Two State Solution or Something Else

r While I do believe in a two state solution as the most practical way of resolving the conflict, there have been many people in the past who supported the idea of a single, bi-national state. These included Judah Magnes, founder and first president of the Hebrew University, and philosopher Martin Buber. Even in the right of Israeli politics, such views were advocated in some form or other by Zeev Jabotinsky, founder of Revisionist Zionism, whose leading disciple was Menachem Begin. Jabotinsky called for a presidential system with a Jewish president and an Arab Vice President. More recently, one of the most outspoken advocates of a solution like that is Rabbi Menachem Fruman of the West Bank settlement of Tekoa. He has been negotiating privately with Hamas leaders for a single state with both communities maintaining their cultural/religious independence, but sharing such things as infrastructure and land rights. Okay, he is exceptional. He also participates regularly in Sufi zikrs, but he is quite a remarkable figure. See for instance http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryOKlTPvE4I

So I wonder, is the two state solution an ideal solution or could it lead to something else that transcends national differences?

Tags: Judah Magnes, Martin Buber, Menachem Fruman, One-state solution, Two state solution

Views: 5

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Against All Fanatics on August 18, 2010 at 11:45am
As an atheist and a staunch liberal, my preferred solution would be a single state where religion and ethnicity play no more than a very minor role. In today's reality however, I can't see that happening. There is too much mistrust on both sides, to put it mildly. Basically I agree with you that a two-state solution is "the most practical way of resolving the conflict". Perhaps this could be stepping stone for a more ideal long-term solution.
Permalink Reply by Sufian Ahmad on August 19, 2010 at 1:28am
I actually like a one state solution more, anyhow, two state or one, I think the point is in social change, if we create two enemy states that wouldn't be helpful at all. A one state solution compels the need for that kind of change while a two state solution is like profen pills, it makes people think that they can live aside fomr the "other". I guess a two state solution also could be a start...
Permalink Reply by Rob van Senten on August 19, 2010 at 2:36am
As long as the cultural differences and animosity between the people that currently form the state of Israel remain as they are now a single state is simply not a solution. I too think that a two state solution would be a good start although I do not see it as the best solution possible you'll have to start somewhere.
Permalink Reply by Jaume on August 19, 2010 at 3:32am
Something else that transcends national differences? I'd like to see that, but I believe it's a pipe dream. I don't think there was more resentment between Czechs and Slovaks than there is between Israelis and Palestinians, and they decided to part ways nonetheless. See what's happening in Belgium now. Or in Spain, where there are strong Catalan and Basque independentist movements. Even Switzerland is not immune to centrifugal forces. And keep in mind these four examples are peaceful, 'civilized' countries.

And while we're at it, see what happened to Pakistan. I wouldn't be surprised at all if a two state solution, with a fragmented Palestinian state, evolves into a three state reality. People are way more easily divided than united. That's part of human nature.
Permalink Reply by Sufian Ahmad on August 19, 2010 at 3:54am
Thats why i'm not so sure about the two state solution, its a lot like when kids fight together and the mom comes and makes them stay in two different room, we have to get over war before spreading parts. Any solution would only work if the root is solved, one or two states, social change is more important.

RSS

© 2013   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service