Reddit mentions of The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East

Take a look at this - she's pretty right wing, and this book is her set of solutions (btw, if you go on youtube and look up the book title, I'm sure she's done interviews that you can watch):

https://www.amazon.com/Israeli-Solution-One-State-Peace-Middle/dp/0385348061

> Just because Islamic terrorism exists doesn't mean that Israel gets a blank cheque.

Sure, no nation state under heaven is perfect. For a deep dive into imperfections and strange quirks of the Israeli political scene, you might want to read Catch The Jew!. Be advised the work is very satirical in it's approach to the subject, but none the less quite accurate. Enjoy the chuckles as you read, it is as funny as it is enlightening.

> Errors are: the wildly inaccurate map…

Yep, you're right. I read the words and didn't pay attention to the pictures. That map is more than a bit silly. Especially because the creator of the map makes the all too common error [among Westerners] of conflating "Arab" with "Muslim" to the point of using the terms interchangeably. Also, big chunks of the map that are marked in red for "Arab/Muslim" are relatively unpopulated such as the interior of the Sinai Peninsula which also makes no sense.

> In short it is contrary international law to settle your people in occupied territory in order to demographically alter the region, which is exactly was Israel is doing.

*Sigh.* Jerusalem is not a settlement anymore than Moscow is settlement. The regions of Judea and Sumeria aren't settlements either. They have been occupied by Jews since very ancient times.

The fact is, as I suspect you well know, the "Palestinian state," already exists: Jordan. A second concurrent "Palestinian state" is not needed.

> …calling people who have lived in Palestine for centuries "squatters" and "brutal terrorists".

I'll concede this point too, but I do not think you'll like the result. Non-Jewish residents of these regions should be brought into the fold and offered full Israeli citizenship. If they cannot stomach Israeli citizenship they may voluntarily relocate if that is truly their wish. The most efficient path to peace therefore would be The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East. Wouldn't you agree?

Before dissenting from the One State solution, please consider this: virtually every time Israel has extended an olive branch along "two state" lines both the Israelis and residents of the Palestinian Territories have been made to suffer. Just look at Gaza. Israel seeded control and militants promptly moved in and began shelling Sderot. (Irony of ironies: the first Qassam rockets were made using "recycled" materials from greenhouses the State of Israel left in Gaza to the Gazens get on their feet, economically.) Israel, having a moral obligation to protect its people, was forced to act with an embargo and, at times, limited military strikes.

The very sad truth is: Palestinians are made to suffer because their own leadership reckons them as useful political pawns than as settled and naturalized Israeli citizens. The optics of the situation are then exploited to create the appearance of a moral crisis that would not otherwise be present if Israel held unchallenged autonomy over its borders. This is also why residents of Palestinian territories don't relocate, they're generally prevented from doing so by neighboring powers perpetuating the "crisis."

What are your thoughts /u/TeoKajLibroj?

>Highly unlikely. Neither solution is acceptable to the ultra-religious settlers. I mean, I would agree that both solutions would be ok from the neutral's point of view, but if we are trying to find a solution that Israel will politically accept, neither one of those will do.

Sacrifices are going to have to be made on settlements no matter what. There's simply no way to absorb all of them without annexing the entire West Bank. This is why Israeli policymakers are increasingly calling for separation between the two populations. Evacuating settlements beyond the separation wall is considered a centrist position within Israel: it's certainly not impossible for it to happen. At least giving settlers the option to remain in Palestine would allow religious hardliners who care more about the land than the authority ruling over them.

>Would it? This states that there is now a parity, which is expected to grow in the future. Would the Jews of Israel want to take such a gamble?

This is including Gaza, which has a very high birthrate and which Israel would never take, and it's a temporary setback. The Jewish birthrate only recently surpassed the Arab one. The death rate is still higher since Israel's population is older, but this won't last. There's also the potential for more aliyah, especially from Europe, though this is of course difficult to predict.

>Again, I can see this working (look at Belgium), but that would require a lot of goodwill between the Jews and Muslims before the democracy could work. A country with two communities that hate deeply one another won't work even if one side has a slight majority.

I agree: it would be tense and likely violent for a long time. It's nevertheless a way for Israel to maintain a Jewish majority and a democratic form of government. Likely it would happen slowly, and West Bank Palestinians would have the option to apply for Israeli citizenship without it being automatically bestowed upon them (like in East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights).

>If such a solution is sought, it should be done on the same basis as other countries with such deep divides have been made to work (Northern Ireland, Belgium, etc.) with guarantees for both parties to be treated equally. Northern Ireland assembly could never work if it were run by a tiny protestant majority. It only works as both the catholics and the protestants are guaranteed a place in the government. Belgium was in governmental crisis some time ago as the French and Flemish speaking parties were unable to form a coalition government. The country would collapse if the Flemish-speakers would form a government on their own with their majority (about 60/40). That's how it would be in Israel as well. At least in the beginning, all governments of such a state would have to have both Jews and Muslims in it. Possibly if in some later state the importance of the religion disappears, normal (non religious-identity) politics could resume. In the case of Israel I would expect this to take decades.

This is assuming some kind of federal model is attempted, which isn't necessarily the case. There could very well be a tyranny of the majority. It's an impractical solution and the two-state solution makes more sense on pretty much every level, but there are proposals, mostly from the Israeli right, to either annex the West Bank and maintain a unitary Jewish state or to create a federation that preserves the Jewish identity of the state.

> Caroline Glick, long-time, highly visable opinion writer, who repeatedly advocated for the complete ethnic cleansing of all Palestinians from the OPT, is part of the election list for Likud this time, don't you?

1. She's running with HaYamin HaHadash not Likud. https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Caroline-Glick-joining-Bennett-Shakeds-new-party-576092
   
   
2. She advocates full citizenship for all West Bank residents not ethnic cleansing. https://www.amazon.com/Israeli-Solution-One-State-Peace-Middle/dp/0385348061