Three-state solution?

Post Reply New Topic

Anyone support this?

Under this plan:

Israel would continue to exist.
The Arab parts of Judea and Samaria would become part of Jordan, and the Jordanians would be handed back some - but not all - of what they had conquered in 1948.
All of Gaza would become part of Egypt.

What does everyone think? I think it's the solution that is staring us in the face, but no-one is serious enough about letting it happen.

Jordan is already the Palestinian state, in essence, as most of its population is Palestinian and the culture of Arab parts of the West Bank and Palestinian Jordanians is largely identical.
Gaza would unite with Egypt, which they also have a lot more in common with.

It can defuse and detoxify the lethal anti-Israel nature of the Palestinian 'national cause', and it would allow their people to be looked after, probably in worse conditions (but they don't seem to care about that) by their Arab brethren. Also, the two Arab countries are a little bit less quick to murderous terrorist attacks than the Palestinians.

What do we think?

I think that if the entire region were converted to a slab of glowing slag, it would be for the betterment of human civilization.

But since that may not happen in my lifetime, I support the Three-State Solution.

I don't think it's a terrible idea since it would lessen the isolation of those in Palestinian territories and improve their quality of life most likely but it wouldn't solve the militancy problem. I doubt Israel would give sovereignty to a 3rd party country, it doesn't benefit them and could turn a small conflict into a larger regional one. Right now if some jihadis are shooting off missiles Israel can respond militarily, what happens when Gaza is now under the control of Mursi's Egypt? Giving the Palestinian territories would probably destabilize both Egypt and Jordan, I doubt they would want to take on this burden.

Any peace deal can only work if all participants in any deal want peace (i.e. to cease all violence and jihad). The Islamic definition of 'peace' might be the problem here, rather than anything that Israel has ever done.

A two-state solution, a three-state solution or any solution cannot be worked out without all parties (in practical terms, that means the Palestinians) ceasing violence.

I thought of the three-state solution as I thought that some of the Arab countries might be slightly more sane than the terrorist regimes ruling in the Arab parts of the disputed territories and Gaza.

I don't think there will be much enthousiasm for this idea. Hamas and Fatah gain nothing from this. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt will get Hamas as a political rival. And since a three state solution would require recognition of Israel that would be a big hurdle for the "Zionist Entity"-crowd.

i sense there is a underlying sarcasm in this thread but no matter...

i'm an advocate of the 'Israstine' one-state solution. From where I see it, power sharing is the only model whereby both sides can avoid losing face.

Also if I'm reading this right, you are expecting the Palestinians to cede their own authority and to relinquish any hope of a homogenous Palestinian country with a capital in Jerusalem. Thats not a realistic nor a just request. You arent advocating a three state solution any more than you are advocating a one state solution on Israel's terms.

Over proportional Israeli retribution is keeping Hamas in power. The whataboutery politics and heavy handed tactics of Israel has to stop before reconciliation can begin.

'Detoxifying' Palestine of anti Israeli sentiment is one thing. How are we going to expunge anti arab racism from Israel?

Sounds like a decent idea.

There's not going to be peace in that region. PERIOD.
Whatever solution is reached will leave someone feeling butthurt and the fight will be back on.
Besides, Islam is generally too antisemitic to rest easy as long as there is one breathing Israelite within 2000 kilometers.

Basically you're dialing back to 1966.

Giving Israel and its nieghbors the same boundries they had on the eve of the 1967 war.

Israel keeps SOME of the West Bank that it didnt have in 1966.

But in essence Israel gives the west bank to Jordan (instead of giving it to the West Bankers themselves), and gives Gaza to Egypt ( instead of to the Gazans themselves).

Gaza WAS part of Egypt in 1966, and the West Bank WAS part of Jordan in 1966,

Well... that didnt work in 1966. It caused the 1967 war.

So if it didnt work then then why would it work now?

it is a nice idea but it would start world war three.there is just to much tension in that region to start chopping up that area.you would have to let israel keep some of gaza and just because to us jordanian and palistinian culture seem the same doesnt mean that how the palistinians and jordanians feel about it.i think palistine wants its own state.

I doubt Egypt would have an interest in taking over Gaza.

First of all, this could upgrade the rocket attacks against Israel to acts of war between sovereign states, meaning that Egypt would have to get really heavy-handed in Gaza to keep Hamas and Islamic Jihad in line. Wouldn't sit well with the domestic Muslim Brotherhood audience...

Second of all, a successful integration of Gaza into Egypt would rob the Islamic states of the Middle East of an excuse to hate Israel... which is of course unacceptable...

Last time I checked, there are a lot of people in Israel who would like to see Gaza returned to Egypt.

But currently, Egypt has little to gain from this, even if they got it for free.

The only solution in that region is for the Jews to stop teaching their kids about Judaism and the Palestinians to stop teaching their kids about Islam. Then wait a couple of generations and there will be peace.