements might end up being disbanded. So I don't see the problem/ injustice from even an Israeli perspective of disbanding them. SO from that point of view - what's the difference between now and 10 or 15 years ago? You have said that a two-state solution might have been possible 10 or 15 years ago.

But let's look at the practicalities of a 'one-state solution' for a moment:

(1) How will this be established?

(2) How do you propose to get Israelis (and all Palestinians) to accept it?

(3) What sort of government do you envisage? Mixed Jewish/ Arab? In what proportions? Or Arab only?

(4) Do you propose *any* way of establishing Jewish/ Christian/ secular/ other minority rights in such a state? If so, how?

Jumping into one supposed solution because the status quo is bad, is often the same as jumping out of the frying pan into the fire. (E.g. the war in Iraq - Saddam WAS a bad man and deprived many people of human rights, but rushing to depose him by force created an even worse situation.)

The status quo is bad - so let's try and think of solutions that will (a) be accepted without a war breaking out; and (b) will WORK. I honestly don't think that a one-state solution will work. Not now. Maybe in 30 or 40 years' time after a two-state solution has been put into place.