One-state solution ?

[Trianglesandcircles1]

Why does it seem like all the mainstream western politicians assume that the only acceptable solution for Palestine/Israel is a two-state solution?

Surely it would be better to have one state, controlled and run by the UN for at least 50 years before slow transition to democracy, with a completely secular constitution, i.e. total separation of religion and state. Then everyone could have religious freedom.

It should be called neither Israel nor Palestine. I suggest "The Holy Land" as the official name.

Why is a suggesting a one-state solution so frowned upon?

Well it doesn't at the moment. That's the problem. The last time they sat down to form an agreement one of them flounced off.

Your equally asking why Palestinians would share a land with people who commit crimes against humanity right of apartheid and persecution right(according to human rights watch)? Who break International law and have been according to Amnesty International since 2007 by enforcing collective punishment. Why would Palestinians want to live with share land or power with people like that? There is two of them in it right?

To the best of my knowledge, Tibetans are not lobbing rockets into their former homeland and blowing up Chinese people now living there.

Pakistan and India are not in a 'hot' war, probably because both have nuclear weapons.

I admit I know very little about the wars in the lands of the former Yugoslavia - is there still bombing and military action going on there?

If not the UN, then who? What international body can step in and stop the killing?

Quite. But there seems a concerted effort from certain sectors to pretend there are no Christians living in Palestine. It makes it easier for them to stoke up Islamophobia with a strong undercurrent of racism. In the same way that the UK Government is quietly ignoring the British people currently trapped in Gaza. Their selective and wilful blindness is political.

Been tried already in a way. It was called the British Mandate of Palestine (Palestine being the Roman colonisers name, which means 'Invaders from a foreign country'. They changed to upset the Jews. Hence why those that were supposed to be Jordanian population lead at the time by Arafat adopted the name Palestinians in the 60s).

Anyway it didn't go well. The Arabs keep attacking the jews. Some examples if anyone wants to find out more. Safed looting 1834, Hebron massacre 1834, Attack on Safed 1838, Jaffa deportations 1917, Attack on Tel Hai 1920, Jaffa riots 1921, the riots 1929, the riots in 1936...

If anyone thinks it was better before Jews had independence and their own state in 1948 it really wasn't. Jews were murdered, tortured and raped. I have seen documents and photos are worse than last weekend. Jews that had their intestines cut out whilst still alive etc.

Saying all that the Jews also were not always nice and harmless. It isn't as simple as the arabs always being to blame but overall the violence was arab heavy.

I can’t work out whether you are a Hamas agent, or just a bit dim. Either way, I’m going to bow out of this discussion now.

Been tried already in a way. It was called the British Mandate of Palestine

Interesting. To what extent did the British actually police the area with a view to stopping violence?

Similarly to the OP, I’m not sure why it’s so widely accepted that Jewish people are entitled to a Jewish-majority state, when the same isn’t true for other faiths or ethnic groups. There’s so Sikh majority country, for example, and there are certainly several ethnic groups in the world (such as indigenous peoples in the Americas) who don’t have their own states.

That’s not to say that I think the state of Israel can be somehow ‘undone’ at this point, or that I don’t understand why the matter felt so urgent to Jewish people, particularly in the wake of WW2, but the idea that a certain ethnic/religious group must have its own nation state does seem to be reserved for Jewish people, so far as I can tell.

Apologies if my ignorance is showing, trying to understand, not provoke.

iirc the UN currently has 3 missions related to Israel. But the UN only has the power afforded to it by its members. The UN informed both Israel and Hamas that their actions breached international law and could constitute war crimes eg collective punishment; the ground offensive; targeting civilians; rape as an instrument of war; taking hostages.
Both Hamas and Israel ignored the UN.
An UN staff member said they would resign if Israel bombed the hospital in Gaza. Their view was that if the UN is in the region, is giving clear instructions concerning breaches of international law and human rights, but those actions still go ahead - then the UN is worthless.
Tbh the blatant and utter failure of international peacekeeping is a repercussion that will be felt for a long time. It makes citizens everywhere much more vulnerable. Usually democracies are more circumspect when ignoring peacekeeping groups.

Another anti semitic post. Sigh.

Is that true of the USA? Australia? South American countries? Sub-Saharan African countries?

Yes, most European countries at one time or other "expelled" their Jewish populations. History is full of truly dreadful atrocities.

But is it also true that not all Jewish people in the modern world feel the need to live in a Jewish-run state.

My point is OP that the UN isn't in a position to run a country or enforce peace if neither side recognises nor abides by its advice. It's not to say there isn't a role for the UN. Our friends in Israel think there is. But they would prefer a two-state solution.

I very strongly object to being called anti-semitic.
I am not at all anti-Jewish.

I am in favour of a long-term peaceful solution, for all people in the area, no matter their religion or ethnicity.

I am just questioning why the two-state solution is seen as somehow better than a one-state solution. Because recent history (the past several decades) suggest that a two-state solution will never work. So countless more lives will be lost.

Sadly you are probably right that the UN is not in a position to successfully run a country. That was wishful thinking on my part.
It seems no outside international organisation can do this.

Is the two-state solution preferred by western politicians because they know they could never actually set-up and run a one-state?

@IveHadItUpToHere I must admit that until about 10 years ago, I wasn't aware of the fact that there are so many Christians in Palestine. When I started my last job, my colleague was a Palestinian Christian. Her dad was born there and her grandparents and extended family still live there. She regularly shares stories of the plight and persecution they face. She has also told me some rather heartwarming stories including how her cousins Sunday shifts are covered by a muslim colleague so that he can go to church. I know this is just a snippet of what goes on but it was interesting to hear as I didn't expect it. It really opened my eyes and made me research the conflict further. I can't pretend to fully understand it but what I can say for sure is that there are clearly a number of war crimes which are scarily being endorsed by the West and there is a clear imbalance in terms of power, funding, manpower, weaponry, intelligence and everything else.

I’m fucking sick of people being called anti-Semitic for daring suggest that Israel and its actions are anything than perfect.

I really don't understand why it is important to a religious person, or a person of a particular ethnicity, to live in a state governed by and for that religion or ethnicity.

OP, I’m assuming that to make such a statement you must either be the dominant religion in your country, or an atheist in a not particularly religious country.

I think when you’re part of the dominant religion it’s really hard to see the ways the culture is shaped around that religion, as it’s just the day to day norm. So in the UK Christians get their holy day at the weekend, school holidays are structured around Christmas and Easter, etc. It’s only when you’re from a religious minority that it’s striking just how much of a country is centred around the dominant religion.

And yeah as someone already said upthread, if you’re Jewish there’s the small issue of many countries’ histories not exactly being welcoming to Jews.

Historically, as in after the Islamic conquest, the muslim inhabitants shared it with other religions on the basis that the non-muslims were dhimmis, second class citizens in Islamic law. They were legally and systematically discriminated against for centuries. There were pogroms and even gold stars at some stage. I mean, sure, that constitutes sharing, but I don't think that's what most people understand by the term.

The entire concept of the nation-state, which is how the world you live in is primarily organized, is founded on the idea that each nation should have its own state. I don't know what you think the word nation has traditionally meant, because it's very odd to see it separated from 'ethnic group' in this context. The nation-state is fundamentally a western concept, so how non-western people feel about it is really beside the point.

I'm not atheist, but organised official religion is not for me - to use a cliche I consider that I have a 'spiritual' aspect to my life, but it is personal to me.

My genes mean that I am in a minority in my country. It affected me a bit as a child (teasing and taunts), but it is just not an issue now.
The country is not officially secular, but most people are really not interested in formal religious practice.

I can't see why anyone could object to living in a peaceful and secular state with plural ethnicities and protected religious freedom.

As for religious holy days - just get a job where you have Fridays/Saturdays/Sundays guaranteed off.

150 police and 4 police stations. How much policing should they have done?

And I’m fucking sick of Israelis being treated and talked about in a way that would be completely unacceptable if it was any other nationality.

Imagine you live in the UK and someone kills your family because they think the government’s policies towards migrants, or disabled people, are cruel, inhumane and illegal. Would that feel logical or in any way fair to you? Of course it wouldn’t.

But that’s basically what’s happened to civilians in Israel. And to take the analogy one step further - the response to those bereaved families has been the equivalent of “yes it’s awful what happened to your family, but the Tories’ policies towards migrants has been absolutely shocking”.

It’s not really helpful to view it as religious, for the most part with the exception of a the Jerusalem issue this is an issue between two nations of people. Most states are nation states where the majority form one congruent identity, there maybe variations but it’s something they all share. For example, Americans largely share an American identity. There are African-American, Asian-Americans, Irish Americans, etc but they all buy into Americaness.

A cohesive multicultural society isn’t natural as we’ve seen it takes work, compromise, empathy and there has to be some level of buy in. I can’t speak for either of the groups of people in this conflict but I imagine a majority of Jewish Israelis will not want this because in a unified state they would be the minority and therefore, their norms would be deprioritised. Additionally, I think we should be honest and accept that these two populations are hostile to each other and the risk of violence would be high. I don’t think, for example, there would be an appetite for a restorative justice approach like SA for example.

They got fed up of trying to control the never ending incidents of violence. Much like the current situation daily multiple stone throwing, weekly stabbings etc and then the bigger stuff that happened every so often. So partly gave up trying to stop it.

This is part of the decision to pull out of the Mandate before everyone came to an agreement. They couldn't be arsed dealing with it anymore. The Jews said yes to a split and the Arabs said no. The British said for fucks sake sort it out yourselves we are off (I have adlibed a little).

I think the British favoured the Arabs in general and all signs would indicate that the Jews would lose any fight for the land once they left. The British didn't care about this, like they didn't want jewish refugees in the war. They only tooin Jews once pressured to do so. The British turned boatss of Jews around from both Britain and the Mandate originally. Sent them back to Europe to be killed by Hitler.

The point is nobody not even the UN will stop the violence. This is not a fight about land for a large percentage of Arabs. This is to do with the idea of Jews being in charge of their own land and lifes in the Middle East. Unfortunately many millions of Arabs that are Muslim find that an insult to beliefs. The Quran says Jews should have the status of a less person as far as they are concerned. Therefore no Jewish State should exsist anywhere especially in the middle East.

I think it is interesting what the ex hamas leader said when he called for Jihad on Friday. It is the more extreme what most Muslims believe of course. However the idea of Islam taking over the world one state/country at a time is what the Quran is calling for. Therefore how can Muslims and Jews live side by side as equals in peace when a percentage of the muslims they believe the should convert to Islam, leave or die.

As Israel bombed Gaza overnight on Monday, footage of Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Zahar re-emerged, with the 78-year-old co-founder of the group vowing that they envisaged controlling an area far beyond Israel.

'When we speak about the army of Jerusalem and the Battle of the Promise of the Hereafter, we are not talking about liberating our land alone,' he said in a December to MEMRI TV - a news channel from the Israeli-founded, DC-based Middle East Media Research Institute.

'We believe in what our Prophet Muhammad said: 'Allah drew the ends of the world near one another for my sake, and I have seen its eastern and western ends. The dominion of my nation would reach those ends that have been drawn near me.'

Al-Zahar said he believes ultimately the whole world will fall into line with their views.

'The entire 510 million square kilometers of Planet Earth will come under [a system] where there is no injustice, no oppression, no Zionism, no treacherous Christianity and no killings and crimes like those being committed against the Palestinians, and against the Arabs in all the Arab countries, in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and other countries,' he said.

@Trianglesandcircles1

'I can't see why anyone could object to living in a peaceful and secular state with plural ethnicities and protected religious freedom.'

If you tried listening to other people you would be able to see why. It's not hard. You're literate and you have internet access, and they're generally very happy to explain. Take a trip to Qatar and ask the locals about it until you do understand. Or there are more than 23k jihadists in England if that's where you from. They'll be happy to explain it to you in great detail. And if you want to understand ethnic nationalism there are plenty of them on twitter who'd love to educate you.

I don't see why someone who can't understand something so simple and basic is making proposals about how to solve one of the most difficult conflicts on Earth. Don't you find that odd?