Comments on: A two-state Middle East solution hangs in the balance as Obama waits Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 By: LTCOLHOWARD Sat, 15 Dec 2012 10:52:48 +0000 FROM: Rabbi Berenbaum:(1.) We should undertake a divorce situation in which two people agree to separate, divide resources and live apart and not together. (2.) Also in a divorce, both parties have to give us something which they feel is rightfully theirs.

FROM: Rabbi Silver:I believe that the long term viability and security of Israel is immensely enhanced by the two state solution and that efforts to frustrate that development are harmful to the interests of Israel.

To move the discussion forward to the point where concrete proposals can be made , would you be willing to specify, as a 1st cut, the terms of the divorce ( and/or the terms of the “2 state solution”)that would guarantee Israel( from Israel’s viewpoint) both peace and security ?

CAN YOU COME UP WITH A CONCRETE PLAN/PROPOSAL WHICH WOULD COUNTER MY BELIEF? That as long as the Palestinians maintain the Arab League position: no negotiations; no recognition; no peace; demand that any area they takeover should be Jew-free. ; maintain that even if they get a State, the residents the camps on the West Bank,Gaza, in Jordan, Syria, etc. would not be citizens of this new state but would have the right of unlimited return to the state of Israel; and that all of Israel is unredeemed Islamic territory, THERE WILL NEVER BE PEACE

HL: This is true (both parties have to give up something). In today’s Washington Post one of the opinion writers stated that any successful deal leaves both sides somewhat unhappy. In my experience, a successful deal leaves both sides relieved. In economics, a successful deal requires that both sides get increased utility.

a. Isn’t Israel currently riding the proverbial tiger: it can’t get off without being eaten? How does Israel prevent the West Bank from being used as a base for attacks on Israel, especially if the West Bank gets its own airport and seaport and the IDF does not have a presence?

b. Isn’t the right of return the ultimate deal breaker. All factions maintain that no one, absolutely no one on the Palestinian side has the right to negotiate, bargain, compromise or in any way give up this right. The PA latest position—- that even when the Palestinian state includes the entire West Bank and Gaza and East Jerusalem—Palestinian citizenship will not be given to those currently in camps in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and even in Gaza or the West Bank– but that they and those located anywhere else in the world ( now numbering more than 5,000,000 according to PA claims) are entitled to unlimited right of return to what is now the state of Israel.

c. How does one deal with a constant reaffirmation of demands no matter what the previous agreement was ….All agreements are interim (stopping points) on their way to achieving the domination they seek. “We have the patience and we have the objective… time is on our side”.

d.The Palestinians demand a Jew -free West Bank and a Jew- free East Jerusalem . Years have passed because the PA strategy still is (as it was then): NO RECOGNITION; NO NEGOTIATION; NO PEACE.

e. The peace/nonaggression agreement with Hezbollah (supposedly supervised by the UN) has been violated on a tremendous scale; the peace treaty with Egypt is very tenuous at best; the PA never ceased their incitement as they agreed to in the Oslo Accords. In the divorce settlement has to be some enforcement mechanism such as the courts with power. When Israel pulled back from the Suez and “UN observers” were put in place they were removed immediately at the Egyptian demand prior to Egypt’s attack on Israel.

f. The Jews rejected a one state solution in 1937 onward and it was the Arabs who fought for a one state solution believing correctly so that with one state, they triumph. That is still their goal… one state from the river to the sea… Arab dominated… preferably Jew-free.

By: AZreb Wed, 12 Dec 2012 14:09:53 +0000 Reading another article in Reuters, even Turkey – once reflecting the US stance on Israel – is now reputing Israel and its policies.

And why blame Hillary Clinton for our government’s stance on Israel? She takes orders from the president.

By: EthicsIntl Wed, 12 Dec 2012 05:41:02 +0000 Looking at this mess, from any angle, it clearly shows that the creation of the ‘Israeli State’, WITH NOTHING BUT WAR & VIOLENCE, was a huge blunder.


By: My3cents Wed, 12 Dec 2012 01:57:36 +0000 The UN vote recognizing Palestine without requiring Palestine to recognize Israel has destroyed the UN’s credibility in any future Palestinian crisis, and any chance of a peaceful resolution.

By: Poalima Tue, 11 Dec 2012 02:56:39 +0000 Most of these posters, and the author, seem to be missing a very major point – Israel will never let Palestine become a state. They want all that land for their Zionist (their word, not mine) homeland.

By: trevorh Mon, 10 Dec 2012 21:42:13 +0000 It’s hard to stand on either side of this conflict.

– From the Palestinians’ point, they have been living there for generations. Now all of a sudden, they have to go. And no one will take them. Arab neighbors just want to use them to annoy Israel and cause Israel to leave.
– And the Jewish people don’t have anywhere to go either because they want a land of their own, just like other culture. The land used to belong to their ancestors, but the thing is that their ancestors left the poor desert land for Europe where there are better trade and profit opportunities. Now when they come back, they probably have more European than Semitic in their DNA.

Nevertheless, the very hardcore Jewish people can’t go back to Europe because they understandably don’t feel comfortable there. Especially after WW2. Staying in North America, they don’t feel like they have a “home”.

I think the good part of the Arab population should actually have some sympathy for the Jewish people, at the end of the day, they are more closely related to each other than they think.

So I guess let the Jewish people stay there. Have some extra land given to them since the current land mass is just way too small for them. The displaced ones can either be offered to immigrate to some benevolent and wealthy countries in the West or accepted by the Arab neighbors. And no body claims Jerusalem so the other is looked as a loser.

In the end, the Arab would benefit from a friendly Israel too. I don’t know how hurtful this is, but it looks like the Arabs are simply not smart enough. There is no way they can compete in the global economy. Yes they do have oil, but that is the Arabs far away near the Gulf. The ones surrounding Israel have next to nothing. They will need jobs created by the smart Israel.

I’m on the side with the Palestinians on emotional ground and Israel on rational ground. (but only the liberal ones of Israel, they contribute a lot. The conservative religious draft dodging welfare living stay home breeders of Israel are just as … well I would like to stay polite here)

By: rikfre Mon, 10 Dec 2012 18:07:28 +0000 Israelis & Arabs would make a very powerful economic combination. Sadly, the leaders of the Arab world just preach incredible hate toward Israel for many decades. After all, Israelis are as “Palestinians” as any Arab! Educating the Arab peoples would create the engine for a regional peace and spark incredible economic development. Meaning a living wage,food,shelter for families and not rockets and explosive suicide belts. There are many forces arrayed against this kind of scenario and they are the ones that create the madness that we have now.

By: MediocreFred Mon, 10 Dec 2012 16:06:32 +0000 The US is politically incapable of being an honest broker. The US can not credibly try to sit between Israel and Palestine at any future negotiating sessions. We are too compromised.

I suggest a role for France & Qatar as Palestinian partners, in negotiations, with the US in it’s inevitable role as representing Israel’s interests.

If Obama wants to bring peace and enforce agreements between these nations, first the US should stop using its UN security council vote to block enforcement of UN resolutions. This would be seen as harsh treatment by Israel. However, they need a bitch-slap to come to the table.
Enough phony posturing. Nobody is presently acting in a way designed to enforce a permanent solution. No solution will be forthcoming without outside enforcement.

By: tmc Mon, 10 Dec 2012 12:44:12 +0000 Strangely I agree with both Gordon2352 and CDN_Rebel. There should not be a two state solution. The borders of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and possibly Egypt should be extended, divided evenly. We, the “western” powers should never have created Israel out of our empathy. In doing so we wronged another social group, the Palestinians. I don’t particularly care for them as they have proven themselves to be just as uncivilized as those of Israel, but if we’re going to talk the talk, then we should walk the walk.

By: bob_lob_law Mon, 10 Dec 2012 09:03:38 +0000 To the obama haters; he is cold as ice towards Israel and kudos to that. We have no need to get messed up more in the middle east. Some status quo’s, like aid have been maintained to both israel and egypt. Of course that aid has a lot attached that the public will never fully understand. I get that part of it but its sad to see our monies go to help foreign governments like this.