Reply #22: Ahh, the penny drops. I see where you were going with that [View All]

[delad]

Tbh, in a perfect world a one state solution is always best (ie globally a one state, one peolple, freedom of movement for all, etc etc) would get my vote. However, we don't live in a perfect world so we have to make do. I think a two-state solution would be best for both peoples, but given Israel's reluctance to deal honestly with the Palestinians (i.e. by maintaining an aparthied regime in the W/B) I'm not sure how viable the struggle for a two state solution really is. This is what i was saying earlier on about the one-state, that if Israel insists on maintaining its control over the W/B (despite lack of any threat emanating from the region) than it should have to do so legally and not as an occupying force.

The Arab Peace Initiative has been on the table for 8 or 9 years now, Annapolis has gone nowhere, various peace initiatives have done nothing for anybody. And at the end of the day, Israel *still* occupies Palestinian land by use of force. If Israel is unwilling to release its chokehold, then a one state solution should be foisted upon Israel. I hope i've made my position clear.
Can i ask you in return, which would you prefer and why?