Two state solution?

[David1967]

I have heard discussion that the current conflict in Israel is to the extent that it will likely end in a two state solution. Do you think that this is likely or not?

 

[sayak83]

I have heard discussion that the current conflict in Israel is to the extent that it will likely end in a two state solution. Do you think that this is likely or not?

No. It's in the interest of the parties in power to keep the conflict alive. So there will be no solution and people will continue to get killed.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I have heard discussion that the current conflict in Israel is to the extent that it will likely end in a two state solution. Do you think that this is likely or not?

Nope. That was offered in the past to Yasser Arafat and he refused it.

I doubt anything has changed since, and the complete destruction and removal of Israel is the only course of action they want.

 

[danieldemol]

I have heard discussion that the current conflict in Israel is to the extent that it will likely end in a two state solution. Do you think that this is likely or not?

I've pretty much decided I may as well hope for the best as it seems better than what I imagine the likely alternative is (ie the complete genocide of Palestinians).

 

[Harel13]

No. It's in the interest of the parties in power to keep the conflict alive.

Hamas and the PA (as well as UNRWA) certainly have an interest in keeping the conflict alive, but Israel most certainly does not. With that said, a significant number of Israelis aren't interested in a two-state solution, or think that it is an unrealistic notion, especially in light of recent events.

 

[Heyo]

I have heard discussion that the current conflict in Israel is to the extent that it will likely end in a two state solution. Do you think that this is likely or not?

Unlikely. Even if there could be a treaty that results in a state Palestine, how long would it take that from one side or the other someone would commit an aggressive act that starts a new war?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Hamas and the PA (as well as UNRWA) certainly have an interest in keeping the conflict alive, but Israel most certainly does not.

I disagree.

• Hamas absolutely benefits from "keeping the conflict alive." In fact, it has a pretty obvious symbiotic relationship with such conflict, and any hint of rapprochement would be an existential threat.
• A heavily supervised PA would be a major beneficiary of a viable and just 2-state solution, since it would almost certainly be the PA that replaces Hamas rule in the area.
• The UNRWA would almost certainly be a necessary partner in the rebuilding of the Gaza Strip.

As for Israel, it very much depends on what you mean. In fact, given your reference to ...

• Hamas
• PA
• UNWRA
• Israel

... the first thing that came to my mind was Sesame Street's One of Things (Is Not Like the Others).

With that in mind, I fully agree that "Israel most certainly does not" benefit from "keeping the conflict alive." I believe that the same can be said for the Palestinians. But Netanyahu and Smotrich and Ben-Gvir, and their disgusting cohorts, thrive on ongoing conflict, and "Israel" has enabled them much as "Israel" has enabled the occupation.

I hope the people of Israel change this in the near future.

 

[Harel13]

Hamas absolutely benefits from "keeping the conflict alive." In fact, it has a pretty obvious symbiotic relationship with such conflict, and any hint of rapprochement would be an existential threat.

So we agree on this.

A heavily supervised PA would be a major beneficiary of a viable and just 2-state solution, since it would almost certainly be the PA that replaces Hamas rule in the area.

Heavily supervised are the key words here. While I myself am against a two-state solution, I think we agree that it would be extremely foolish to sign a peace deal with the PA as it currently is. The PA, in the eyes of some, may be considered the lesser of two evils when compared to Hamas (or even the Islamic Jihad), which is likely the reason it is coddled by Western powers, but it is an evil, corrupt organization nonetheless. The PA openly supports terror and pays stipends to families of terrorists, including those from Hamas, despite the latter being an archrival of the PA (a lengthy report on the topic). In fact, many may wish to ignore this, but masses of Arabs gathered in PA-controlled cities and openly celebrated the massacre, and a few days later, the PA posted on its website a document which stated "Our people, the Palestinians, despite pains and tragedies, cannot raise a white flag of truce until the occupation is removed and a free Palestinian state is created with its capital Jerusalem." and then the document quoted the well-known hadith that states "The hour will not begin until you fight the Jews, until a Jew will hide behind a rock or a tree, and the rock or tree will say: ‘O Muslim, O slave of Allah, here is a Jew behind me; come and kill him" (Hebrew source, I was unable to find an English article; the document itself is in Arabic). Furthermore, the PA gave support money to families of terrorists who took part in the massacre, as it does to families of terrorists from times past (source).

Coincidentally, I am in the middle of reading Dr. Haim Shapira's book Gladiators, Pirates and Games of Trust: How Game Theory, Strategy and Probability Rule Our Lives. As the title suggests, it's a book on game theory, and so far is pretty much non-political. Surprisingly, one of the first examples he brought is about Israel's continuous attempts and failures at garnering a peace deal with the PA. In his words (italics in the original):

"When I wrote about this game [the Blackmailer's Paradox] in a major economic newspaper, I encountered an array of angry political reactions, from left and right across the whole political spectrum [...] This was because the readers understood that the game was not about Jo or Mo, but about real-life negotiations. Professor Aumann [...] believed that this story is closely related to the Israeli-Arab conflict and can teach us a thing or two about conflict resolution in general. [...] Aumann argued that, entering negotiations with its neighbors, Israel must take three key points into consideration: it must be prepared to take into account the (sad) possibility of ending the talks (or 'game') without an agreement; it must realize that the game may be repeated; and it has to deeply believe in its own red-line positions and stick by them.​

Let's discuss the first two points. When Israel is not willing to leave the negotiations room empty-handed, it's strategically crippled because then the game is no longer a symmetric one. The party that's mentally prepared to fail has a huge advantage. In the same way, when Jo is willing to make painful concessions and accept humiliating terms for the sake of agreement, that stand will affect future talks, because when the players meet again Mo might offer worse terms each time they play.​

[...]​

Let me tell you now about my conclusions from the blackmailer story:​

1. Playing rationally against an irrational opponent is often irrational.​

2. Playing irrationally against an irrational opponent is often rational.​

[...]"​

The long and short of this is that Israel has always been 'playing' against an irrational player. The PA is that irrational player. Olmert offered them the deal of the century: 93% of control over Judea and Samaria, and, though perhaps it wasn't never officially on the table, they were expected to receive control over Gaza should that situation ever have risen. They rejected that deal, like they rejected every single past deal. Why? They are irrational.
So, the PA is supports terrorists and is corrupt and irrational. For it to be a legitimate partner, it would have to be, in my opinion, rebuilt from the ground up, or, as you put it, "heavily supervised". Otherwise we'd just be giving more power to evil.

The above points also show why the PA, as it currently stands, is not interested in peace. It supports terrorists, has not condemned the massacre, allowed street celebrations of the massacre and has openly stated it wants to murder all Jews. I would argue that the PA is doing what it is doing because it believes that that will garner a little more support for the government (an interesting but disturbing poll published last year; 73% opposition to the PA. Hamas support a year ago wasn't too high, but there was vast support for creating non-PA-controlled armed groups).

In short, the PA, as it stands, is not a partner for peace. Unfortunately, it is still coddled by the West, and, to some extent, by certain members of the Israeli government and public.

The UNRWA would almost certainly be a necessary partner in the rebuilding of the Gaza Strip.

UNRWA is one of worst choices for an organization called on to help in rebuilding Gaza. It is obvious that to rebuild Gaza this time would mean changing the fundamentals of Gazan society to weaken terror groups and their civil support as much as possible. UNRWA, at its core, is an extremely racist organization, as well as one that openly supports terror. Supporters of UNRWA support terrorism and racism, it's that simple.

Racism - only 'Palestinians' fall under the jurisdiction of UNRWA. All of the other millions of refugees since 1950 have been assisted by UNHCR. Palestinians are not treated like regular humans who have been forced or chosen to flee or seek refuge. UNHCR's goal is to offer practical solutions for refugees; UNRWA's goal is preservation of Palestinian refugee status (although, arguably, many aren't refugees but internally displaced persons). Is that not racism? To look at a person and only see a refugee, for literally generations. Not a person that can contribute to society but a person that must always be pitied, him, his children, his grandchildren and all descendants forever. For more info on the differences between the two groups, see here.

Terrorism - UNRWA schools teach Gazans to support terrorism (source; here's the full report). UNRWA workers openly supported the Oct. 7 massacre (source, source, source).

UNRWA is not interested in peace. It is an evil and morally pointless organization.

With that in mind, I fully agree that "Israel most certainly does not" benefit from "keeping the conflict alive."

So we agree on this.

But Netanyahu and Smotrich and Ben-Gvir, and their disgusting cohorts, thrive on ongoing conflict, and "Israel" has enabled them much as "Israel" has enabled the occupation.

We get it, you hate the right and the Israeli right in particular. Yawn. Tell me when you're willing to have a serious discussion on the issue (or any Israel-related issue, really) without mentioning how much you hate the Israeli right.

To summarize, we agree on Hamas and the current PA not being partners for peace, and that Israel in general has no interest in keeping the conflict alive. We disagree on UNRWA's place in this story, and as usual, you had to make known your sheer disdain for various Israeli politicians, although I did not refer to any particular Israeli politicians. And you like Sesame Street. Good for you, I suppose.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

But Netanyahu and Smotrich and Ben-Gvir, and their disgusting cohorts, thrive on ongoing conflict, and "Israel" has enabled them much as "Israel" has enabled the occupation.

We get it, you hate the right and the Israeli right in particular. Yawn.

I hate neofascists irrespective of country. Let's hope a substantial majority Israelis dumps the Netanyahu/Smotrich/ Ben-Gvir troika as soon as possible.

 

[Koldo]

So we agree on this.

Heavily supervised are the key words here. While I myself am against a two-state solution, I think we agree that it would be extremely foolish to sign a peace deal with the PA as it currently is. The PA, in the eyes of some, may be considered the lesser of two evils when compared to Hamas (or even the Islamic Jihad), which is likely the reason it is coddled by Western powers, but it is an evil, corrupt organization nonetheless. The PA openly supports terror and pays stipends to families of terrorists, including those from Hamas, despite the latter being an archrival of the PA (a lengthy report on the topic). In fact, many may wish to ignore this, but masses of Arabs gathered in PA-controlled cities and openly celebrated the massacre, and a few days later, the PA posted on its website a document which stated "Our people, the Palestinians, despite pains and tragedies, cannot raise a white flag of truce until the occupation is removed and a free Palestinian state is created with its capital Jerusalem." and then the document quoted the well-known hadith that states "The hour will not begin until you fight the Jews, until a Jew will hide behind a rock or a tree, and the rock or tree will say: ‘O Muslim, O slave of Allah, here is a Jew behind me; come and kill him" (Hebrew source, I was unable to find an English article; the document itself is in Arabic). Furthermore, the PA gave support money to families of terrorists who took part in the massacre, as it does to families of terrorists from times past (source).

Coincidentally, I am in the middle of reading Dr. Haim Shapira's book Gladiators, Pirates and Games of Trust: How Game Theory, Strategy and Probability Rule Our Lives. As the title suggests, it's a book on game theory, and so far is pretty much non-political. Surprisingly, one of the first examples he brought is about Israel's continuous attempts and failures at garnering a peace deal with the PA. In his words (italics in the original):

"When I wrote about this game [the Blackmailer's Paradox] in a major economic newspaper, I encountered an array of angry political reactions, from left and right across the whole political spectrum [...] This was because the readers understood that the game was not about Jo or Mo, but about real-life negotiations. Professor Aumann [...] believed that this story is closely related to the Israeli-Arab conflict and can teach us a thing or two about conflict resolution in general. [...] Aumann argued that, entering negotiations with its neighbors, Israel must take three key points into consideration: it must be prepared to take into account the (sad) possibility of ending the talks (or 'game') without an agreement; it must realize that the game may be repeated; and it has to deeply believe in its own red-line positions and stick by them.​

Let's discuss the first two points. When Israel is not willing to leave the negotiations room empty-handed, it's strategically crippled because then the game is no longer a symmetric one. The party that's mentally prepared to fail has a huge advantage. In the same way, when Jo is willing to make painful concessions and accept humiliating terms for the sake of agreement, that stand will affect future talks, because when the players meet again Mo might offer worse terms each time they play.​

[...]​

Let me tell you now about my conclusions from the blackmailer story:​

1. Playing rationally against an irrational opponent is often irrational.​

2. Playing irrationally against an irrational opponent is often rational.​

[...]"​

The long and short of this is that Israel has always been 'playing' against an irrational player. The PA is that irrational player. Olmert offered them the deal of the century: 93% of control over Judea and Samaria, and, though perhaps it wasn't never officially on the table, they were expected to receive control over Gaza should that situation ever have risen. They rejected that deal, like they rejected every single past deal. Why? They are irrational.
So, the PA is supports terrorists and is corrupt and irrational. For it to be a legitimate partner, it would have to be, in my opinion, rebuilt from the ground up, or, as you put it, "heavily supervised". Otherwise we'd just be giving more power to evil.

The above points also show why the PA, as it currently stands, is not interested in peace. It supports terrorists, has not condemned the massacre, allowed street celebrations of the massacre and has openly stated it wants to murder all Jews. I would argue that the PA is doing what it is doing because it believes that that will garner a little more support for the government (an interesting but disturbing poll published last year; 73% opposition to the PA. Hamas support a year ago wasn't too high, but there was vast support for creating non-PA-controlled armed groups).

In short, the PA, as it stands, is not a partner for peace. Unfortunately, it is still coddled by the West, and, to some extent, by certain members of the Israeli government and public.

UNRWA is one of worst choices for an organization called on to help in rebuilding Gaza. It is obvious that to rebuild Gaza this time would mean changing the fundamentals of Gazan society to weaken terror groups and their civil support as much as possible. UNRWA, at its core, is an extremely racist organization, as well as one that openly supports terror. Supporters of UNRWA support terrorism and racism, it's that simple.

Racism - only 'Palestinians' fall under the jurisdiction of UNRWA. All of the other millions of refugees since 1950 have been assisted by UNHCR. Palestinians are not treated like regular humans who have been forced or chosen to flee or seek refuge. UNHCR's goal is to offer practical solutions for refugees; UNRWA's goal is preservation of Palestinian refugee status (although, arguably, many aren't refugees but internally displaced persons). Is that not racism? To look at a person and only see a refugee, for literally generations. Not a person that can contribute to society but a person that must always be pitied, him, his children, his grandchildren and all descendants forever. For more info on the differences between the two groups, see here.

Terrorism - UNRWA schools teach Gazans to support terrorism (source; here's the full report). UNRWA workers openly supported the Oct. 7 massacre (source, source, source).

UNRWA is not interested in peace. It is an evil and morally pointless organization.

So we agree on this.

We get it, you hate the right and the Israeli right in particular. Yawn. Tell me when you're willing to have a serious discussion on the issue (or any Israel-related issue, really) without mentioning how much you hate the Israeli right.

To summarize, we agree on Hamas and the current PA not being partners for peace, and that Israel in general has no interest in keeping the conflict alive. We disagree on UNRWA's place in this story, and as usual, you had to make known your sheer disdain for various Israeli politicians, although I did not refer to any particular Israeli politicians. And you like Sesame Street. Good for you, I suppose.

What alternative do you see to the two-state solution? And how would it prevent the creation of an apartheid regime?

 

[Harel13]

What alternative do you see to the two-state solution? And how would it prevent the creation of an apartheid regime?

Here's a summary of five possible alternatives to the two-state solution, and there are probably others. As far as I'm aware, none foresee the creation of an apartheid regime.

 

[LuisDantas]

Hopefully there will be some form of two-state solution in the future, if only because the realistic alternatives would be way too dire to consider. I can't really picture any time when all of the current inhabitants of Gaza and the West Bank (and their descendants) would have left for some other land.

But I also think that it will be awesomely difficult, not least because agreeing on which sort of relationships and relative autonomy those territorties should have or even pursue seems to be quite a challenge in and of itself.

There is also IMO a legitimate question of how prepared for such a change the current inhabitants are. Many of them seem to have little experience in other social environments.

 

[Koldo]

Here's a summary of five possible alternatives to the two-state solution, and there are probably others. As far as I'm aware, none foresee the creation of an apartheid regime.

The first solution is apartheid.
As for solution number two, I don't see how this is not a two-state solution.
Solution three woud lead to open air prisons (I currently think it is a misnomer), only further fostering resentment.
Solution four is not going to happen. The Jews would lose a lot of political power.
And solution five wouldn't solve the problem, unless there was a massive immigration, which is quite unlikely.

I truly see no better solution overall than two-state.

 

[Harel13]

The first solution is apartheid.

Clearly you don't know what apartheid means.

As for solution number two, I don't see how this is not a two-state solution

You're right. So it's four solutions, not five. The small difference is that the two-state solution usually proposes including some or all of Area C, unless the author of the longer article had a different kind of Palestinian autonomy in mind.

Solution three woud lead to open air prisons (I currently think it is a misnomer), only further fostering resentment.

I don't know what you're referring to as a misnomer, nor do I understand why they would be prisons. A peace deal hinges on there being peace. That means that citizens of the emirates would be able to travel freely around the emirate cities and across Israel. So, no prison.

Solution four is not going to happen. The Jews would lose a lot of political power.

There was actually a major push for this solution when Trump was trying to push "The Deal of the Century" a few years back. So clearly a lot of Israelis disagree with you.

And solution five wouldn't solve the problem, unless there was a massive immigration, which is quite unlikely.

Solution five hinges on mass immigration. In a sense, solution five hinges on the dismantling of UNRWA and recognition that the vast majority of Palestinians do not fall under the legal category of "refugee", and therefore should have their situation resolved in a different manner than 75 years of an international immoral stalemate. And one of the UNHCR's main solutions for refugees or displaced persons is legal immigration to various countries with receiving full citizenship. It'll be a better deal than all of the Middle Eastern and North African Jews got.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Those with access to Haaretz might wish to read:

Analysis | Israelis Loathe Netanyahu. But Despair Over Peace With the Palestinians Runs Even Deeper​

It's a worrisome article.

 

[Koldo]

Clearly you don't know what apartheid means.

Having second-class citizens. Actually, this would be even worse since the palestinians wouldn't even be israeli citizens.

I don't know what you're referring to as a misnomer, nor do I understand why they would be prisons. A peace deal hinges on there being peace. That means that citizens of the emirates would be able to travel freely around the emirate cities and across Israel. So, no prison.

It would be a prison because one would only be able to leave with Israel's permission.

There was actually a major push for this solution when Trump was trying to push "The Deal of the Century" a few years back. So clearly a lot of Israelis disagree with you.

I simply can't fanthom the majority of Israeli Jews allowing the Arab Muslims to take over Israel without even a single gunshot in a few decades.

Solution five hinges on mass immigration. In a sense, solution five hinges on the dismantling of UNRWA and recognition that the vast majority of Palestinians do not fall under the legal category of "refugee", and therefore should have their situation resolved in a different manner than 75 years of an international immoral stalemate. And one of the UNHCR's main solutions for refugees or displaced persons is legal immigration to various countries with receiving full citizenship. It'll be a better deal than all of the Middle Eastern and North African Jews got.

But what would happen to those that decided to stay?

 

[Revoltingest]

I have heard discussion that the current conflict in Israel is to the extent that it will likely end in a two state solution. Do you think that this is likely or not?

Sometime by the next, or in the next
century, I give it 79% odds of happening.

 

[Harel13]

Sorry, forgot to get back to you.

Having second-class citizens. Actually, this would be even worse since the palestinians wouldn't even be israeli citizens.

Do you consider all countries that give permanent residency status to certain civilians apartheid countries? That is what's suggested in the first option. They would be Israeli residents and Jordanian citizens. That's not called being a second-class citizen.

It would be a prison because one would only be able to leave with Israel's permission.

Are the citizens of Hungary prisoners of Croatia, Slovakia etc because Croatia, Slovakia etc can decide who from Hungary cross their border? I doubt it. That's how borders work: Two sides decide who can pass through them. That does not make them imprisoned, unless you consider all landlocked countries prisons.

I simply can't fanthom the majority of Israeli Jews allowing the Arab Muslims to take over Israel without even a single gunshot in a few decades.

That's not the idea. The belief is, based on statistics, that Arabs wouldn't be able to attain a demographic majority because Arab childbirth rates are declining while Israeli ones remain steady and rising.

But what would happen to those that decided to stay?

Either full citizenship or permanent residency. Both are completely legal according to international law.

 

[Koldo]

Sorry, forgot to get back to you.

Do you consider all countries that give permanent residency status to certain civilians apartheid countries? That is what's suggested in the first option. They would be Israeli residents and Jordanian citizens. That's not called being a second-class citizen.

Except you are "forgetting" to mention they would become israeli residents not because they immigrated to Israel, but rather because their territory was annexed by Israel. This changes everything. We are talking about the loss of self-determination here. The palestinians would be living in the same piece of land as before but israeli citizens would be the ones voting in who would rule over the palestinians.

If you reside in the same place as you ever did and suddenly you are no longer able to vote in who governs over you, but others are, you became a second-class citizen.

Just ponder for a moment how absurd this suggestion would sound if it was flipped the other way around: Palestinians voting in who governs over Israel while the current israeli not being able to vote in the same election.

Are the citizens of Hungary prisoners of Croatia, Slovakia etc because Croatia, Slovakia etc can decide who from Hungary cross their border? I doubt it. That's how borders work: Two sides decide who can pass through them. That does not make them imprisoned, unless you consider all landlocked countries prisons.

How many landlocked countries do you know that only have borders with one single country? There are only 3, and I am counting the Vatican here. How can this work when the two regions have a recent history of hostilities? What are the odds of Israel effectively locking the emirates in a heartbeat whenever it deems fit because of any kind of threat? Huge. If this is not a prison, what is? Check what happened to Artsakh. That would be the destiny of those emirates.

That's not the idea. The belief is, based on statistics, that Arabs wouldn't be able to attain a demographic majority because Arab childbirth rates are declining while Israeli ones remain steady and rising.

But they would attain a majority, because it would become THE best way to take over Israel. No need to fight anymore. The current statistics only give a glimpse of the future based on past history. If something so dramatic such as this happened, it would definetely entail a massive change.

Either full citizenship or permanent residency. Both are completely legal according to international law.

Which leads to the other former alternatives, and their problems...

 

[Wandering Monk]

This is the partition map drawn by the UN in 1947. Russia voted for this partition. This was the original 'two state' solution. Notice that the Sinai Peninsula was to be part of the Jewish state. Israel gave it to Egypt in 1982.

In 1947/48 Arab irregulars and five Arab nations attacked Israel to prevent the partition. An armistice was achieved in 1949 with Israel controlling nearly all the area today minus Gaza, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights.

Which lines would be an acceptable solution to the Arab nations, the Palestinians, and the Syrians?

https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-208958/

Milestones in the History of U.S. Foreign Relations - Office of the Historian

history.state.gov 3.0 shell

history.state.gov