A two-state solution will create an unacceptable security threat to Israel. An armed Arab state, presumably in the West Bank, would give Israel less than 10 miles of strategic depth at its narrowest point. Further, a Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip would do little to resolve the problem of refugees. Any situation that keeps the majority of Palestinians in refugee camps and does not offer a solution within the historical borders of Israel/Palestine is not a solution at all.
For the same reasons, the older idea of partition of the West Bank into Jewish and Arab areas, with buffer zones between them, won’t work. The Palestinian-held areas could not accommodate all of the refugees, and buffer zones symbolize exclusion and breed tension. Israelis and Palestinians have also become increasingly intertwined, economically and politically.
In absolute terms, the two movements must remain in perpetual war or a compromise must be reached. The compromise is one state for all, an “Isratine” that would allow the people in each party to feel that they live in all of the disputed land and they are not deprived of any one part of it.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Muammar Gaddafi, the leader of Libya, in his op-ed for the New York Times, calls for a one-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Surprisingly, he does makes sense but would anyone listen to a dictator? From New York Times:
Posted by I.Z. Reloaded at 2:01 PM
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 Singapore License.