NationStates

So, the original plan for the region of Palestine was to divide into two nations, Israel and Palestine with Jerusalem being sort of a go-between. But, of course, the Arab-Israeli War happened, the two-state plan fell apart and the rest is history. Since then, there have been various conflicts related to all of this; Israel not being recognized by Arab/Muslim countries, the issue of Palestinian independence, etc. My question is, would going back to the original plan end all of this? If there was a State of Palestine alongside a State of Israel, would that end all of the Israel related issues? Would those who refuse to recognize Israel do so? Would Hamas and other such organizations cease to exist? Or, would things remain the same or get worse?

Question number one
Where the fuck are we drawing the lines

Kowani wrote:Question number one
Where the fuck are we drawing the lines

I propose we give every place starting with the letters A-I to Israel, and P-Z to Palestine. J-O will be the lawless buffer zone.

A Two-State solution could arguably have been achieved already if it weren't for the Gaza Strip situation.

Both sides are too entrenched for a two-state solution to work atm. Only external pressure can force it.

It's not that we don't all know it could work. It's that there are entrenched interests on both sides that make achieving it impossible.

It that we need a one-state solution, food clothing, and shelter for the palestinian people. A two-state solution would make things worse. If we want true unity in the region the people of Palestine are going to have to become more Israeli and the people of Israel are going to have to become more Palestinian. Unity. They've got to come together.

Sundiata wrote:It that we need a one-state solution, food clothing, and shelter for the palestinian people. A two-state solution would make things worse. If we want true unity in the region the people of Palestine are going to have to become more Israeli and the people of Israel are going to have to become more Palestinian. Unity. They've got to come together.

That's not going to happen, because it flies in the face of everything the Israeli state stands for.

Absolutley not. The only possible solution for peace is a one-state solution and Israel would never accept that because Israel first and foremost is for Jews.

Intaglio wrote:So, the original plan for the region of Palestine was to divide into two nations, Israel and Palestine with Jerusalem being sort of a go-between. But, of course, the Arab-Israeli War happened, the two-state plan fell apart and the rest is history. Since then, there have been various conflicts related to all of this; Israel not being recognized by Arab/Muslim countries, the issue of Palestinian independence, etc. My question is, would going back to the original plan end all of this? If there was a State of Palestine alongside a State of Israel, would that end all of the Israel related issues? Would those who refuse to recognize Israel do so? Would Hamas and other such organizations cease to exist? Or, would things remain the same or get worse?

Nope. It will get even worse. The conflict between Israel and its neighbors is existential for Israel. Giving an inch means they will demand a mile.

Probably yes, but would open up a whole new world of thorny diplomatic questions.

For example, how is Gaza and the West Bank now going to work together after 30 years of different administrations, different policies and different experiences of Israeli strength? Where are we drawing the lines, and what possible combination would leave everyone satisfied? How much foreign policy is this new Palestinian state going to be allowed to have-especially if it is allowing troops from other Arab countries to loom over Israel? And who's going to get what in Jerusalem? And what is there to stop Israel from getting paranoid now that's perceived to have lost land?

EDIT: Of course, this isn't a call to just abandon the idea altogether (well, my own quixotic take has been pretty clear on NSG for a while but let's ignore that), but it should be recognised that just because something happens, good or bad, that isn't the end of the story. It's failure of that recognition that fuels Brexiter's calls of "we won, get over it" whenever the subject is broached in Britain- just because the vote happened doesn't mean the conversation is over. Ditto with the 2 state solution.

Sure, it solves some problems, but it isn't the end of the story. Nothing ever is. Except Death. And that just opens the door to the eternal debate on how we remember that person...

No

The only solution to the problem is one group winning totally over the other at this point.

The two-state solution would also end Israeli expansionism.

Jerusalem should be an independent city state, figure out the rest of the 99%.

considering the track record of theocracies in the middle-east I doubt anything could settle this debate.

I still want to believe that the two state solution could work. In many ways, it does seem the best option. It would be better if Egypt would be willing to take Gaza. The three state solution (with Egypt taking Gaza and Jordan taking the West Bank) also has benefits, but doesn't seem to be possible.

It's such a difficult situation and you will find difficulties with every option, but I think a one state solution is a bad idea and would be the least workable. I believe we should remain focussed on two state, and try to have Egypt take Gaza. And ideally, the even better option would be for Jordan to also take the West Bank.

It wouldn't solve everything at once. How much it would depends on how the borders are drawn, how the peace is enforced, how much of Palestine's bombed to dust infrastructure is rebuilt, what solution is found to connect the Gaza strip and the Cisjordania part, ... but there will still be bitter feelings on both side for decades, and the situation between Israel and its neighbor is also problematic (Golan's height, ...).

no, definitely wouldn't end it. I have a feeling the debate will continue to rage on even if a internationally recognized two-state solution is implemented. And plus, the two-state solution isn't really that great, given that we still have to decide who gets Gaza, Jerusalem and Golan Heights. It would be significantly better than a one-state solution tho.

Clearly a two-state solution would be for the best....

One state for the Druze, and a second state centred on Mount Gerizim for the Samaritans.

Everyone else can just be left to sort themselves out.

No but it would make things better and maybe reduce tensions. Some debates never end, they just intensify and calm down over time.

Two-state solution is the only reasonable solution.