How Palestinian youth would solve the conflict with Israel

[ProudLib72]

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/palestinian-youth-solve-conflict-israel-180513082211016.html

On the 70th commemoration of the Nakba, Al Jazeera spoke to young Palestinians, asking them what they think the solution is to what has been dubbed the world's most intractable conflict.


Marah Maghamsi, 21, family expelled from the village of Mjadel, now living in Nazareth
The solution to this conflict is to get rid of colonialism and establish one state. We want a state for all its citizens. A state that can guarantee the return of the refugees. A state that can preserve our culture, history and Canaanite civilisation, that respects the suffering we underwent as a people from Ottoman, to British, to Israeli colonialism.

snip...

Adam Hamayel, 28, from Ramallah in the occupied West Bank
I think there can be some kind of coexistence between the two sides based on laws and rights. There should be red lines that can't be crossed. I think this would benefit both Palestinians and Israelis, so there can be some kind of stability in the region, individuals can have their rights and live their lives far from difficulties, and we can overcome the obstacles of violence and lack of stability and the bad economic situation.

snip...

Ezz Odeh, 19, from Nazareth
I personally believe we can all live together in one state. The refugees must return to their homes, as per all human rights conventions. We must learn from the experiences of other countries, such as the South African experience. We must also have a measure of human rights and raise popular pressure to really create this one state.

I'm not reading anything about violent means to end the Jewish state. Protest, yes. Intifada, no. These people have a very good understanding of the situation, much better than a certain orange tinged person I can't mention.

[Mosby]

1. they want Israel gone.

How is that OK? Jews have a right to live in their ancestral homeland.

They state that Israel is a "colonial project" because they are purposly ignoring the millions of that used to live in Arab countries until they were kicked out when Israel can into existence.

Not only do these young people not have a good understanding of the conflict, they have basically been brainwashed with revisionist history.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. They are also ignoring the fact there has been a Jewish presence in that land for 4,000 years.

Both sides have compelling narratives. The problem is the narratives are mutually exclusive. I still hold out hope for a two state solution with land swaps, a limited right of return for Palestinian refugees, and security guarantees.

There are those on both sides who make peace impossible. Maybe it's a pipe dream but I can dream there are people of good will on both sides who want a two state solution.

[still_one]

7. If there is going to be peace the only way it will happen is with a two-state solution

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. There is a little bit of truth in both narratives. That's what makes it so hard to reconcile.

When Bill Clinton was trying to broker a Middle East peace he tried to disabuse Yasir Arafat of the belief that Jews didn't have a historical presence in that land by pointing to archaeological digs that prove they did. Arafat would have none of it.

OTOH, there are Israelis who deny the Palestinians have had a presence there too.

It's just sad.

As I said in another thread i use to believe folks could work out their differences to give a little to get a little. In the era of Trump I don't know. I don't believe I could find common ground with a rabid Trump supporter on anything.

[ProudLib72]

13. As long as Jews were a minority and lived under dhimmi rules

they were tolerated. The Ottomans were absentee landlords, and the quality of government (heck the quality of life period) was not so great in Palestine, so there were only a very few (maybe 1,000) Jewish families. Toward the end of the Ottoman empire, things picked up, but it wasn't really until British occupation that things really changed. The Balfour Declaration made it clear what was going to happen after WWII ended.

You know, when I was in Israel years ago, I thought about crossing over the border to Jordan. A visa for people from most countries was only 10 or 20 Shekels. For Americans, it was 50 Shekels. For Brits it was 100 Shekels. Whom do you suppose the Jordanians blame the most for Israel?

Anyway, all that is over and done with. I agree that the two state solution is the only viable solution.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. The whole idea of dhimmi status is really for lack of a better word offensive.

If I were a Jew or Christian in a predominately Muslim nation I would want to be seen as a fully emancipated person with agency and not be merely tolerated, just as if I was a Muslim in a predominately Jewish or Christian nation.

[ProudLib72]

19. Oh it is offensive!

It's basically that, as a Jew, you are a second class citizen without all the rights afforded to Muslims. My point is that the real trouble began with European Jewish Zionists settling in the Holy Land in the late 19th century through the British occupation. That is when you started to hear about "pushing the Jews into the sea". It was a combination of losing perceived sovereignty (since they had been part of the Ottoman empire), becoming a minority religion, and offense at European foreigners dictating their cultural norms. You should read some of the early Zionist literature. According to it, either the land is completely vacant, or the few native inhabitants are so backwards that they will gladly welcome the modern enlightenment of European settlers.

It is down to bad faith on both sides. I think Adam Hamayel is the most pragmatic of the interviewees. Since there is bad faith on both sides, the only way to deal with it is have two states. Maybe after there is parity of a sort, real negotiations can begin.

[meow2u3]

43. I think the best way to solve this conflict is with a THREE- --make that a FOUR-- -state solution

Israel, with Tel Aviv as its capital; Palestine, with Ramallah as its capital; Gaza as its own nation; and Jerusalem as its own nation.

[Sophia4]

4. I am not Jewish, but I know many Jews who were basically kicked out of their countries

Morocco, Iran, etc.

I began meeting them in the mid-1960s when I was in France as a student. Here in Los Angeles there are lots of refugees -- Palestinians but also Jewish people from countries that are hostile to them.

And on top of that, after WWII (as well as before and for the lucky during WWII), there are so many Jewish people who escaped from Europe due to anti-semitism there before and during and after WWII.

We need a strong international agreement to institute religious freedom everywhere, in every country. And it needs to be enforced.

My family's ancestry is very Protestant with some Catholicism. We are here in the US because of the terrible repression due to religion that occurred in Europe during the Wars of Religion as well as the oppression by Cromwell.

The problem with unifying Israel and Palestine is that Palestinians would then be in the majority (as were the Catholics in France and many parts of Europe and the Protestants in other parts of Europe when the wars were between Protestants and Catholics) and would oppress the Jewish minority. This happened all over Europe for a long, long time but between Protestants and Catholics.

First Palestinians and Jewish people have to learn to live in peace and respect each other's religions and ways of live, and then maybe unification will be realistic.

Until then, they need to try to communicate peacefully and learn to help each other and live together.

But placing the US embassy in Jerusalem can only provoke more violence, hate, anger and feelings of martyrdom. It's just not the way to bring peace.

[Yupster]

50. Enforcing religious freedom in every country

Yeah -- you can be the general in charge of enforcing religious freedom in Pakistan. I'll be right behind you, but don't wait for me.

[Sophia4]

55. If it can't be enforced in Pakistan, it shouldn't be enforced in any other country including

Israel.

[oberliner]

56. Why does it matter if the embassy is in Tel Aviv or W Jerusalem?

[Sophia4]

57. It matters because the original UN mandate, to my understanding, provided that

Jerusalem was to be governed not by Israel but by a sort of commission that recognized the religious significance of Jerusalem to at least three major religions.

It was not intended to be part of Israel when it came to government.

I could be wrong about this, but that has always been my understanding.

Do you have information that conflicts with this idea that I have always thought accurate?

How many lives is a US embassy in Jerusalem worth? How important is it?

[oberliner]

59. The embassy is nowhere near the Old City where all the important religious sites are

As you say, why is it worth risking one's life to protest whether the US embassy is in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem?

[Fozzledick]

2. How many Jews are left alive in Gaza?

THAT is what this "one state" final solution would look like.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. There are people on both sides who aren't interested in peace.

Israelis and Palestinians should have the right to live in their own states with dignity and free from fear. I don't believe Trump cares a whit about Israel and the Jewish people. He only cares how his relationship with Israel is perceived by his base.

[Fozzledick]

23. They include anyone advocating a "one state solution" to destroy Israel.

[Blue_true]

20. Aren't there Jewish settlements in Gaza?

I believe a two state solution is best, but the country will need to be partitioned differently than it is now and Jerusalem will need to be made an international city under rule by an international body, not ruled Israel or Palestine, nor shared rule by either (maybe shared rule). And more land will need to be bought from either Jordan or Eqypt, or both and divided between Israel and Palestine.

[Fozzledick]

25. No, Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in 2005.

The Palestinians responded with a new wave of terrorist attacks launched from the territory that the Israelis vacated. That's the reason for the defensive blockade that Hamas is trying to penetrate, and the cancellation of Israel's plans to withdraw from the West Bank once Gaza was stabilized.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

26. "Aren't there Jewish settlements in Gaza? "

No, they were all removed. They were untenable

[Blue_true]

30. Ok. Thanks.

I really think the two state solution is best, but the status of Jerusalem in such a setup is going to be a big sticking point. Plus, Israel has major commercial and business interests in the south of Israel in Eilat, that city is majorly separated from the northern most parts of the country. Land can be purchased from Jordan (mostly sparsely populated northern Jordanian plains) and some of the Sinai can be purchased from Eqypt. Both purchases may cause issues with the nomadic people that occasionally live in both areas.

[still_one]

6. This is a not so subtle way to say they want to eliminate Israel, and the assessment about "not

reading anything about a violent means to end the Jewish state", is either naivete or lack of understanding of the history of the middle east.

The ONLY way there will be an agreement to peace between Israel and the Palestinians is through a two state solution.

The high population numbers of Palestinians would mean the destruction of Israel, and trying to coat it as everyone would live in harmony with one state, is code for "without the Jews"

It is not a coincidence before 1967 that Jews were NOT allowed access to the holy sites in Jerusalem, and it was only after the 1967 war where various Arab states tried to "push the Jews into the sea", that the Israel took control of Jerusalem, and allow access to the holy sites for religions.

It is so convenient for people to forget that when the Arab Legion controlled Jerusalem, the Jewish Quarter of the Old City was destroyed and its residents expelled. The Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives, where Jews had been burying their dead for over 2500 years were ransacked, and graves desecrated

If peace is going to be acheived it will be through a two-state solution, or none at all

[FBaggins]

9. You don't see anything "about violent means to end the Jewish state"...

... but you DO see (or at least should) and end to the Jewish state and replacing it with a Palestinian state (at least for the two out of three that make any cognizable policy statements).

I can't think of a way that that happens without violence.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. I can't think of a way that that happens without violence and creating another diaspora.

[ProudLib72]

11. Maybe in the younger ones

The older ones seem to be speaking about the two state solution. If you read the one in the middle, Adam Hamayel, he's talking about strict legal lines that cannot be crossed.

The last time I was in the West Bank was in the late 90s. It was not a pretty scene. I can't imagine that, twenty years later, it has become any less depressed. The younger kids in the interview want access to "the other side". I mean, of course they do; who wouldn't? The older interviewees are more pragmatic.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. The one state solution is a non starter. I wouldn't even want to share a parcel of land with...

I wouldn't even want to share a parcel of land with rabid Trump supporters and live under their laws.

[sarisataka]

14. It seems Palestinian youth would end the conflict

By getting rid of the Jews.

True none said anything about violent means to end the Jewish state but it is clear in all cases the end of the Jewish state is a goal. I didn't see where anyone ruled out violence as a means to this end

Only one, perhaps two consider that there could be coexistence in the same land but under Palestinian rule. It is extremely naive to believe the new government would simply let bygones be bygones and treat everyone equally.

Several of the youth are quite explicit that their belief is these "foreigners" should go back where they came from.

[oberliner]

15. "I'm not reading anything about violent means to end the Jewish state."

One of the persons quoted literally says that the Jews should be sent to Germany.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. Abu Mazen did his PHD thesis on Holocaust denial.

[ProudLib72]

21. You're being disingenuous again

Here is the quote you are referring to so that everyone can see what was actually said. And, yes, I agree that this is an extreme position. This is kind of the tRump take on "illegal immigrants".

Ending the occupation as a system is the first step towards a solution, and after that, we can decide whether we as a Palestinian people will accept the presence of foreigners living with us in the same country, or if they should return to their countries and call for their right of return.

Most of them come from Germany and other European countries.

[oberliner]

22. No, I'm not

And it's not an extreme position. It's a commonly held position.

What exactly do you think the quote you cited is saying?

It seems pretty clearly to say that Israeli Jews should leave their homes in Israel and go to Germany and other European countries.

Do you have a different interpretation?

[ProudLib72]

35. "One of the persons quoted literally says that the Jews should be sent to Germany."

Your quote versus:

"Ending the occupation as a system is the first step towards a solution, and after that, we can decide whether we as a Palestinian people will accept the presence of foreigners living with us in the same country, or if they should return to their countries and call for their right of return."

"Should be" versus "decide if they should return to their countries and call for their right of return".

So West Bank settlers who have broken with the UN resolution (and the Road Map), should be sent away from the West Bank. She said nothing about Israeli Jews. This is all about settlers.

[MaybeYourCousin]

48. Your charitable interpretation is wrong

Ms. Shoman was not talking about having Jewish settlers vacate the occupied West Bank and return to Israel. She was talking about having the Jews ( "foreigners" ) vacate all of Palestine, including Jerusalem, Haifa, Jaffa, and Beer Sheva, and go back to where they came from ( "Germany and other European countries" ).

Americans usually misunderstand the word "occupation" as it is used by Palestinian Arabs like Ms. Shoman. "Occupation" means more than the Israeli military administration and gradual settlement of the West Bank and Gaza which followed the 1967 war; occupation began with the "Nakba", the establishment of the Jewish state of Israel in 1948. To Palestinian Arabs, all of Palestine "from the river to the sea" is currently under Israeli occupation.

How do we know this is really what they mean? Listen to the words of other Palestinian youth quoted in the very same article. Mr. Dkeidik is quoted as saying, "The 70 years since the Nakba have been 70 years of the Israeli occupation trying to erase our identity every day." Mr. Hamayel is quoted as saying, "But since the occupation has been here for 70 years, and we are forced to live in this situation - ". Those 70 years put us to 1948, not 1967, when there were no Israelis in the West Bank or Gaza, when the West Bank was controlled by Jordan and Gaza was controlled by Egypt.

Do you think they may be mixing up their numbers - 70 for 50, or their dates - 1948 for 1967? It seems unlikely to me. This is the very core of the Palestinian Arab historical narrative: Nakba (catastrophe) in 1948, Naksa (setback) in 1967. The Nakba and Naksa are ingrained within the Palestinian Arab identity. Furthermore, I defy you to find any recent quotes (with full context) by Palestinian Arabs that refer to 1967 as the beginning of "the occupation" not qualified by "West Bank" and/or "Gaza".

This is why the Palestine-Israel conflict is such an intractable problem. Palestinian Arabs view Israel as illegitimate, a state founded by foreign colonialists on land that should rightly belong only to its Arab natives. In their eyes, there can be no just solution that perpetuates a Jewish state on any part of historic Palestine.

[ProudLib72]

49. Sorry but you are dead wrong

I tried to find something, anything that would support your view, but there is nothing.

"Occupation" refers to the West Bank and Gaza. I'll provide three articles. One is from AlJazeera, the Arab point of view. One is from Amnesty International. One is from Vox. That's three points of view.

"Everyone has a right to live in his home and no one may uproot him."

These were the words of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at a Knesset event this week marking 50 years of Israel's military occupation of the Palestinian territories in which he vowed to strengthen Israel's "settlement enterprise". https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2017/06/cloneoffifty-years-israeli-occupation-1706080912-170608180555863.html

The Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory (the West Bank including East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip) is in its fifth decade and the undercurrent of violence and inherent abuses of fundamental human rights and disregard for international law inherent in any long-standing military occupation is presented by both sides. Both Israeli and Palestinian civilians continue to bear the brunt of the violence in the region. https://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/israel-and-occupied-palestinian-territories/

Settlements are communities of Jews that have been moving to the West Bank since it came under Israeli occupation in 1967. Some of the settlers move there for religious reasons, some because they want to claim the West Bank territory as Israeli land, and some because the housing there tends to be cheap and subsidized. Settlements are generally considered to be a major impediment to peace. https://www.vox.com/cards/israel-palestine/settlements

[MaybeYourCousin]

53. Occupation as commonly understood by Palestinian Arabs

Yes you "tried to find something", and in 14 minutes you concluded, with supporting links and quotes, that "there is nothing". Wow! You work awfully fast, don't you? I suggest you reread my posting (#48) and try again. Get some sleep if you need to. I'm not in such a big hurry.

Your first link goes to an article in Al Jazeera by Philip Luther. Okay. Philip Luther, according to the article, is Amnesty International's Directory for the Middle East and North Africa. Is he a Palestinian Arab? I have no idea. Do you? In any case, he was writing as a representative of Amnesty International, which despite frequent advocacy of the Palestinians, can hardly be considered a Palestinian or Arab organization. [By the way, I have been donating regularly to Amnesty for some 30 years, and I am convinced they do tremendous good throughout the world.] Furthermore, Luther was commenting on the words of PM Netanyahu at an event marking the 50th anniversary of the Israeli military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. This is a qualification on the word occupation which makes it specific to the West Bank and Gaza. He also used the term "Palestinian territories", which along with "Occupied Palestinian Territories", or "OPT", usually refer to the West Bank and Gaza, even when used by Palestinian Arabs. "OPT" seems to come from diplomatic language, perhaps from UN resolutions. This is another qualification. Yes, the perspective of Al Jazeera is Arab, but only generally so; it is not an exclusively Palestinian outlet. At the bottom of the article Al Jazeera disclaims that the views expressed reflect their editorial policy. Find me the unfiltered words of Palestinian Arabs, in context, in which "occupation" is not qualified.

Your second link goes to an article on the Amnesty website in which the term occupation is explicitly qualified to mean the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem, all territories captured by Israel in 1967. Also, these are not the words of Palestinian Arabs.

Your third link goes to an article on vox.com by Zack Beauchamp which discusses the Israeli settlement movement which began on the West Bank following its occupation by Israel in 1967. He is clearly talking about the West Bank. From what I gather, Beauchamp is an American, and his writings do not express a specifically Palestinian Arab perspective.

Your absolute claim that "there is nothing" can be refuted with a single example. So here is one, a recent article by Palestinian-American columnist and senior writer for the Arab Daily News Ray Hanania, introduced by the words, "As the occupation of Palestine approaches 70 years this week":

https://thearabdailynews.com/2018/04/27/israeli-american-actress-natalie-portman-defines-the-moderate-voice/

I am not sure whether those words come directly from Hanania or from the paper's editorial staff, but my point still stands. By the way, Hanania's position seems to be quite moderate in general. According to the following web pages he was born in Chicago to Palestinian Christian parents, and has a Jewish wife and son!

https://thearabdailynews.com/our-writers/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Hanania

I am sure one can find many more examples in the Palestinian Arab press, especially if you read Arabic, which I do not, unfortunately.

[ProudLib72]

54. I believe you are getting two terms confused

Last edited Wed May 16, 2018, 12:10 PM - Edit history (1)

Nakba: "Catastrophe" referring to 1948 and the subsequent military occupation of Israel under which Arabs were expelled from their homes.

"Occupation" (in the current usage): continued military presence in West Bank and Gaza, illegal settlements in those two areas.

I do not care to debate what usage the woman in the OP meant. I stand by my original determination of her usage based on her age and location (Gaza). However, you have the right to your interpretation, so read her quote as you will.

[MaybeYourCousin]

61. Definitions

Your definitions of "Nakba" and "occupation" are roughly correct, but need to be clarified. A definition of "Nakba" that pretty much everyone would agree on is:

Nakba: "Catastrophe" referring to the events of 1948 and the catastrophic effects of those events on Palestinian Arabs.

In my definition of Nakba, I deliberately avoid pointing fingers or assigning blame to one side or another. Frankly, I feel there is plenty of blame to go around, to the Israeli Jews, to the British, to the neighboring Arab states, to the United Nations, and, yes, to the Palestinian Arabs themselves. The question of blame for the Nakba is an interesting one, but outside the scope of this discussion. Nevertheless, the word "Nakba" is an apt term for the results of 1948 on the Palestinian Arab populace, marking the beginning of a massive refugee problem that has persisted, and even grown, to this very day.

I find your use of the phrase "subsequent military occupation of Israel" in your definition to be quite curious. It seems to be open ended in time, as a persistent or continuing condition. It seems to unfairly impugn the legitimacy of Israel's founding. Perhaps I read too much into your words. Historically, Israel established and secured provisional borders in 1949 through armistice (ceasefire) agreements with several bordering Arab states. Jordan ended the 1948-49 war holding control of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, while Egypt held control of Gaza. No Palestinian Arab state was established at that time or in the decades that followed. That status quo held, more or less, until 1967.

I largely agree with your definition of "Occupation" (with a capital "O" ), with the caveat that it reflects the current usage of most Americans and Israelis. As I have discussed at length in my previous posts, I do not believe Palestinian Arabs generally adhere to this definition at all; in their usage "Occupation" refers to Israeli political or military control over any part of historic Palestine, from the Nakba (1948) on.

As far as the words of the Gazan woman in the article, Ms. Shoman, I think I have given ample evidence for my interpretation. It saddens me greatly that so many young Palestinians continue to cling to the fantasy that they can remove Israel from the map. It saddens me just a tiny bit more that I haven't convinced you to reassess your interpretation of Ms. Shoman's words (which I believe represent the views of many of her peers), but I am hopeful that many others will read this dialog and learn something.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. "Most of them come from Germany and other European countries."

Are they aware that a lot of Jews in Israel and their progeny are from Arab nations that they were kicked out of or all but kicked out after Israel declared its independence in 1948 ?

[Crunchy Frog]

18. The party line is "One state equals the elimination of Israel"

By the people who have made anything other than a single state pretty much impossible at this point.

I think the kids in the post are right.

[oberliner]

29. Send the Jews back to Germany?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

31. I know that's a rhetorical question.

But the lion's share of Israel's citizens were born there.

[oberliner]

32. That's not even remotely close to being true

Why would you think this?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

33. That the lion's share of Israel's citizens were born there (Israel) ?

[ProudLib72]

36. Sabras, call them sabras

[DemocratSinceBirth]

38. Yeah. I know a lot of second, third, and fourth generation Israelis.

Most of them I have met here.

[ProudLib72]

39. Have you read AB Yehoshua's Mr Mani?

He's fifth generation Jerusalemite. His novel Mr. Mani uses several generations of "Mr. Manis" to describe the situation in Palestine/Israel. I vividly recall one scene during British occupation in which a Mr Mani is on a soap box with a map lecturing Palestinian Arabs about getting their own country before it's too late. The Arabs don't listen to him.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

40. There are many on both sides who won't acknowledge the other's humanity, identity, and yearnings.

[oberliner]

44. Misunderstood the post

Thought you were saying "there" as in Germany.

[Crunchy Frog]

45. I won't even dignify that with an answer,

but you feel free to put all the words in my mouth that you want.

If the Israelis themselves didn't want a single state, then why have they worked so hard to make any other options practically impossible?

Don't answer. Just rhetorical. I don't wish to engage with you on this.

[oberliner]

46. You wrote: "I think the kids in the post are right."

One of those kids wrote this:

Ending the occupation as a system is the first step towards a solution, and after that, we can decide whether we as a Palestinian people will accept the presence of foreigners living with us in the same country, or if they should return to their countries and call for their right of return.

Most of them come from Germany and other European countries.

Do you agree with that sentiment?

Please answer: Not rhetorical. I hope you will engage with me on this.

[Crunchy Frog]

47. I'm not in favor of deportation.

One state with equal citizenship rights for everyone.

And I think your question to me was a disingenuous little "gotcha" game, which is why I prefer not to engage.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

51. A one state solution is not tenable.

And would only end in civil war and/or genocide. Demographics is destiny and Israeli Jews would quickly be outnumbered in actual population and government representation in this hypothetical single state. What do you think happens then? No amount of laws or constitutional guarantees would prevent the Arab majority from running roughshod over the Jewish minority in such a scenario.

[hack89]

58. Do you think Hamas would support a secular state?

don't see that happening.

[guillaumeb]

27. One state where all are equal citizens?

The only real solution. The current situation has the Palestinians living in the equivalent of the bantustans of South Africa. The Palestinians are surrounded by fences and walls, and forbidden to travel on certain roads that travel through their own lands.

And the US has always enabled that situation.

[ProudLib72]

37. Finally!

But a two state solution is the best deal. There is way too much bad blood between the two parties to trust that they could live together in a single state. The younger kids think a single state would be great because they see the opportunities on the other side. The older people understand that separation is best for now.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

41. In an ideal two state solution there could be economic cooperation between the two nations.

[ProudLib72]

42. Yes, this is what I have thought all along

A Palestinian state would need a LOT of infrastructure development. That is something Israel could help with as a sign of good faith. There is so much in terms of technology (specifically agricultural technology) that they could share.

[guillaumeb]

62. That could be a solution,

but how the land is divided, and Israel's withdrawal to the pre-1967 borders would be essential.

[leftynyc]

64. That would put Jewish holy sites

back in the hands of those who forbid Jews from praying there. Absolutely not. Never going to happen. Forget it.

[guillaumeb]

65. Then eternal violence is the only probable result. eom

[sabbat hunter]

28. They all want

Israel destroyed.

[kwassa]

34. as we fight the conflict here on DU ....

[NCTraveler]

52. Pretty horrifying.

This will continue for at least another generation. The youth of both countries are taught propaganda and the horrors of their own. The cycle is being fed.

[Devil Child]

60. There must be no "one-state solution" for Israel

A one state solution is the no more than a "final solution" and a call for destruction of the Israeli state.

[oberliner]

63. What do you see as a potential solution?