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.

Even if so, presumably it's that you believe the split would have harmed the citizens of that country not the country itself.

How do you think a country (rather than it's citizens) can actually be harmed? Will the hills bleed if a border is put through them?

It’s not a good outcome for Scotland or the UK in my opinion but we aren’t talking about a peaceful vote to separate are we so it’s very different.

It’ll never work because…religion

Innocent people on both sides lose out because of holy ideologies, madness when you think about it.

No, you're talking about forcibly dissolving the state of Israel. Unless you think they'd vote for it.

I'm not sure anyone thinks a 2 state solution could work unless both sides agree, including a high level of agreement by citizens on both sides. Maybe or maybe not a vote, but certainly a clear agreement. Anything else would just dissolve into civil war. Again.

What do you think we're talking about with a 2 stare solution @TomeTome, if you don't think it would be with agreement from citizens on both sides?

This has to be the best approach.

Do you think it's harmful to Scotland or England as actual entities? What would that mean? Hills bleeding?

Or is it just that you think citizens of both countries will be poorer and less secure?

If Scotland had voted for independence, would you have wanted to stop the secession - preventing the autonomy preferred by Scottish people - because it's better for you if it doesn't happen, and you think you know better than Scottish people about what's better for them?

Except it isn't what anyone who actually lives there wants.

Am I? I thought I was responding to a pp saying dividing countries was harmless and not a problem.

I am from a country which split in nineties. Peacefully. No issues now, we cooperate when we want and have different positions when we want.

Our neighbours around the same time reunited two previously split parts. Peacefully. Wita lots of good will, they were one nation split by political reasons. The seam and stitches are still visible in the country.

Neither of the two cases had strong religious aspect and none of the participants hated the other one.

There isn't one coherent state of Israel and Palestine now, so we aren't talking about splitting a healthy unit. You are suggesting an artificial union of two different nations and religions thrown into one melting pot. Two nations which are currently in the deepest state of distrust. Why would you suggest that? How would that bring any peace?

I don’t think it’s harder than what is happening now. I also don’t think anyone should be claiming to know what the people who live there want given we have no way of hearing them.

it is perfectly possible for people of different religions to live in peace with each other. This appears to be a totally alien concept to many but it can’t possibly have escaped your attention that it does happen in much of the world.

Brave people are needed to find a better way, before even more people are bombed and starved to death and even more people are blighted by this horrible situation. Young men and women from both sides are being damaged beyond saving because both victim and perpetrators are being scarred. Put down your guns. Stop and look for another way.

Ok, so do you at least agree there isn't one functioning state now?

If yes, we can agree that the one child two mothers analogy is misleading (as it expects a healthy child at the beginning. If the said child was dead and cremated, giving each women half of the ashes might be a practical choice).

Noone denies it is abstractly possible for different religions to live in one state. However, it just doesn't happen automatically, and there are many cases when such attempts don't work and bloodshed continues.

Maybe try for some creativity on your side. Israel isn't going anywhere and there is no support for single state solution. What would be the next best thing?

Why does the best approach involve the dissolution of the only Jewish state on the world and Jewish people once again being a minority?

Yes and earlier you said you wanted Israel to no longer exist. And unless they vote for it that would only happen by force.

In fact I'm pretty sure it was toy who once went on a tirade about how the UN should invade and arrest the entirety of the elected government.

But you are only the majority because you have areas where all the “others” have to stay and you don’t “count” them. I think really everyone just wants Israelis to stop killing and terrorising Palestinians.

I would choose a single state because I think that is the civilised solution. I think ALL the people in a country should have equal rights and opportunities.

if a government behaves as Netanyahu’s government does and the people cannot stop the slaughter then I think other states must help restore order and stop the killing. I think the UN could be helpful but who would you suggest? Or is your suggestion just wait till the killing frenzy stops? We shouldn’t stand by and watch this however hard it is to stand up and say no.

In much the same way as Scotland would have a majority of Scottish people if Scotland seceded, and only counted people within their borders.

Israel declared independence in 1948, following the borders proposed by the UN. The Arabs didn't agree, and started a civil war to try to destroy Israel. As a result of that 1947-48 civil war and then the 1948 war when the surrounding Arab states joined in, the borders changed. Everyone within the borders at the end of the 1948 war who wanted to be part of the state of Israel became a citizen. That's why 20% of Israelis are Arab, not Jewish.

I think really everyone just wants Israelis to stop killing and terrorising Palestinians.

Likewise, all Israel wants is for terrorists to stop attacking and killing them.

Pity that neither of those things is what the terrorists want.

All the people within Israel do have equal rights and opportunities. I don't know why you keep ignoring that.

Palestinians who are not citizens of Israel don't have citizenship rights. They also don't have citizenship rights of Jordan or Egypt, since they're not Jordanian or Egyptian citizens. Despite the fact that the West Bank was part of Jordan in more recent history than the Palestinian mandate (and West Bank residents at that time had full Jordanian nationality) and likewise Gaza was part of Egypt in more recent history than the Palestinian mandate (although Egypt didn't give them citizenship).

Israel has occupied both the West Bank and Gaza and imposed border restrictions. But that was as an armed force in order to prevent terrorist attacks from those territories. It has not given residents of those territories citizenship. In the same way that the US didn't give Iraqis US citizenship despite the occupation from 2003-2011

The US was a peacekeeping force in Iraq, are you suggesting that’s what Israel is doing in Gaza?

I think most people would like to see a single state and I hope that’s what happens. I understand that PP would prefer a three state solution. None of that is going to happen until Israel stops bombing and starving and silencing the Palestinian people. How anyone can argue for this to continue is beyond me.

Are you serious??

https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/iraqi

• There have been between 280,771-315,190 Iraqi civilians killed by direct violence since the U.S. invasion.
• The actual number of civilians killed by direct and indirect war violence is unknown but likely much higher.
• Life-threatening damage to Iraqi health care and other infrastructure has not been repaired: civilians are still dying in significant numbers.

In the wider region, over 940,000 people have died in the post-9/11 wars due to direct war violence. An estimated 3.6-3.8 million people have died indirectly in post-9/11 war zones, bringing the total death toll to at least 4.5-4.7 million and counting. Over 432,000 civilians have been killed as a result of the fighting.

I don't think majority wants the single state solution. Now what?

And I am still waiting to understand whether you consider Israel and Gaza/west bank to be a single state now so the two state solution would be actually splitting something tangible.

"You?"

Jewish people have been thr majority since the foundation of Israel. It is the only country where Jewish people are the majority. Why do you have a problem with that?

Violently overthrowing a county's elected government is not civilised. Completely dissolving the state of Israel and forcing its people to become part of a state where they will become the minority without giving them a say is not civilised. I don't like Netanyahu but your little wet dream of a UN force invading and destroying the worlds only Jewish state set up in response to thousands of years of persecution is sick.

You've said that you want the UN to intervene with military force and stop Israel.

That means us, since the UN doesn't have its own army and depends on member states.

If we were consistent we would also need to commit forces to Sudan (15,000 killed in the last year, with ethnically targeted killings and atrocities, 18 million facing acute hunger, aid prevented by war, deaths from starvation), Burma (50,000 killed and 2 million displaced), Azerbaijan (the whole 100,000 Armenian population ethnically cleansed from Nagorno-Karabakh), China (1 million Uyghurs detained in education camps and many forcibly sterilised, ie genocide), Pakistan (800,000 Afghans expelled), and many others.

Or is it only Israel you want to attack and dismantle by force?

If you don't think that you are anti-semitic yourself, then at least try to think about why the things you're reading have led you to that conclusion, when it's such an inconsistent approach.