Two states on one piece of land? That's like saying we will have two countries: One the USA and the other the Indigenous peoples but both on the same land.
EXACTLY -like in New Mexico and Arizona
Your opinion of the State of Israel- Have your religious views affected it?
by nvrgnbk 24 Replies latest members adult
-
-
stillajwexelder
Two states on one piece of land? That's like saying we will have two countries: One the USA and the other the Indigenous peoples but both on the same land.
Or Northern Ireland (aprt of the UK) and Southern Ireland (Eire) on one piece of land Ireland. It can be done
-
stillajwexelder
Two states on one piece of land? That's like saying we will have two countries: One the USA and the other the Indigenous peoples but both on the same land.
Or Papua New Guinea and Indonesia on one piece of land - it can work
-
nvrgnbk
I vote stilla for Prez in 08!
!#%^&*$%&(<%!~% too, IP_SEC!
Know what I'm sayin'!?!?
-
Merry Magdalene
The two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an idea, and a possibility, whose time has passed, its death obscured (as was perhaps intended) by daily spectacle: the hoopla of a useless ‘road map’, the cycles of Israeli gunship assassinations and Palestinian suicide bombings, the dismal internal Palestinian power struggles, the house demolitions and death counts – all the visible expressions of a conflict which has always been over control of land.
All the while and day by day, Israeli construction crews have been crunching and grinding through the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, laying roads and erecting thousands of new housing units in well-planned communities. ‘Settlement’ suggests a few hilltop caravans defended by zealots, but what we have is a massive grid of towns penetrating deep into the West Bank and Gaza and now housing some 200,000 people (in addition to the 180,000 in the East Jerusalem city settlements, which no one believes will be abandoned). Tens of thousands of homes and apartments are served by schools, shopping malls, theatres and arts centres, connected by major highways, elaborate water and electricity supplies, dykes, walls, perimeter fences and surveillance systems. The grid is immovable both because of its massive infrastructure and because of the psychological investment of its residents. A decade ago, a concerted international effort might have arrested its growth. But it has now gone too far, and nothing stands in the way of its expansion.
Carved up by populous Jewish-Israeli settlements, neither the West Bank nor the Gaza Strip is a viable national territory. And it follows that if there can be no reversal of the settlement policy, a Palestinian state is not practicable. Judt believes, correctly, that the one-state solution, in whatever form (binational or ethnically cleansed), is now the only option. He has argued persuasively that Israel must confront its obsolete ethno-nationalism and face a post-Zionist vision for the country, however hard that might be. The alternative – the forced transfer of Palestinians out of the territory – is both unconscionable and unimaginably dangerous. Not surprisingly, Judt’s piece has drawn fire from those who see a binational Israel as a betrayal of the promise of a Jewish haven, but as Judt points out, these objections crumble under the onslaught of ‘facts on the ground’.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v25/n21/till01_.html -
wanderlustguy
Umm, yea...he took my comment.Two states on one piece of land? That's like saying we will have two countries: One the USA and the other the Indigenous peoples but both on the same land.
EXACTLY -like in New Mexico and Arizona
-
5go
There is one problem with the two states in one land. First it only works in Arizona and New Mexico because they Natives there are not native to the area we moved them to, after we killing them down to a controlable level of course.
Seeing as there is double the amount of Palestinians than Jew's in the middle east. There will be a problem with Jews maintaining control over the land of Palestine, if the Palestians were allowed to control any part of the area.
-
Satanus
For centuries, before britain went in there, jews, arabs and christians were sharing the land in a relatively peaceful way. When the british took it from the turks and turned it over to the un, there were supposed to be two partitions under un supervision. That didn't work. Jewish terrorists carried out various atrocities, which provoked a massive arab response. The arabs lost, of course. Thing is, israel never wanted to share the area then. It will never do so, now. That concentration camp style wall isn't likely to come down.
S -
stillajwexelder
Merry - but I assume you think the carve up of India as two and then three states was correct. That is to say India and Pakistan were created rather than just an independent India, Later became India, Pakistan and Bangladesh
-
owenfieldreams
No. The current nation of Israel is in no way representative of the biblical one. However, being that it is the only true democracy in the Middle East, I think the US should continue to be a staunch supporter.
Barring some unforeseen development, the US is on a collision course with Iran.