I agree that a two-state solution seems best but, given the determination of the Israelis to continue their occupation of the Palestinian Territories, this will not happen.Simply put, the occupation which denies the Palestinians the right to self-determination in their own land justifies resistance. You cannot expect true peace that is maintained by the barrel of an occupier's gun.
Sure. Let's go with that.
The occupation which denies the Palestinians the right to self-determination in their own land justifies resistance. You can not expect true peace that is maintained by the barrel of an occupier's gun.
The other side of that coin is this: The occupation which denies the Jewish people the right to self-determination in their own land justifies resistance. You can not have true peace that is maintained by the barrel of an occupier's gun (in this case the occupier's suicide bombers, rockets, knives and cars)
Any "solution" which entails sovereignty for the one over the entire territory, by definition, is UNJUST for the other party. Therefore the only JUST solution is to divide the land into two parts -- one for the Arab Palestinians and one for the Jewish people.**
So again, I ask you: How is a self-determining, self-governing State for each of these peoples NOT just?
** In fact, this has already been done -- when Jordan was removed from Palestine and given to the Arab Palestinians, leaving the remaining portion as the Homeland for the Jewish people. Unfortunately, while the Arab countries ethnically cleansed themselves of all their Jewish people, Israel chose (justly) to retain its Arab population and include them in their State as equals.
And since when have they been palestinian territories, who handed them the title to the land after 1099 when they were forcibly evicted after ruling for just 22 years.
Under international law it is the arab muslims that are occupying Israeli territories, and they should leave