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.


Why a One State Solution?

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 04:04 PM
I definitely understand that there are two sides to every position, and this is the downside to the one state solution policy.

But what does that reflect? Think about it for a second. What base would the Palestinians be working from if they intend to carry out this elaborate strategy against Israel? Answer: the predominant base. The policy which seeks Israels destruction would exist regardless of a 2 state of 1 state solution. Either situation has it's pros and cons.

In my opinion, the problem is less extreme with a one state solution than it would be with a Palestinian state.

Look at how people forget the past. It's an annoying human phenomenon which politicians take shrewd advantage of. Of course, immediately upon the creation of a Palestinian state, the Palestinians would try to live in peace with Israel. But would that be their long term strategy? Given the historical record, they would act slowly, methodically, allowing the years to pass (and the past forgotten) and new political realities to replace those of the old, before they embarked on the final and definitive stage of Israels elimination. Just as the political realities of Israel's creation have been decontextualized, and the perspective which reigned after the '48 war and '67 and '73 wars have been supplanted by new perspectives, so to would the context of negotiations which led to the creation of a Palestinian state be forgotten 10 or 15 years later by the conditions set by a new political reality.

The Palestinians, or rather, Arab Muslims (since it endemic to their culture) have a superiority complex: no Jews in Dar Al Islam. Sure, there are moderates who would want to live peaceably with Israel, but since these moderates exist in an immoderate, power-first society, they are quickly marginalized and neutered by the forces of Islamism. Islamism would gain power; Islamism would determine Palestinian policy. And Islamism would seek to destroy Israel, just as they've promised and stated over and over again.

Thus, Israel's building of settlements is really a long term strategy. Israel has no real interest in a 2 state solution because they can't help understanding that a two state solution would just bring Palestinians one step closer to destroying Israel. They are thus forced into the uncomfortable position of feigning and interest in a 2 state solution, while maintaining, and if a pretext arises, expanding their settlements in the west bank. Of course, Israeli political authority is in no way immutable. Sharon divested from the Gaza strip and uprooted Jewish communities, which most Israelis - especially those on the right - rightly opposed. Now, Hamas rules there; now, Hamas shoots rockets from there. Gaza provides a very clear cut microcosmic example for where a two state solution would likely lead: to the empowerment of Islamists, and new and more serious threats to the safety of Israel's population.

Good faith exists in high numbers only on one side. The Israelis have launched organizations galore for the purpose of promoting the cause of peace. But what of the Palestinians? It's dangerous for moderates to speak freely amongst Islamists about their desire to coexist with Israel.

posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 07:35 PM
Wow, you're going to get flamed.

You're right though. I agree wholeheartedly.

posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 10:56 AM

Originally posted by dontreally

Good faith exists in high numbers only on one side. The Israelis have launched organizations galore for the purpose of promoting the cause of peace.

I want to believe you so badly, but then I remember this:

Is that CNN reporting on Israeli corruption? I couldn't believe it myself.

Lima-1, out.

posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 05:14 PM
I disagree. I believe that a two-state solution can succeed. Here's how.

Say we get a Palestinian state. They get most of the West Bank and Gaza, Israel takes a slice, the refugees return to Palestian, yadda yadda yadda. We know what any treaty is going to look like.

I agree that there are significant Palestinian elements that will not rest until Israel is gone. However, once a treaty is signed and in effect, they must stop their campaign, at least for a while. And assuming Israel keeps its word, the hardliners won't have any justification that the international community will accept. If they were to launch a new campaign of terror, THEY would be the clear aggressors, and well deserving of the first-class beating Israel would give them. After all, they signed a treaty!

On top of that, there will be the distraction of establishing a proper state. Building an economy. This will take many years. And by the time they can even think about trying to take out Israel, there will be too many people invested in the new system. Too many people making money off of trade with Israel. In the end, I believe that self-interest will win out over hatred.

new topics

top topics

log in