Talk:One-state solution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Israel (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Palestine (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Introduction Severely Lacking[edit]

The intro should summarize what the one-state solution means, and to fail to do that is disconcerting to readers who know little about the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.113.59.5 (talk) 04:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

ha, I just came in to say this. I saw this page for the first time and it doesn't really explain what the solution is, at least obviously —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.221.144 (talk) 23:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The variety of one-state solutions[edit]

What about the one-state solutions which are not a binational State ?

"the unwillingness of Palestinians to live at peace with Jews today," is POV. Edited to a more neutral formulation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.140.12 (talk) 01:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think this article is quite muddled about this. It seems to me that roughly:
one-state-solution = binational-solution + Islamic-state + Greater-Israel-state + Palestine-secular-state
I'm not convinced the recent renaming of the article from Binational solution to One-state solution was necessarily the right thing to do. Some of the poll data given in the article seems to confuse these variants (eg see how Q3 of [1] is reported in article). What we need is a good source to crib to distinguish the various versions of one-state solution. Rwendland (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Query on emotive words.[edit]

I noticed that the words Islamist and Arabist are used early on; but then it talks about Israeli Jews, as opposed to Zionists. Lack of balance here ? If Islamist and Arabist are used (and they have strong political/extremist overtones), then shouldn't the word Zionist be used too? If this proposal is rejected, then perhaps it would be better to avoid Islamist and Arabist and substitute something less emotive (but I can't think of anything off hand). Just a few thoughts. Thanks. MP (talkcontribs) 11:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with MP here. MeteorMaker (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't exactly call these words "emotive", more like "pejorative." But yeah, these words do not belong in the article. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 23:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Since when does Wikipedia use bloggers??[edit]

Some guy from a blog called the Head Heeb criticizes the one-state solution, and it gets incorporated into the article?? is that guy an authority on this issue? To do this section, you should get the opinion of reputable people that actually put their name on what they write, until then im taking it off. I know this is Wikipedia...but cmon. 134.121.247.116 (talk) 05:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the "Head Heeb" reference, as well as a long quote from a letter to the editor of the Brown University newspaper. Both of these fail WP:RS by a long shot, and no attempt has been made to explain why a WP article should be citing blogs and letters to college newspapers. Rhobite (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Population Exchange in the Peel Commission Report[edit]

None of the material about the Peel Commission report in this article is referenced, so it is not clear why the information on population exchange should be separately referenced. But I am happy to quote from the text of the actual Peel Commission Report.

"10. Exchange of Land and Population

If Partition is to be effective in promoting a final settlement it must mean more than drawing a frontier and establishing two States. Sooner or later there should be a transfer of land and, as far as possible, an exchange of population.

The Treaties should provide that, if Arab owners of land in the Jewish State or Jewish owners of land in the Arab State should wish to sell their land and any plantations or crops thereon, the Government of the State concerned should be responsible for the purchase of such land, plantations and crops at a price to be fixed, if requires, by the Mandatory Administration. For this purpose a loan should, if required, be guaranteed for a reasonable amount.

The political aspect of the land problem is still more important. Owing to the fact that there has been no census since 1931 it is impossible to calculate with any precision the distribution of population between the Arab and Jewish areas; but, according to an approximate estimate, in the area allocated to the Jewish State (excluding the urban districts to be retained for a period under Mandatory Administration) there are now about 225,000 Arabs. In the area allocated to the Arab State there are only about 1,250 Jews; but there are about 125,000 Jews as against 85,000 Arabs in Jerusalem and Haifa. The existence of these minorities clearly constitutes the most serious hindrance to the smooth and successful operation of Partition. If the settlement is to be clean and final, the question must be boldly faced and firmly dealt with. It calls for the highest statesmanship on the part of all concerned."#REDIRECT [[2]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tirpse77 (talkcontribs) 04:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The issue is not the inclusion of this information, but rather the polemical way in which it was included. I will modify it so that the information is included in a way which does not violate WP:NPOV. If my edit is not to your liking, then we can discuss it further here. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 07:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree that my formulation was "polemical." It was simply a statement of the facts. However, your formulation is acceptable. It is not qualitatively different from mine, though it is more economical. I am not sure what the difference between "primarily" and "mostly" is. On reflection, "almost entirely" would be more accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tirpse77 (talkcontribs) 11:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a much more serious problem with the inclusion of the Peel Report - because it an aberration. It made nonsense of the Balfour Declaration, it flew in the face of everything that the British Government had previously said and was hastily over-ruled. It's inclusion gives the highly misleading impression that the partition of 1947 was the end result of a process. That could not be further from the truth. PRtalk 18:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not see a fundamental problem with including it as it was undoubtedly an important report even at the time, and came in context of and as a result of the 1936-39 Palestinian uprising. However, as long as the Peel report is included, it should be noted that the report foresaw population exchange, "involuntary" if necessary, as being fundamental to the fulfillment of partition. This provides the proper and complete context for understanding the reactions of people at the time to this report and why they might or might not have favored partition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tirpse77 (talkcontribs) 19:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The current text indicates that a population exchange was involved. Furthermore, Peel Partition Plan of 1937 is wikilinked, which means that readers can find out the details of the proposed plan via the link (the word "population transfer" is very noticeably placed on that page). The problem with the previous phrasing, by the way, was that it suggested that the Jewish community supported the partition plan because of rather than despite the population transfer; it was the concept of partition which the Jewish community endorsed. Likewise, the population transfer was arguably the main objection of the Arabs to the plan. Thus the new phrasing places partition and populations transfer in such a way that it makes clear the motivations behind the response of the two national groups toward the plan. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 03:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Four New Relevant Articles[edit]

In case people want to check them out for relevance to improve article: Thomas Friedman, NY Times (4 June 2008) http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/04/opinion/04friedman.html?scp=7&sq=Israel&st=cse Blames settlements, only solution - "radical pragmatism on Israel's part" to give up settlements and allow a viable Palestinian State to evolve in the West Bank; alternatives can not be imagined - needs educating.

Boudreaux/Khalil, Chicago Tribune (14 May 2008) http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-israel-one-statemay14,0,5082382.story Blames settlements, the burden of occupation, threat of Islamic extremism & demographics - says one-state solution might be workable and should be taken seriously.

Dion Nissenbaum, Miami Herald (11 May 2008) http://www.miamiherald.com/540/story/527355.html Blames settlements, demographics, pressure from extremists surrounding Israel - Jewish State is doomed unless they can give up West Bank and let it become a viable Palestinian State, but there is no strong Israeli leadership that can make that happen, and even if it did happen, it still wouldn't bring peace.

Trudy Ruben, Miami Herald (11 May 2008) http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/other_views/story/527357.html Blames demographics - Jewish State is doomed unless they can give up West Bank and let it become a viable Palestinian State, but there is no strong Israeli leadership that can make that happen, and the alternative single-state solution would never work because Arab leadership would never voluntarily legislate minority protections for a Jewish minority.Carol Moore 16:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Antisemitism[edit]

The original article said: "which many Jewish Israelis attribute to anti-Semitic sentiments among Palestinians." Technically Arabs are as Semitic as Jews, so I changed "anti-Semitic" to "anti-Jewish". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.95.22.61 (talk) 23:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see the anti-Semitism page. Antisemitism means hatred of or prejudice towards Jews. It does not mean hatred of or prejudice towards semitic peoples, in general. English is NOT a logical language; deal with it. Unless you can convince the editors of the anti-Semitism page -- and I guarantee you that they have dealt with arguments like yours dozens of times -- please desist. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 10:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting discussion. Antisemitism has historically always refered to prejudice against Jews, though as the first contributor points out, it should logically apply to other Semitic people too (eg Arabs). It would be pointless to try to stretch the meaning in this way, however, as the term would become virtually useless. Nevertheless, I don't understand why Michael Safyan prefers it to the term "anti-Jewish", which seems to me a) More logical b) Clearer and c) Stylistically less fussy. Similarly, I would consider the term "anti-Chinese" preferable to the word "Sinophobic". Is there a political or historical reason why some people favour the term "antisemitic"? Phersu (talk) 00:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Millions of dollars and millions of man hours have been invested in making the word "anti-semitic" into a phrase one fears be labeled as, as much as, say, pedophile. So there is a vested interest in NOT using the more accurate phrase "anti-Jewish" which does not pack the same emotional punch. However, obviously, if there was a big movement to downgrade the word by millions of people and writers and news publications etc. were to change their use to anti-Jewish that would become reflected in the anti-semitism and other wiki articles. Carol Moore 02:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}


Since the claim wasn't sourced anyway, the best way to deal with it is to remove it entirely, which I have done. MeteorMaker (talk) 11:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest that "anti-Semitism" (upper-case) should always be understood as referring to Jews because this is the history and intended meaning of the term. However, there is naturally some controversy about its usage in this conflict because all involved are Semites (which is a linguistic category) and indeed if taken literally it doesn't make sense to speak of Semites being anti-Semitic. So if the term distracts people and generates unproductive discussions about terminology, I see no harm and some gain in substituting the term 'anti-Jewish'. Possibly "anti-Semitism" would be important to raise again if trying to make the explicit link to a longer tradition of anti-Jewish racism in Europe, where the term originally arose. 14:14, 9 November 2010 Tafkira2 (talk) 14:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Antisemitism is an European term, just as apartheid is a term from South Africa. Neither should be used in a civil war of the Semites. Hcobb (talk) 14:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Antisemitism is a word in the English language which mean hatred of the Jews. See Oxford, Webster etc. The wiki-word game within which the word is deemed to be "inaccurate" because the Arabs are also Semites (this is inaccurate by the way; only the original Arabian Arabs were Semites, not the Arabized Byzantine/Egyptian/Syriac/Mesopotamian nations of the Near East after 700 AD) is a form of suppressed antisemitism itself because negation of the word obviously plays into the hands of those who would weaken the struggle against antisemitism, particularly after the Holocaust. And even if it is pure nitpicking, without any latent antisemitic intent, it's simply not possible to reverse-engineer the English (and all other major European) language every time one feels like it. The word "anti-Jewish" is historically both meaningless and misleading. It could mean a philosemite/non-racist, legitimately nationalist Arab-Palestinian before 1948, or a pro-Arab British officer or politician at that time who might not have been antisemitic at all - or even anti-religious secular Israelis who are ethnic Jews themselves. Monosig (talk) 02:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Serious Editing and Removal of Criticisms[edit]

This article has been completely changed by someone. The criticisms have been reduced to 3 short bullet points and the whole article seems to lack neutrality. Using phrases like "Jewish supremacy" really don't fit in the Wikipedia environment where bias should be eliminated.

Also, there are many Israeli Arabs and Israeli Christians who are very much against a one-state solution. They form about 20% of Israel's voting population. It's well known that Bedouins serve in the IDF. So I don't see how one could argue that maintaining self-determination is an ethnic nationalism issue. If it were only the Israeli Jews, that would be another story but that is not the case.


Don't forget the Druze, who are extremely in favor of Jewish control. 84.228.25.197 (talk) 18:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Any serious source for saying Israeli Arabs and in particular Israeli Arab Christians (most of whom self-identify as Palestinian) are supposedly against a one-state solution? There is no sizable amount of Bedouins that serve in the Israeli military, the most one could get for this claim is the occasional Bedouin who might pass some intel to the Israelis (i.e. espionage against someone the Israeli authorities view as an enemy). Most Bedouins in the region also self-identify as Palestinian. And then as for the Druze in Israel, they are more mixed, someone of them do join the Israeli military and don't self-identify as Palestinian, whereas some other Druze in Israel do self-identify as Palestinian (putting aside the issues of Druze in Lebanon who mostly identify as Lebanese, and Druze in Syria who are mostly in the Syrian Golan Heights, that the Israelis continue to illegally occupy till this day, identify as Syrians). It has also been noted, the discrimination many Druze in Israel have faced especially outside of the military (possibly an interesting comparison to the "melting pot" theory of the US army and impoverished minorities) [3] "The aforementioned special status afforded to Druze still did not qualify them to be considered as equals by the Israeli government or by most of Israeli society. To that extent, there have been less than five high ranking Druze officers in the Israeli army. There was an article on Mondoweiss not long ago about a Druze soldier who attempted to rent an apartment in a Jewish town and was chased out by angry neighbors."Historylover4 (talk) 05:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Confusing and contradictory passage about changes in Palestinian position[edit]

The article has some confusing passages. Please clarify. The initial comments below are by me. -Pgan002 (talk) 00:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

1948 to 1967:
The Arab national movement mostly rejected the idea of a binational solution, as it saw little to gain from it; the Arab leadership was opposed to their people becoming a minority in what they saw as their own country.
1967 to 1973:
... the Six Day War of 1967 was an occasion for renewing interest in the one-state ideal, while at the same time giving the two-state solution arguably the only window of opportunity to become a reality.

So the outcome of the war increased the popularity of both solutions?? What does the claim about the "window" for the two-state solution actually mean - that it is no longer a possibility? Or that it was not a possibility before? Isn't that speculation? -Pgan002 (talk)

(1967 to 1973:)
... The abject defeat of Arab armies led to an initial rejectionist attitude in some Arab circles, which eased over time, leading to an almost dogmatic acceptance of the notion of a two-state solution. But while the Arab side was re-adjusting its position, the two-state solution was dealt a heavy blow as Israel began implementing the controversial policy of Jewish settlements ...

So, before the war of 1967, Arab national movement rejected the one-state solution, and immediately after the war it rejected any solution, but eventually came to support only the two-state solution. Soon after that, this support was weakened by Israel's settlement program. But presumably, the two-state solution was still the most popular solution among Palestinian leaders? -Pgan002 (talk)

1973 to 1993:
The outcome of the 1973 Yom Kippur War prompted a fundamental political rethink among the Palestinian leadership. It was realised that [Israel could not] be defeated militarily. In December 1974, Yasser Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) ... declared that a binational state was the only viable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Why did the defeat of 1967 increase Palestinian support for a two-state solution, while the defeat of 1973 decreased it? -Pgan002 (talk)

(1973 to 1993:)
The change in policy was met with considerable confusion, as it was official PLO policy to replace Israel with a secular and democratic state with a full right of return for all displaced Palestinians, including the Jews who were living in Palestine before 1948.

Presumably, the second sentence refers to the policy before the war of 1973. But this policy is just the one-state solution, which is exactly the same as was declared after the war. -Pgan002 (talk)

(1973 to 1993)
This would effectively have ended Israel's Jewish majority and, by secularising the state, would have weakened its exclusive Jewish character. In short, a binational state on the PLO's terms would mean a different kind of Israel. This prospect is strongly opposed by various sides in Israeli politics. These dates regarding the PLO's adoption of one-state solution differ from the account in Khalidi's The Iron Cage. To summarize the account there: After the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967 the Democratic Front for Liberation of Palestine as well as Fateh, under Arafat, proposed “a single, secular, democratic state in Palestine, in which all faiths would be equal” (Khalidi 191-2).

What's different about the two accounts? Who are the two parties in the last sentence -- Israel and the PLO or Fatah and PLO? -Pgan002 (talk)

Starting in 1974, both parties then began to support a two-state solution.

This contradicts the sentence starting "In December 1974" above. -Pgan002 (talk)

One-sided[edit]

This article presents only arguments in favor of the one-state solution, with little indication, after the opening paragraph, that such a proposal has little support from Palestinians, other Arabs, Israelis, or anyone outside the academic and left-wing "peace activist" community.Historicist (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 And yet, isn't this article ABOUT a one-state solution, NOT about the two-state solution. I think it clearly stated that this solution is 'disregarded'. However, I would have to disagree that this proposal garners little support from palestinians and arabs. You'd have to find some proof of that before you start talking like it's truth.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.194.8.73 (talk) 10:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC) 

Inappropriate article name[edit]

The name One-state solution is not evocative of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute (1967-current), the Jewish-Arab Palestinian dispute (pre-1948) which preceded it or of the Middle East peace process as a whole. The term is obviously an analogy to "Two-state solution", which is a well-known term in daily parlance referring to the Israel-Palestine dispute and the Middle East. That does not make it an encyclopedia article title, no more so in WP than Britannica. A one-state solution for many people would be just as evocative as a solution to the problems of Georgia and South Ossetia, Flanders and Wallonia and Moldova and Transnistria, and has no particular connection to the Middle East conflict. Furthermore, many commentators argue that developments on the ground are such that the one-state phenomenon is not so much an agreed "solution" (given that neither party desires it) but rather a situation which could simply come about with time, South Africa-style, due to the number of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and their growing population. Online research brings me to believe that "Isratin" might be an appropriate article name. This name, a combination of Israel and Falastin (Palestine in Arabic and the Hebrew pronunciation of the prospective Palestinian state), has gone beyond its original use by Muammar Gaddafi in the Isratine proposal (which he actually spelled without an "e" at the end which would seem to be more accurate given the pronounciation - falasteen as in Arabic/Hebrew, not palestiyn as in English). Isratin is what virtually no-one desires - Israelis (Jewish and Arab), Palestinians, US and EU - yet what some note is inexorably coming about. A prospective "solution" can only be deemed to be so if a critical mass of people believe it to be so; at present the vast majority in Israel, Palestine and the Quartet would deem it to be a nightmare. So it is a phenomenon which needs a name - one which would not also be appropriate for Transnistria. Isratin might be just that. Monosig (talk) 12:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Isratin[edit]

The Isratin article seems to cover the exact same subject as this one. I suggest merging the two of them into one article. Please comment on this proposed merger below. Robofish (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Isratin is a name coined by "algaddafi" of lybia; in a proposal of a name of such a one-state, so its merely a suggested name, or should be talking about his proposal. The one-state solution is the broader title, which has been around like always! so no, i suggest keeping isratin in a seperate article, clarifying its a name of a single proposal. --Mayz (talk) 15:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

As you can see, I have merged the the two and I want to see what you think....--Gniniv (talk) 05:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

It was absolutely wrong to merge the two articles. Isratin defines what is deemed to be an immediate problem exarcebated by the Israeli West Bank settlements, not a solution. The One-State Solution indeed discussed what has been deemed by some to be a solution, and it has an 80 year history. The two previous articles described this accurately. The present article is a huge POV hodge-podge from which the explanatory texts have been removed and from which one really can't understand anything about the current Isratin quandary. Monosig (talk) 02:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

One-sided criticisms section[edit]

The criticisms section of this article strikes me as rather incomplete. The introductory paragraph alludes to a general sentiment that the one-state solution would compromise the right to self-determination of both Jews and Palestinian Arabs, however the rest of the section seems only concerned with Jewish opposition to the proposal. Does anyone have any sources outlining Palestinian criticisms of the one-state solution on the basis that it would harm Palestinian rights and interests? Zgzl (talk) 20:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Good point and I second the request...--Gniniv (talk) 03:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

  • I third the request. Surely there must be some Palestinians who would object to the idea of "Isratin" because they want to live in a land called Palestine which would be governed by Palestinians. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Citations in this section are generally lacking. Until citations of views can be provided, it is important to phrase arguments that include assumptions about the other side as beliefs rather than objective facts: for example, what Jews think that Palestinians believe about democracy, rather than presenting unsubstantiated claims about Palestinian beliefs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tafkira2 (talkcontribs) 14:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Map removed[edit]

I removed the map File:Israel-Palestine Diplomacy.svg along with its legend for the following reasons:

  1. The map does not reflect the topic of the article. The map shows what countries recognize Israel and/or Palestine now and/or recognize one but have some relations with the other, but it has no clear relationship with whether those countries advocate a one-state solution.
  2. The colors in the legend did not correspond to the colors on the map. For example, the legend included codes for countries colored purple and green, which are not used on the map, but did not include a code for countries colored red, a color which is used on the map.
  3. The map and legend were duplicated, appearing twice in successive sections of the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Major Revamp[edit]

This article is about to undergo a huge revamp and merger with Isratin. Please help..--Gniniv (talk) 07:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Odd source used extensively[edit]

This source is used many times in the present version of the article. Reading through it comes across as a bit bizarre, other opinions? I'd suggest that we rely less on this document and more on others. --Dailycare (talk) 16:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Will do.--  Novus  Orator  03:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Racism[edit]

From the article:

Critics[who?] primarily point to the fact that it would make Israeli Jews an ethnic minority[55] in what they consider to be their own nation. The high fertility rate among Palestinians[citation needed], who already comprise almost half of the population in Israel and the Occupied territories[citation needed], accompanied by a possible return of Palestinian refugees, would quickly render Jews a minority. They[who?] have also argued that Jews, like any other nation, have the right to self-determination, and that due to still existing antisemitism, there is a need for a Jewish national home.[citation needed] Ethnically homogeneous nation-states are common around the world[citation needed], especially in Europe. They[who?] also argue that most of the Arab World is composed of entirely Arab and Muslim states, with no equality for ethnic or religious minorities.[citation needed]

Why living on ethnically homogeneous nation-states would be desirable? And why sharing the land with de facto co-inhabitants of it - already almost a half of Israel proper as this paragraph says - would be undesirable? What makes a pure-jew state inherently better? And what on hell the current situation of neighbors has to do with this all?!

This passage reads like the most powerful arguments amounts to racism and prejudice against Arab presence (which I am certain it is not the case). I think it should be rewritten and backed with references, or deleted. --187.40.215.149 (talk) 03:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I also agree all I get from reading is the Israelis don't like this idea because they are motivated by racism. I think this is wrong and if there is not any sources added soon to those arguments I think they should be removed because they seem to have no relevance and negative presence on the article. I move that they be removed in a month if sources are not added. Viceroy489 (talk) 04:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

This is now the 2nd time I'm trying to make this clear. Last time, I edited the article and my comments were removed. There is a huge elephant in the room- Every nation, whether it is Pakistan next to India, or Canada next to the USA, wants to maintain their political and national identity. And, most agree they have a right to do so. Canada and the USA are way more similar than Israelis and Palestinians yet Canadians would never want to become another US state. Pakistan was created in 1947- Similar thing. No one says Quebec's desire to separate from Canada is based on racism. In fact, many on the left-wing support that right. Would it be possible to state this very elemental claim, near the top, since it the main claim? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.229.243.80 (talk) 09:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

What kind of an edit are you proposing, exactly? --Dailycare (talk) 18:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

removel of "Prominent supporters" section[edit]

As someone who know personally one of the people mentioned, he clearly doesn't support a bi-national state. its true for all 3 people mentioned (rivlin, arnes, and hotovely). all 3 support the annexation of the west bank to israel, but they support it because they think the jewish majority in that territory will be preserved and israel would continue to exist AS A JEWISH STATE. therefore I removed the section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.66.245.68 (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

"Arguments for and against"[edit]

lol, the whole paragraph reads like an online argument between two guys. There's no sources for anything, it's just arguments spouted by people who obviously believe in them.

By the way, I love the arguments about ethnic homogeneity (more like racial purity) like it's a good thing and how some European countries allegedly have ethnic homogeneity (like what country? Lichtenstein?). Anyway my point is the whole paragraph needs an appropriate header to highlight the fact that it reads like the transcript of a pub argument. --87.198.17.32 (talk) 20:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree this reads like to people on a website ranting without any sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by Viceroy489 (talkcontribs) 04:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I removed a few from the against section which actually detracted from the sourced info. But can see I should just go from top to bottom looking for other examples. Some of the "arguments" really belong in "supporters" and looking at supporters, vice versa. CarolMooreDC 01:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Cleaned up the problem a bit more. One of these days will take a more comprehensive look. CarolMooreDC 02:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Historical background section too in-depth?[edit]

The historical background section here is actually really good (at least as far as I can see), but it covers stuff that's really better covered elsewhere -- I don't think it's necessary to give the entire background of how the Israeli-Palestinian conflict came about like that. Should it perhaps be trimmed down into more of a summary? People who want the full history of the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the various promises made with regard to British Palestine can follow the link to the full article, after all. --Aquillion (talk) 18:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I've thought so myself, but didn't have time to deal with it. You might announce on relevant web site you are cutting it - in an NPOV way of course - in case there's any good WP:RS info in it that is somehow missing from that article. And/or even ask if others want to give it a shot. Will probably end up in a big brouhaha, but people might also update the article more. I do from time to time when in mood and/or someone does some questionable edit that gets me going. CarolMooreDC 18:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Infobox[edit]

Should this article have an infobox like to the one on Korea? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 16:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

No. It's a possible solution but there is no name for the country it would result in. CarolMooreDC 03:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Implementation[edit]

Has there been much written on the possible results of this idea being implemented? In London Frank Barat said that 200,000 people would probably die. What historians and writers have gone into this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.236.11.53 (talk) 08:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Biased historical background[edit]

The section Historical background is biased. The Palestinian and Jewish exoduses are mentioned and it ends with this:

The former Canadian Minister of Justice, Irwin Cotler, noted, "the Arab countries not only rejected a Palestinian state and went to war to extinguish the nascent Jewish state, but also targeted the Jewish nationals living in their respective countries, thereby creating two refugee populations."

This is not neutral at all, mostly for it's giving the view that Arabs are guilty for the two refugee crises. --IRISZOOM (talk) 07:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Zero0000 has corrected this now. Great!

Reut Institute[edit]

An entirely partisan entity, no? Entirely against this proposal, should be noted when using them as sources.

81.158.229.42 (talk) 18:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Trinational state?[edit]

This article talks a lot about the binational state, with the assumption that a one-state solution would comprise only Jews and Arabs who would constantly be vying for power and influence as a result. This ignores the fact that there are other ethnic groups in the area, too, most notably the Druze. Thus, "trinational state" might be a more accurate term especially if the Druze homelands (Golan Heights, etc.) are ultimately included. Actually I think a trinational solution is likely preferable to a binational one because the more different ethnic groups you have, the less likely any one of them will come to dominate and oppress the others (sort of like checks and balances). FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 14:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Lead[edit]

In the lead it stated that:

"Interest in a one-state solution is growing, however, as the two-state approach fails to accomplish a final agreement.[4]"

Where does it said in the source?! All I can see that:

  1. that One-State Threat is used as "a Tool to Advance a Two-State Solution"
  2. "Forces Acting to Undermine a Two-State Solution" =/= Support One-state solution.

--89.139.54.217 (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)