The problem in 1947 was that the Palestinians refused to accept a Jewish state side-by-side with their own. That's what the Partition Plan called for.

Same problem now, as Palestinians are still refusing to agree to one state for them and one state for the Jews.

And the anti-Israel rejectionists calling themselves pro-Palestinian peace activists keep cheering...

Especially since there are some here that seem to believe that Israel should withdraw to the original partition lines, or those should at least be the negotiating lines, not the green line. Additionally those same people seem to believe that Jerusalem belongs entirely to a Palestine, as the Palestinians never agreed to have it be an international city under UN control, so by default it belongs to a Palestine.

it seems that the loudest proponents of a two-state solution - you and David, among others - are the first ones in line to constantly demand more and more "concessions" from Palestine. Interestingly all of your demands are based on the same sort of things Israel supposedly found unacceptable for itself - "indefensible borders," "not enough territory," "population transfer," "loss of important sites", etc. Apparently not good enough for Jews, but Arabs can just learn to settle with it?

This isn't about a little more land, more defensible borders, population transfer, holy sites. Proof of that is their 1937 rejection of Peel.

It's about not accepting the existence of a Jewish state and it's been that way from the start. Palestinian nationalism at its core is anti-Israel and against a Jewish state, not for a Palestinian state next to Israel. If it were for it's own state next to Israel, this conflict would have ended in 1937.

that says just so much

..what Israel does or what Israel wants.

Obviously, you concede the point.

I guess that's progress

citizens to settle (it would be called colonization if were any other country) on land that is not Israel's to settle except by violent brutal military force, and expel he Palestinians living there by force tearing down their homes in the middle of winter and refusing to allow them so much as tent for shelter

Opinion makers and shapers .

All 13 of us.. Oops 12 since Oberliner is MIA.

I've been missing his Thomas Sowell-style "heavily biased moderate" act. Did he finally land his dream job as a traveling pickle salesman?

I'm sure he must be a founding member of this group?

but wrong on the second. If he expects Israel to give up political control over the old city (especially the wailing wall), then there will never be peace.

There should be some sort of sharing agreement on Jerusalem, that states neither can have political offices in the old city, but both can have their capitals in their respective parts of the new city.

Now I do not think that Bibi will agree to give up any part of Jerusalem, especially since he has Lieberman as his main coalition partner.

Why do more of the same?

an enhanced version of what we have now over the holy sites, with a little political control added in. It would still allow all religions to visit their holy sites, which is to me what is at the crux of the matter.

For a while there it almost looked like he was actually ready to make peace.

No danger of that now.

Last edited Fri Mar 7, 2014, 04:26 PM - Edit history (1)

...if peace broke out b/w the 2 peoples.

the replies are interesting, but what I note is that those who claim they want a 2 state solution will go back almost 70 years to justify what Israel does today, why? Israel gained significantly more territory than the original partition allotted it due to the Arab rebellion in 1946-1948, but apparently that's not enough it needs more as some sort of punishment/retribution for wrongs done it in the first half of the last century- when will it be enough?

LOL

That's funny.

Let's start from 10 or 20.

that have died by Israeli hands in the last 14 years? Not enough yet?

Maybe because I never "stumbled" down here...
Punishment ?