Two state Solution - is it possible?

[onegrumpyoldwoman]

I think the situation is comparable, geographically, to the Partitioning of British India. in 1947.

To stop bloody Hindu/Muslim fighting it was proposed that the Muslims were given their own State of Pakistan. This was made up of the two most Northern states of India which were split by part of India. They were West and East Pakistan
The reason for this was that these states had the biggest Muslim population already.

So Muslims headed North to their new country and Hindus headed South into the rest of India.

So far so good, - but not for long.

Bear with me as I get to the "kicker".

West Pakistan started trying to foist it's will on East Pakistan, which East Pakistan resisted. A bloody Civil War ensued which resulted in the break away of East Pakistan that became Bangladesh. The human cost in the War of Bangladeshi Independence was 3 million dead, in 8 months 2 weeks and 6 days. It is classed as a "Genocide".

Ghandi tried to make peace between the warring parties by suggesting a land corridor was established between the two countries that went across India. Rumour has it that this what what caused his assassination in 1948 by a Hindu Nationalist.

Well done to those who have got this far.🙂

There is a similar situation in the Holy Land.
There are two pockets of Palestinian people separated by Israel.
Each are controlled by a different group (Hamas controls Gaza - and Fatah controls The West bank} They have different ideologies.

Personally I can't see how a single state for the Palestinian people is possible.

I thought maybe Gaza and the West bank could be two independent states as well. the problem is if you keep turning down peace initiatives eventually your options get smaller and smaller. Too many times various options have been turned down and Palestinians lives have got worse. But you can’t force good leadership on anyone. Palestinians as a bunch are often well educated and I believe they could really make a go of becoming independent city states.

All Israel would have to do really is withdraw completely from Gaza and the West Bank, drag the Israeli nutters in the west bank out, say “thats the border don’t cross it” and basically create a DMZ around the West bank and Gaza and say “don’t cross our borders and we won’t have any problems”. Gaza would still have ports and a border with Egypt and the West Bank has a border with Jordan. I believe Egypt used to supply electricity to Gaza when it was under their control and could do so again.

I saw Gantz’s demands and I thought it was very ambitious to think you could prevent Hamas governing Gaza, don’t see it happening and tbf if thats what Gazans want then what can you really do about that apart from a proper border. The Israelis cannot and the vast majority I imagine don’t want control over Gaza, they can try to install a moderate leadership but it won’t work. It will result in a civil war or a coup.

Jerusalem is a sticky problem though.

There are millions of Muslims around the world living perfectly peacefully and happily so I don’t know why you think Muslims tend to want to live in Islamic states as this is the only way that their religion with all its cultural restrictions and features can be practised..

Muslims tend to want to live in Islamic states as this is the only way that their religion with all its cultural restrictions and features can be practised

I'd be curious to know what the definition of an Islamic State is?

And an answer to the question of whether Islamic law and universal human rights are compatible?

A one state solution is only wanted by those who want it to be their state, or arrogant people in the west who are adamant they know what's best for people in other parts of the world. So it's not a workable solution and it's not the one that the vast majority of people who actually live there want. It's really quite foolish to keep pushing that unwanted agenda.

The problem is that both sides see Jerusalem as their holy city and both want to live there.

The reality is that plenty of Arabs and Palestinians already live very peacefully in Jerusalem and in Israel as neighbours and friends. It's been a few years since I was there but I was struck by how little this is covered in mainstream news.

If both sides were reasonable and committed to peace, this would be possible but Hamas (and its paymasters) want Jerusalem all to themselves and to eradicate every Jew from the planet. It is quite hard to form any kind of peace alliance with an opponent who will stop at nothing to ensure you're dead.

What a disgraceful example of Islamophobia, prejudice and fearmongering.

If you want to have a tolerant and respectful society, maybe start by practising tolerance and respect for diversity yourself, rather than making bigoted statements intended to stir up hate and fear.

If both sides were reasonable and committed to peace, this would be possible but Hamas (and its paymasters) want Jerusalem all to themselves

Hamas aren't in Jerusalem

Hamas aren't in Jerusalem @Dulra

Yes, but they want to be. And right now they are the governing authority for Gaza.

I think like many people I do think it is more straightforward if you separate state and church/religion. I don’t think anyone should be ruthlessly dismantling anything but if the cost of a Jewish or Christian or Muslim state is the slaughter, starvation and subjugation of others I don’t think it’s right or human to support it. Nobody should be afraid to say that.

I think there’s a warrant out for the arrest of the Israeli prime minister now, so perhaps many people feel he is not fit to govern. Who will stand in his place and what impact will it have on the behaviour of Israeli troops?

I thought that it’s obvious and that the main problem. They don’t want Israel to exist

Ahh you are right they are seeking a warrant,

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-69038760

apologies I was reading it while I responded to your post@pwrwulf

There are different versions of Islam and interpretations of what an Islamic state might mean. With Hamas in charge you will get a Taliban version ( according to Salman Rushdie)

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/salman-rushdie-says-a-free-palestine-would-be-a-taliban-like-state-5705544/amp/1

Why don't you want there to be a majority Jewish state?

Jk, I know exactly why you don't want that.

Jk?

Honestly this is a bit baffling. @jc474326 why don’t you share what you “know”? It sounds a bit ominous. Are you a fortune teller?

The point of the Biblical Solomon story about the mother who didn’t want the baby cut in two being the true mother?

That you get an organic wholeness in the long run, I think, as has happened with countries that were made of city states or mosaic countries long ago, or apartheid in South Africa. A single secular state with freedom of religion.

I think that may be too idealistic though.

It is certainly difficult to know how Palestine would have two parts though, in a Palestine/Israeli two state solution.

People like Netanyahu’s son and Ben-Givr could possibly want a civil war if there is a two state solution. As could Palestinian factions as mentioned in the OP.

It all seems so difficult to unravel.

Even under Hamas though there is a high level of literacy among Palestinian women, there are female reporters, doctors and lecturers. The Palestinians are not the same as the Taliban.

Obviously though Hamas are a huge danger if they stay in power, and they could become more Taliban like in order to try to keep control over Palestinians if they began to be more emancipated and look outwards once they were a free state in their own right.

The point of the story about the mother who didn't want the baby cut in two is that cutting a baby in two would kill it, and the true mother loved the child enough to put its well-being ahead of her own. (having half a baby isn't actually very conducive to well-being, but the story - even when applied correctly - has its limitations...)

Cutting a country in two isn't in any way comparable. A country isn't harmed by being cut in two. And a country isn't an entity that has its personal well-being which should be considered. A country exists only for its citizens. If it benefits the citizens for the country to be cut in two, then that is absolutely what should be done.

Of course, it isn't quite as simple as that, since it may benefit some citizens but not others. And the exact way in which it's cut and any other there negotiations will again benefit some citizens more than others.

Not only is none of the actual complexity in any way reflected in the story, but the main message of the story doesn't apply either. Applying that story to the 2 state solution is a pseudo-profundity.

The idea that a country isn’t harmed by being divided is incomprehensible to me. Would Israel be harmed or made better if we split it into several pieces?

Would you have had a problem with Scotland becoming separate, if the referendum had gone that way?