Not necessarily. A one-state solution would, at least, not require anybody to pull up stakes and move.
Ha, so the Jews can become dhimmis in the demographic race? I don’t think so. A single-state solution is suicide for the Jews.
It has not proven to be so for whites in South Africa.
Or for the whites in Zimbabwe.
Oh, wait…
Mugabe II, Electric Boogaloo.
Really? You’re using that example REALLY?
Islamists want to murder all Jews. There is no comparison.
There was a country once, in a certain place, at a certain time, with certain people, and certain grudges, and a certain history, and in a certain context with certain historical, current and global factors. And something happened there. So it’s totally reasonable to assume that the same exact thing can happen in a totally different situation and time, as long as there are still some vaguely similar grudges. We don’t even need to know any specifics.
Yep.
What would it take, BG, for you to do some reading before you posted in and/or started another one of these threads, and really gotten to know the situation instead of making facile false analogies? Honestly. I know that you don’t care to learn about many subjects you like to post about, but aren’t you at least curious as to how your understand of a situation might change by actually trying to understand it by learning about all the complicated players and dynamics involved?
Or are you only going to continue to display bafflement when people point out facts like how letting a faction that has massive popular support and a long history of shooting rockets at your cities… into rocket range of all of your cities, while they’re still explicitly and avowedly genocidal and hostile to you, might just compromise your security? I mean, come on.
It’s obvious that you think you should have some sort of opinion, and be vocal about it, regarding topics about the ME. Why not learn about the situation before hand so you can post about things you know, rather than things that are just fun for you to post about?
The whites in SA were outnumbered almost 10-1 by people who clearly hated them; but on a small minority wanted to kill them. Only a minority of Palestinians are “Islamist” as you are defining the term, and Jews would remain a majority (for at least the current and next generation, no promises after that) in a united Israel-Palestine. They would have less to fear.
BY letting Hamas and their rockets even closer to Israeli cities?
Edit: beaten by FinnAgain!
The MAJORITY OF Palestinians elected a political party that has within its constitution the destruction of Israel.
This is by far one of the most ignorant arguments on the topic I’ve ever heard.
What makes these settlements and total control of East-Jerusalem so valuable they cannot be relinquished?
The point is academic until the Palestinians accept the state of Israel. That’s the problem with this argument. People act like there is a negotiation going on. The Palestinians refuse to negotiate. And yes, it is JUST the Palestinians that refuse to negotiate. In the Hamas charter is the ethnic cleansing of Israel. There is no such decree on the Jewish side, if there were, the area would be cleansed already and we’d be debating the guilt of Israel’s past actions, not what should be done about it.
Bad ignorance! Bad!
Not only is it not a small minority, the term “the lost generation” has been used to describe virtually an entire generation that is “[Palestine’s] most radical, most accepting of violence and most despairing” (This description, even in NY Times piece which pretty much totally ignores the culture of incitement to violence, suicide and genocide).
And with a massively youth heavy population, that 50+% of under-19-year-olds can only be ignored by someone who hasn’t really taken the time to learn anything about the situation.
Ignoring, of course, that much like the silly ‘logic’ that attempts to weigh casualty counts against each other to determine who was ‘in the right’, deliberating ignoring that even a small percent of a population (say, Hezbollah) can cause serious problems and loss of life if properly motivated and supplied/trained (see also: Iranian involvement) is the very definition of willful ignorance.
You might find, glutton, that once you learn the actual facts on a topic, not only are your opinions then grounded on something other than make-believe, but you may actually adopt views that are based on the facts. You might even like basing your worldview on the world.
Wars and power plays are ALWAYS fought by a minority of the population.
The NeoCons are an incredibly small minority within the Republican party and look what they have accomplished.
So they did, but for reasons much more complicated than that (the most important being, Fatah was corrupt and ineffectual and Hamas appeared able to deliver at least some social services on the ground).
I understand what you have said about the complexity, and I already knew that. It’s irrelevant. Until the Palestinians accept the existance of the state of Israel there is nothing to talk about. There are no borders to negotiate. From the world’s point of view there is no Palestinian state, and from the Palestinian point of view there is no state of Israel. You cannot discuss national borders if there are no nations to negotiate the terms.
See how that works? The situation can be as complicated as you want to pick apart the details, but there is one non-negotiable rift in any treaty, and the ball’s in the Palestinians’ court. You cannot start from the position that you do not accept the existance of the negotiating partner, particularly when you are the clearly and obviously weaker party.
Yes – but under circumstances where the fire would be coming from unambiguously foreign territory, not occupied territory for which the Israelis themselves would have any responsibility; and under circumstances where the Israelis could return rocket fire or worse, overwhelmingly and indiscriminately, without having to worry about hurting their own people on the other side of the border; and under circumstances where the primary stated casus belli for shooting the rockets at Israel in the first place would have vanished.
There might be some rocket attacks, but they wouldn’t last long.
So, let me get this straight.
currently, the Israeli’s allow the PA to oversee regions of what are known as “The Occupied Territory”.
In your theoretical, Israel gives the Palestinians their state. Within months, Hamas uses their new nation to launch terrorist rocket attacks (like they do now).
Now, instead of using economic embargo and limited military strikes (as they do now), Israel would have to declare war agaisnt a sovreign state, invade same, and occupy.
Other than making the Israeli’s even more the bad guys, how is this better?
Welcome to the SDMB Tristan, meet glutton. 
I’m curious how a statement I made about the Palestinians keeping to their own country is somehow “the final solution” with all it’s wonderful Nazi overtones. You need to read some history. Palestinians are citizens of Jordan, Jordan is the Arab state carved out of the original British Mandate. As a point of fact, Arabs currently control about 90% of what was the Mandate (which makes their “Israel is stealing our land” cries seam rather weak to me). Look at a map, read some history, sheesh!