I support what is often referred to as the One-State Solution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/­Binational_solution), whereby Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza become a unified secular state, with everybody equal citizens under law. It is not currently a popular solution, but I think that it is the only one that will produce stability in the long term.

It is, to my mind, the only fair solution. The biggest problem between Israelis and Palestinians - historical romances aside - is the severe inequalities between the two peoples. Israelis live in a modern, high-tech, western state. Palestinians live in refugee camps. I don't feel that a two-state solution will address this issue. You'll still have one country that's well-off, and another country that gets all the crap that's left over. How is that, in any way, a lasting recipe for peace?

The two-state solution is attractive to politicians - American ones especially - because it doesn't involve taking any real risks. Everybody likes the sound of the two-state solution, but nobody has yet been able to point out how this plan will solve any of the real problems in the region. Furthermore, they've been hung up on the details of this plan for DECADES. However, the politicians don't really have to worry about the details, since this plan will never come to fruition. I suspect that the Palestinians (and probably the Israelis, as well) know that the product of a "two-state solution" will not be any different than what they have today. The Palestinian State will remain (as it is now) an empty symbol.

I feel that a One-State Solution will be the ultimate fate of the region. A nation that exists to serve one ethnicity or religion is an anachronism. It is an idea that has been consistently proven to be disastrous, and it simply does not agree with modern western sensibilities. I believe that, for this reason, the Israeli government will be forced by even their closest allies to re-think their notion of a state.

Zionists usually counter this argument with talk of the Holocaust. And as a Jew, I feel the pull of their argument. However, as a 21st century American, my point of view is more in agreement with that of Hitchens - that the Jews in Israel are less safe for having an Israeli state. Thus, the idea of an Israeli state being a safe-haven from future Holocausts seems a bit absurd.

Wow. I can't believe that I actually agree with Hitchens about something.

There will never be a one-state solution that encompasses the Jewish residents of Israel and I don't really understand how anyone realistically thinks that such a solution will ever come to pass, much less that a majority of Israeli Jews will voluntarily opt for it. 1) The Arabs do not demonstrate any inclination to accept a Jewish presence in the Middle East as anything but second-class citizens; 2) Israel's population is becoming more and not less religious, meaning that its population is becoming less rather than more inclined to accept a solution that involves anything other than a Jewish state in the "Promised Land"; 3) the experience of the past 8+ years, especially continued violence from Gaza even after Israel withdrew, has left even secular Israelis less and not more trustful of the Palestinians and generally wanting nothing to do with them including not sharing a common government; 4) Israel was created in response to a history in which Jews ultimately were persecuted in every country to which they wandered -- even "21st Century Americans" should keep this history in mind while they savor the wonderful freedom and opportunity afforded to Jews in the US -- I most certainly do but I am mindful of the fact that, for Jews, no good thing has ever lasted forever ... Finally, the assertion that "Jews in Israel are less safe for having an Israeli state" is really quite silly and a statement that could be uttered only by an American Jew who does not have to worry about anti-Semitism on a daily basis like many of the French, British, and Russian Jews who are thankful that the "safe haven" of Israel exists. The existential threats to Israel are small in number and more remote than the very real existential threat to American Jews posed by assimilation and intermarriage.

afroblanco, I fully agree with your post.

afroblanco, you're post describes a nice situation, however it is extremely disconnected from the facts on the ground.

besides, israel is a secular, democratic country. how many arabs countries have any such history of being secular or a democracy? what makes you think the palestinians absorbed into israel would not want to run their country like its the middle ages?

1) The Arabs do not demonstrate any inclination to accept a Jewish presence in the Middle East as anything but second-class citizens;

So what? The successor state is supposed to show how the two races can live together, much as South Africa is doing now, but the balance between the two will be rather more even (if the deal is struck soon).

2) Israel's population is becoming more and not less religious, meaning that its population is becoming less rather than more inclined to accept a solution that involves anything other than a Jewish state in the "Promised Land";

Which means they are less and less acceptable recipients for western aid. The US and Europe have no business financing religious extremists, whatever their religion is.

3) the experience of the past 8+ years, especially continued violence from Gaza even after Israel withdrew, has left even secular Israelis less and not more trustful of the Palestinians and generally wanting nothing to do with them including not sharing a common government;

The aftermath of civil war is never easy, but it has been navigated succesfully many times. There is no reason why Israeli Jews would find it less palatable than Southerners in the US, or South African whites. The alternatives for both parties is to move away - and only the Jews have been realistically able (and willing) to do so. The Palestinians aren't going anywhere.

4) Israel was created in response to a history in which Jews ultimately were persecuted in every country to which they wandered -- even "21st Century Americans" should keep this history in mind while they savor the wonderful freedom and opportunity afforded to Jews in the US -- I most certainly do but I am mindful of the fact that, for Jews, no good thing has ever lasted forever ...

Fully irrelevant. The German Reich was created in response to a history in which the German people consistenly drew the short end of the stick. The Third Reich got its inspiration from the humiliation at the end of WWI. Just because a people feel slighted does not mean they are entitlled to do the same onto others.

Finally, the assertion that "Jews in Israel are less safe for having an Israeli state" is really quite silly and a statement that could be uttered only by an American Jew who does not have to worry about anti-Semitism on a daily basis like many of the French, British, and Russian Jews who are thankful that the "safe haven" of Israel exists.

Obviously, since those French, British and Russian Jews are NOT moving to Israel despite the huge financial incentives, they disagree with your assertion. Admit it: even the Jews consider Israel a lost case: they have the possibility to move there, but they chose not to.

The existential threats to Israel are small in number and more remote than the very real existential threat to American Jews posed by assimilation and intermarriage.

That is true: the Jewish racial purity is threatened by the presence of other races, and its religion is threatened by the presence of other religions and secularism (although the founders of Zionism did not see that as a problem). But that is the same kind of thinking that led to the holocaust. We need to get past ideas of racial purity and religious orthodoxy in the creation of our societies, politics and nations.

mrgrieves, one of the reasons why Israel is the only post-colonial Arab country that is a democracy is because the colonial powers (generally Britain) engineered it so. (And yes, Israel was an Arab country - in 1914 less than 8% of the population was Jewish).

Israel itself provided both an easy stick for the rulers of Arab countries, as well as a great proof that democracies can be as ruthless, violent, racist and religiously biased as any other form of government. It refuses to allow the Palestinians that used to live in its "territory" to return - on what grounds, exactly? It builds wall around the Palestinian homelands, which it regularly bombs and invades. It has long claimed the right to torture and collectively punish. In short, it has consistenly proven that it is the worst example of a western-style democracy.

Are Italian Jews really worse of than Israeli Arabs? Or for that matter, Israeli Jews? Since the Italian Jews aren't moving to Israel, they seem to think they are not.

Why would a Palestine with both Jews and Arabs present as equals be less prosperous and modern than an Israel that has to spend an extraordinary amount of GDP on policing and military, even if much of that expense (and more) is provided by the US and Europe? If the US and Europe finance a single-state secular democracy successor state, it should be able to prosper more than Israel ever could.

berm2b - First off, I'd like to thank you for your response. You hold a point of view that I've heard expressed by many, including most of my relatives. I would venture to say that you hold the American Jewish majority opinion on the issue. However, I disagree with you, and I see you making a few crucial mistakes in your thinking.

1) The Arabs do not demonstrate any inclination to accept a Jewish presence in the Middle East as anything but second-class citizens

Your first point is pure propaganda. Ooooh, the Arabs are soooo evil, and soooo different from us. They're barely human! They love war! And they blow themselves up for fun!

This isn't logic. This isn't argument. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. "We're at war, so we'll always be at war."

2) Israel's population is becoming more and not less religious, meaning that its population is becoming less rather than more inclined to accept a solution that involves anything other than a Jewish state in the "Promised Land";

3) the experience of the past 8+ years, especially continued violence from Gaza even after Israel withdrew, has left even secular Israelis less and not more trustful of the Palestinians and generally wanting nothing to do with them including not sharing a common government

Point 2 and point 3 refer mostly to recent history. I'm talking about the broader time horizon. I don't expect a One-State Solution to pop up out of nowhere over the next 20 years. However, I do think that it is the eventual fate for the region. I say this because the current state of affairs is just not sustainable. Worldwide, the tide of opinion is turning against Israel, and has been for some time. And as the US becomes increasingly mired in the Middle East, I think that you will see opinions change here as well. If Israel wants peace, it will eventually need to make peace with its neighbors, and I don't feel that a Two-State Solution will lead to a lasting peace.

4) Israel was created in response to a history in which Jews ultimately were persecuted in every country to which they wandered -- even "21st Century Americans" should keep this history in mind while they savor the wonderful freedom and opportunity afforded to Jews in the US -- I most certainly do but I am mindful of the fact that, for Jews, no good thing has ever lasted forever

The lessons of history are not lost on me. However, you still need to answer a couple of questions for me. How is Israel making the Jewish people of the world safer? And by what mechanism will Israel save me from a Holocaust?

I would argue that Israel makes the world less safe for the Jewish people. A lot of ignorant people don't make the distinction between Jews and Israelis. Ask yourself this question - would the Arab and Muslim worlds even give a crap about the Jews if it weren't for Israel? Furthermore, unquestioning support for Israel will continue to be a foreign policy liability for the US, and this makes all Americans less safe, including the Jews.

As far as Israel being a safe haven in the case of a Holocaust - I don't really see how this would work. The world's highest concentration of Jew-haters is RIGHT THERE! Where will we go to be safe? I know! Let's go right to the place where they hate us the most. We can barricade ourselves in and hope for the best, since apparently the US, Russia, France, and Great Britain have all turned their backs on us.

And as for your final point....

The existential threats to Israel are small in number and more remote than the very real existential threat to American Jews posed by assimilation and intermarriage.

I really don't think that the two of us will ever agree on this issue. I'm worrying about how to get people to stop killing each other, while your worrying about "keeping the bloodline pure." I'm sorry, but your line of thinking doesn't sound any better coming from a Jew than it does coming from an Aryan. It's an idea that belongs to the scrap heap of history, along with theocracies and nations devoted to a single ethnicity.

Finally, I should hedge a little on my assertion. I'm not saying that a Single-State Solution HAS to happen. It's always possible that things could get increasingly worse, until somebody flips their shit and lets loose a nuke. But I'm hoping that this won't happen, and furthermore, I don't think that it will happen. What I think will happen is that all parties will need to agree on a Single-State Solution, because it is the only path to a lasting peace.

You obviously don't understand the nature of the conflict. It isn't about to satisfy any Arab or Palestinian until the Jews are gone or subjugated to Islamic authority.

No amount of bargaining will alter the fact that Israel is on what is accepted by all the Arab world as Islamic holy land.

So the fact that Jews are not tolerated on Islamic holy land has no truth?

Also, it is not Jews but Arabs who put the Palestinians in refugee camps and continue to keep them there.

Please explain how there came to be fewer Jews than Arabs in the territory in question.

No other country in the world that has large Jewish populations has the problems with them that the Palestinians do, WHY?

A nation that exists to serve one ethnicity or religion is an anachronism.

Really? Tell that to France, which actively tries to protect it's ethnic identity through government institutions. Tell it to Kosovo, who themselves just started a nation for that very purpose. Only in the US is it considered wrong for a nation to protect its ethnic self-identity. Ethnic nationalism is alive and well, and growing, if anything.

"Only in the US is it considered wrong for a nation to protect its ethnic self-identity."

Yes, except that the US seems incredibly supportive of the idea of Kosovo's independence. To me that was ill-timed and provoking Serbia, who is now running back to their old buddy Russia. I think we're gambling that no one will go to war over this, and we may be wrong about that.

Really? Tell that to France, which actively tries to protect it's ethnic identity through government institutions. Tell it to Kosovo, who themselves just started a nation for that very purpose. Only in the US is it considered wrong for a nation to protect its ethnic self-identity.

I think that France and Kosovo represent two very different scenarios.

I don't agree with France's stance on ethnic identity. In fact, I think it's terrible and leads to things like the recent rioting in the Paris suburbs.

In reference to Kosovo - once again, I think this is an apples-to-oranges comparison. Kosovo was yoked together with the other "Yugoslavian" countries as part of a cold-war-era fiction. What we're seeing now is an attempt to rectify the mistakes of a prior age.

And yes, you are correct that Americans consider it wrong for a nation to protect its "ethnic identity." This is one of the things that I like about my country, and one of the reasons why I feel that majority opinion will eventually turn against the notion of a Jewish state.

It is true that the US has often supported nationalism abroad, and continues to do so for diplomatic reasons. But the US has at least so far rejected making itself into an ethnic-nationalist country, a fact that separates us from 95% of the rest of the world. I agree that this is a good thing. But the alternative to nationalism, even in the US, has generally been worse than nationalism itself.

Before nationalism, for 5000 years of imperialism, tiny minority groups have controlled vast tracts of lands and peoples for their own purposes. It is this pre-nationalistic system that modern nationalist groups are still fighting against, mostly, not some idealistic post-nationalist paradise of mutual love and good-will between people. The fear is that without national sovereignty you'll just be oppressed by some other ethnic group. This is a justified fear in Kosovo's case, whatever else the merits for its national movement. This is also a justified fear in Israel's case, considering both historical oppression against Jews and Israel's current neighborhood. It is even a justified fear in France's case; if every Muslim who wanted to come was allowed to France it would likely lead to a change in the national system
that would restrict current the life of the current French people.

Nationalism is better than imperialism, and that is the current choice for most of the world. Both Israel and the Palestinians should have states to protect their own interests. If we can ever overcome our backward, tribalist ways of thinking, I'd love it we could dispense with the whole nation idea altogether. But I think that's too much to ask right now.

I have read that it was the Arab nations that told the Palestinians to move out of the way so they could clear out Isreal prior to the 6 Day War. Only problem was they didn't wipe the Isrealis out and were left with a large population of refugees with nowhere to go. Anyone else come across this?

That's one story. The other, as documented by Israeli historian Illan Pappe, is that the Nakba had been planned long before the 1948 war, but could not be carried out without a pretext. The 1948 war provided the very pretext.