Amazon.com Widgets

Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict: Does a two-state solution offer sufficient security for Israel?

  • True Security Requires Peace

    If the Palestinians were given statehood, connected to the west bank, and given statehood, it would be enough of a victory that an end to the conflict would not hurt their dignity. A large portion of the reason the Palestinians hate Israel is the ongoing war and denial of Palestinian statehood.

    People will say "But Israel accepted the 1947 treaty and the Peele commission, and Palestine rejected both of them", but the cold reality is that both of those would have been perceived loss of land to Palestinians at the time, and Israel didn't include acceptance of Palestinian statehood in either offer - statehood was in the 1947 treaty, but Israel only partially accepted the treaty, rejecting the part that recognized Palestinian statehood. There were a million reasons why both treaties would have been perceived as an awful deal at the time, even though hind sight is 20/20.

    People will also point to the Hamas charter and say "But the Hamas Charter says to destroy Israel", but for one, the Hamas Charter also makes it clear that the reason they want to destroy Israel is because they're stifling Palestinian statehood, and beyond that, the current Hamas leader doesn't even respect the charter - he's said it's "a piece of history" and "no longer relevant."

    Hamas has also made multiple peace offers based on the re-connection of the Palestinian states and recognition of Palestinian statehood. There simply isn't enough evidence that Palestinians will not accept peace to justify the imprisonment of 2 million people.

  • 60 years of war

    The whole conflict would end if Israel would just leave the West Bank and East Jerusalem and end the siege of Gaza AND tear down the apartheid wall. Why do you think the Palestinians are attacking Israel? Israel is occupying their country and building illegal settlements on Palestinian land. And don't call it Judea and Samaria, its Palestine. Call it as such.

  • One state solution

    Israel does not have the right to exist However, the fact that the Jews were persecuted in various times and places in history doesn’t give them the right to persecute someone else. It doesn’t give Jews the right to deny the right to self-determination to the Palestinians. Two moral wrongs don’t make a moral right

  • Two state solution would only get Hamas closer to it's goal

    Hamas, who the palestinians chose to lead and represent them, does not want a two state solution. They want a tyrannical Islamic Caliphate and to kill the Jews. They might accept a two state solution an then try to build on that in order to achieve their goals of exterminating the Jews in the world

  • It depends, but in general no.

    If the second state is Jordan, then it increases Israel's security relative to the common proposal of creating a state in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria[J&S]). The one issue with that solution is what to do with all the "palestinians" that live in J&S. Some would, of course, move to the new state, but many would stay and prefer to live under Israeli control than Arab control. It then brings into question demographics and many of the same issues as having a binational state. One way around this is to deport many of the "palestinians" to the new state, but that would create worldwide outrage and the legality of it maybe questionable under international law.

    Under the common proposal of creating a state in J&S, Israel's security would called into question. Parts of Israel, which also happens to be some of the most populous, would only be about 10 miles wide from the sea to the border. That's not a whole lot of room for error. Additionally, the geography would make it easier to attack Israel. J&S is higher in elevation than most of Israel, which means it has an advantage from an attacking point of view. Israel's airport as well as many communities would find themselves within easy striking range of terrorists and other attackers. Of course, there is the notion that with a state and peace agreement, there won't be any attacks. We only need to look at the Gaza disengagement to see that such a belief is naive.

    Further creation of a state will only encourage more attacks. The reason is that such an action essentially rewards terrorism. It also creates the belief that if we got such and such land with our fight so far, how much can we get if we keep fighting? For many "palestinians," "palestine" is not a sliver of Israel, but the entire country. Many "palestinians" are willing to die in a fight to bring that vision to a reality and no international agreements will stop them.

  • No, Palestine will never be satisfied.

    No, a two-state solution will not offer sufficient security for Israel, because Palestine will never be happy until Israel does not exist. The international community will not defend Israel if a two-state solution is put in place, because Palestine will always want more and more, until Israel no longer exists. Israel should not accept a two-state solution.

  • A two state solution creates issues with Israel's security due to the Palestines thoughts on land and border control

    Palestinians believe that it is their right to have some of the land and border control Israel currently has, which has been on of the main sources for the conflict between the to territories. There currently isn't an agreement on how the Two-state solution would work, mainly due to Israel's concern about military threats and attacks.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
rakovsky says2014-02-08T06:06:08.110
I am not sure that a solution about borders and statehood in itself provides security. It is an arrangement of states. The question would have to include more information to decide- for example, whether there were international forces.