"Two States, One Homeland - an open land for all"

[Jayhawker Soule]

See A Land For All with its statement of shared principles.

It's an intriguing vision, a vision too easily disparaged but also, in my opinion, too worthy to be dismissed.

 

[sooda]

See A Land For All with its statement of shared principles.

It's an intriguing vision, a vision too easily disparaged but also, in my opinion, too worthy to be dismissed.

Are you familiar with Sabeel? Its a Christian group located in Jerusalem and in Galilee that promotes a single state solution. There is an excellent book called A Palestinian Christian Cry for Reconciliation [Naim Stifan Ateek]

I have read it twice and its quite touching and fair to all sides IMO.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

See A Land For All with its statement of shared principles.

It's an intriguing vision, a vision too easily disparaged but also, in my opinion, too worthy to be dismissed.

For reference, the 1967 border referred to in the proposal looked like this:

(Obviously omitting the various details regarding controlled areas)
SOURCE: How the 1967 war changed the shape of Israel

I'm keen to hear people's reactions to this as well.

 

[Harel13]

See A Land For All with its statement of shared principles.

It's an intriguing vision, a vision too easily disparaged but also, in my opinion, too worthy to be dismissed.

Do you/they imagine Jerusalem to be something along the lines of divided Berlin during the Cold War?

 

[dybmh]

Leviticus 25:23

The Land Belongs to G-d.

'Nuff said.

Although the author of the OP has shown repeated contempt for Torah, perhaps this little tidbit will be valued?

I give it 50-50 odds at best.

 

[sooda]

For reference, the 1967 border referred to in the proposal looked like this:

(Obviously omitting the various details regarding controlled areas)
SOURCE: How the 1967 war changed the shape of Israel

I'm keen to hear people's reactions to this as well.

​

Isn't the Muslim quarter much smaller now?

 

[Brickjectivity]

See A Land For All with its statement of shared principles.

It's an intriguing vision, a vision too easily disparaged but also, in my opinion, too worthy to be dismissed.

The best thing would be to evacuate gradually in stages over a period of time rather than all on a single day. If it were my city and I were being forced to evacuate I might leave graffiti and nasty presents behind. That would not be in the best interests of peace, so government officials should A evacuate those leaving from a section. B cleanup any mess and document the state of the property with photos. C. Guard the section. Lots of People will suddenly no longer be in Israel. I don't think I'd want to be in their shoes, so Israel will need to have some sort of plan to evacuate those who wanted to evacuate. It will also need a plan to prevent looting and destruction of property.

Once evacuate was complete I would perform another section by section operation. A section would be turned over to the new authority giving them time to install their own security. This could take weeks, months or a shorter period of time according to what they wanted to do.

You're still dealing with lots of displaced people. I don't know where you're going to put them.

None of it affects me does it -- or does it? I'm mainly interested if it embarrasses all the TV and Radio ministries, but it looks enforceable. It could be done. I don't think 'Intrigued' fits how I feel, except in wondering if this will help the USA exit from wars. How does this affect relations between Israel and Syria and between Israel and Iran?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Has there ever been an

Do you/they imagine Jerusalem to be something along the lines of divided Berlin during the Cold War?

No. Their response response to the question is as follows:

Even the greatest advocates of separation understand the full separation is impossible in Jerusalem. This is both because there is no clear geographic separation between neighborhoods: Neve Yaakov and Pisgat Zeev, for example, are to the east of Shuafat, while Har Homa is to the east of Tzur Bahar, and that in the Old City too, you cannot build a real physical border. The Geneva Accord proposed a model where the Old City is jointly administered under international supervision. But if we can jointly manage the heart of the conflict, the square kilometer of the Old City, where fifty thousand live and where Jews and Palestinians share the same alleys on their way to the Haram al-Sharif or the Western Wall, the entire land can be managed in the shared model. Instead of being a problem, Jerusalem may well be the solution. Joint sovereignty is no simple matter, but it exists elsewhere in the world. Brussels is shared by French-speaking Walloons and the Flemish. There is also a complex mechanism that allows, on the one hand, to administer the city as one city municipally, while preserving the representation of each of its demographic groups. Other .examples in the world exist​

If done right, Jerusalem could truly serve as a light unto the nations. And, yes, that is an enormous IF.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The best thing would be to evacuate gradually in stages over a period of time rather than all on a single day.

I disagree. More importantly, I do not see its relevance.

Rather than suggest how to effect a traditional 2-State solution, why not first explain why you find such a solution preferable. I get the sense that you simply consider the alternative posed in the OP to be unworthy of consideration.

 

[LuisDantas]

Relying on borders to keep peace reminds me of relying on laws to keep people away from alcohol and cannabis.

It Just Does Not Work. It can't ever really work, not on its own.

A decent case can be made that it was never meant to work, even.

Borders are nothing more than the formal expression of political and military claims.

They are meaningless in and of themselves, and will and must submit to the changing political climates, which are by their turn determined by demographic realities.

Expecting people to simply be aware of borders and have no need nor motivation to ever cross them... is naive and pointless. And that is before considering how oppressive it would be to actually demand people not to consider moving across borders, intermarrying, interbreeding.

Are we truly expected to pretend that people from the other side of a border are some sort of alien creatures that can't be reasoned with, with whom we should not aim to establish joint projects, not try to understand and cooperate with? Are we expected to want to create such a sorry state of things?

It dismays me something fierce that such lines of thought, which I used to believe to be rightfully dead for good, have arisen from the underworld to shamble their ways among human prey and haunt us once more.

That is not to be.

There are no true "ethnic groups". No true "nations". There are people, there is land, there are cultures. The land is pretty much immutable. The people and the cultures should savor their own dynamism and ever-changing boundaries and thrive on it, without ever lending borders and nationalisms much significance at all.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Relying on borders to keep peace reminds me of relying on laws to keep people away from alcohol and cannabis.

While I think a discussion on nationalism and self determination might have value, I also believe that it does a disservice to this particular thread.

 

[England my lionheart]

See A Land For All with its statement of shared principles.

It's an intriguing vision, a vision too easily disparaged but also, in my opinion, too worthy to be dismissed.

I voted worthy, I think it's positive.

 

[Yerda]

See A Land For All with its statement of shared principles.

It's an intriguing vision, a vision too easily disparaged but also, in my opinion, too worthy to be dismissed.

I doubt something so lovely could work in this world. It is lovely though.

How would you deal with those who don't recognise the dignity and humanity in the "other" side?

 

[Earthtank]

You can have a 2 state solution when the Israelis are constantly stealing more and more land.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I disagree. More importantly, I do not see its relevance.

Rather than suggest how to effect a traditional 2-State solution, why not first explain why you find such a solution preferable. I get the sense that you simply consider the alternative posed in the OP to be unworthy of consideration.

I voted that it was pollyannaish as stated in the OP, but I could change my mind if I understood how it could be implemented. It would benefit the USA as long as we weren't involved and might help end hostilities between ourselves and Iran. Israel would be doing us a favor, but this would be very risky for that country.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

How would you deal with those who don't recognise the dignity and humanity in the "other" side?

The same way I deal with them in the USA.

 

[Brickjectivity]

You can have a 2 state solution when the Israelis are constantly stealing more and more land.

This would be the first borderless country not a typical two state solution. This would be a no state solution. It would be a major human accomplishment of the first 2 borderless countries in modern times. There would be stories about this for thousands of years maybe tens of thousands of years. It would be a truly amazing achievement. They would be discovering solutions for problems that might pave the way for other countries to follow suit.

 

[dybmh]

While I think a discussion on nationalism and self determination might have value, I also believe that it does a disservice to this particular thread.

Is that because he ( @LuisDantas ) made several good points that u cannot refute?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Is that because he ( @LuisDantas ) made several good points that u cannot refute?

On the other hand Luis has gotten me thinking about how great it would be if this worked. Immediately the Abrahamic religions would get a boost. People would start converting to Judaism and Islam -- and Christianity, too. Luis would eat his hat, and he might convert to Abrahamic. Then I would never, ever let him live it down and remind him constantly of how he was once mired in primitive Buddhism instead of embracing the wave of the future. It might be so fun. I mean...no Buddhist influenced countries have managed to eliminate borders. Abrahamics could really talk smack after this. We could take credit for it!

 

[dybmh]

On the other hand Luis has gotten me thinking about how great it would be if this worked. Immediately the Abrahamic religions would get a boost. People would start converting to Judaism and Islam -- and Christianity, too. Luis would eat his hat, and he might convert to Abrahamic. Then I would never, ever let him live it down and remind him constantly of how he was once mired in primitive Buddhism instead of embracing the wave of the future. It might be so fun. I mean...no Buddhist influenced countries have managed to eliminate borders. Abrahamics could really talk smack after this. We could take credit for it!

You can keep the credit, as long as I can enjoy the results....