It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Two state solution - please explain

page: 1

log in


posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 09:55 AM
In my quest to expand my understanding of the Middle East, I was hoping that someone with a bit more knowledge about the whole situation could explain something to me.

The proposal is for two states, back to the 1967 armistice lines, correct?

Where I get confused is this. At the moment Israel (excluding the Palestinian territories) has about 12% Arab Muslim population. However the proposed Palestinian State (comprised of the West Bank and Gaza) is expected to be Jew free. This is the reason Palestinian Arabs are complaining so much about Jewish settlements in what they want as their land, if I understand it correctly.

Can someone explain why this is the case? Surely if Israel can have a Muslim Arab minority, why can't the Palestinian state have a Jewish minority? Why do settlements have to be such an issue?

This isn't meant to be a politically loaded question, I really am confused as to why there is two standards at work here. Hopefully someone can enlighten me.


posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 09:58 AM
I can't explain the reasons, but, I do believe a one state solution would be best. Palestinians and Israelis living together in peace. Can't see it happening though

posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 10:02 AM
reply to post by mattpryor

Well one of the big reasons that they are complaining about the settlements is that they give a 24 hour notice (if that) to the current occupants of the land, then come in with armored bulldozers, push down the Palestinian buildings, and put their own up. There is no reparation for land ownership, they say, it Israel's land and we can do it if we want.

The people creating the settlements are also not what you would call "Moderate Israelis". They are pretty hardcore. Think of them as frontiersmen from the olden days of North America. They go out, "tame" the area, and that allows for regular folks to move in without problems.

As for the 12% Arab Muslim, how many of those are Palestinian? How would the people of Israel feel if there was a group of Palestinians who came into Israel, took some land and set up shop? They wouldn't like it at all.

posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 10:26 AM
This is a normal question. Situation here is what is not normal.
Just as lots of Israeli Arabs, even those who describe them-self as Palestinians, want to stay in Israel and protest any attempts of certain Israelis to suggest population/land exchange - same is with majority of Jewish settlers. For economical, political and historical reasons.
Then there is racism in Palestinian authority. All people who bash Israel and compare it to Nazi Germany do not notice - or do not want to - what goes on in autonomy. It is punishable by death to sell land to Jew. Not Israeli - Jew. People in Palestinian security forces were involved in numerous incidents involving shooting at settler's cars and killing. What Jewish person in his right mind would like to be a citizen in state with this background?
Add to it what Rook1545 said. A lot - not majority but a lot - of settlers are pretty extreme in their views. Concerning Palestinians, greater Israel, Jordan and Middle East in general. Even if Palestinian authority would treat Jews with silk gloves (and they will not) - some Jews would constantly push it to more violent measures and then conflict between Palestine and Israel would again be ignited.
And of course there is usual "who gets more land". Every side tries to pull the blanket on its side and land is not being made anymore, to rephrase someone.

posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 10:46 AM
reply to post by Rook1545

I don't really understand the distinction between Israeli Arab Muslims and Palestinians. The only difference as I understand it is that Palestinians are the Arab Muslims that lived in West Bank / Gaza prior to the 1967 war, whereas the 12% I'm referring to lived in Israel before and after 1967.

I guess part of the problem is defining who is a "settler". A lot of Mulsims, from what I've read, consider anyone that lives in Israel to be a settler, it seems to be one of those words that gets used in slogans, like "occupier" and "Zionist". Doesn't do much to clarify the situation for the rest of us.

Then you have the Jewish religious settler movement, who seem to want to build in disputed land just to p*ss the Palestinian Authority off, and the Israeli government doesn't seem to take kindly to this either (I read the other day about the IDF describing "pro-settler" soldiers as traitors) - confusing!

With regards to the bulldozers - they knock down a lot of Jewish homes too, don't they?

posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 11:09 AM
Its all about defining how far colonization can push on both sides. Imagine the united states having kept borders defined for the native americans. It would have helped, hypothetically, solve expansionary desputes in a legal fashion, rather than the current method of whose guns are bigger.

posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 11:14 AM
reply to post by mattpryor

You're right about Israeli Arabs they are simply Arabs who reside in Israel's borders. They are an interesting and unique component to all of this because they often support Palestine but want the benefits of being in Israel.
To answer your initial question about the double standard, I'd say these Israeli Arabs were there first whereas Jews who would move to a Palestinian state would be migrants.
I personally believe a 2state solution would be good but getting back to 67 borders would be almost impossible. The Palestinians would have to compromise to strike a deal. Then again I'd like to see the Jewish state of Israel disbanded altogether and the creation of a non-ethnic, non-racial, non-religious state predicated on pluralism and tolerance created but Zionism would have to be greatly weakened for this.

posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 12:14 PM
reply to post by Moonsouljah

Then again I'd like to see the Jewish state of Israel disbanded altogether and the creation of a non-ethnic, non-racial, non-religious state predicated on pluralism and tolerance created but Zionism would have to be greatly weakened for this.

Hmmm - isn't this what Israel was meant to be in the first place, until the invasion by Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Iraq and the problems that ensued?

posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 12:47 PM
The plo and the arab refugees living in the squalor along the border of Israel have done nothing remotely worth giving them a country. In point of fact they seem to have gone out of their way to do everything they can to show that they are undeserving of attaining that status. For that matter at one time Israel offered the plo leader y. araffat the west bank, gaza, control of the majority of the holy sites and half of Jer. as a peace offer. He rejected it!!!!!...

The so called Pals do not deserve a country,or for that matter to even be reconized as a seperate people. They are Arabs that have been kicked out of Jordan, Iraq, syria and other mid east countries because they were not wanted. the above named countries use them as a terrorist arm and lever to push their anti Israeli sentiments.
As far as I am concerned Israel should flatten the place, send the pals packing to where they came from and then spend the next couple of years making of the area what they have done in Israel proper. A vibrant, growing area populated by hard working people rather than the middle east scum who's only goal in life is to destroy Israel and let the rest of the world feed them.

posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 10:17 PM
So they (Palestinians) are asking for forced segregation? Hmmm...sounds peaceful. Wow folks have to keep learning and learning and learning again.

top topics


log in