Home
Is two-state solution the only solution to end Israel-Palestine conflict?
Share
Delicious
Digg
Facebook
Reddit
Stumble Upon
Technorati
Mixx
Sphinn
Twitter
SphereIt
Propeller
Gmarks
Newsvine
Yahoo! My Web
Live Journal
Blinklist
E-mailMade Popular Apr 18 2009
Obama’s special Mideast envoy, George Mitchell, on his third trip to the region stated that a Palestinian state alongside Israel is the only way to end the Israel-Palestine conflict. Mitchell sent a stern message to Israel’s hardliners who have expressed misgivings about a two-state solution that US would not settle for anything less than the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel. Will two-state solution be reached anytime soon? Or do you think it is the last option left to bring peace between the two most hostile nations of the world?
Add Images and Videos
Close X
Recommended Tags or Keywords
Search by Tags or Keywords
Selected Media ( You can Upload only Six media )
Sorry no picture found for this combination of tags. Try to search minimum number of tags at once
RSS 
Matz
Apr 18 2009
Rochester,
United States
Two sate theory can be a solution to the conflict but Palestine can never recognize the Israel as a separate state. More over there is doubt that Arabian countries can accept the Israel as a Jewish state.
Comment Link
Until there is conflict between Hamas and Fatah in the Palestinian region we can’t hope for any solution whether one state or two state.
Let’s face it, as long as Israel as a Jewish state exists there won’t be peace. If it isn’t Hamas waging war on Israel (Intifada), another Islamic resistance movement will evolve. There will be no peace because Hamas doesn’t choose peace.
Let’s start from some more logical questions:
Can any kind of peace be made if one or both parties don’t want peace except solely on their terms?
Can peace be made if one of the parties is so divided that there is no national representative?
Does anyone think that an imposed peace will mean more than a used tissue?
The ”Pax Americana” the US is trying to impose will not last worth a damn. No imposed peace can, unless the imposer is willing to establish a military force between the parties.
As long as Hamas continues to declare that it will not negotiate, and will only accept a single Islamic state from the river to the sea, talking about the type of solution is irrelevant.
Solutions can only be made between two parties willing to find a solution. Imposed solutions aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on.
There will be peace only when both sides are committed to peace. Then (and ONLY then) an agreement, in whatever form it may take, can be hammered out between them.
Can any kind of peace be made if one or both parties don’t want peace except solely on their terms?
Can peace be made if one of the parties is so divided that there is no national representative?
Does anyone think that an imposed peace will mean more than a used tissue?
The ”Pax Americana” the US is trying to impose will not last worth a damn. No imposed peace can, unless the imposer is willing to establish a military force between the parties.
As long as Hamas continues to declare that it will not negotiate, and will only accept a single Islamic state from the river to the sea, talking about the type of solution is irrelevant.
Solutions can only be made between two parties willing to find a solution. Imposed solutions aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on.
There will be peace only when both sides are committed to peace. Then (and ONLY then) an agreement, in whatever form it may take, can be hammered out between them.
Add your Comment
