Let us discuss this openly... What exactly IS the "two states solution"?

[Coyote]

Bump for toomuchtime_



Something like this:

[

Three state solution based on contiguous Palestine, separate state for Gaza and land swaps.

Israel keeps Ma'aleh Adumim, Gush Etzion, Ariel, some, but not all of East Jerusalem. Israel retains sovereignty over the Old City and the Temple Mount, but guarantees access for Palestinians.

We decided to nix the corridor between Gaza and Palestine. Some want a Jordan Valley corridor to remain with Israel. I would like to see Israeli control over the Hebron Holy Places and a corridor to same.

We are still on the fence about whether or not to allow dual citizenship.

That's the basics. Thoughts?

I think corridors are difficult to manage, and Hebron is almost in the middle of what would be Palestine. Couldn't the control of the Holy Places be co-managed much as the Temple is?

So without a corridor how would Israelis safely get to these holy places?

Good point, I see what you mean.

 

[Coyote]

Bump for toomuchtime_



Something like this:

[

Three state solution based on contiguous Palestine, separate state for Gaza and land swaps.

Israel keeps Ma'aleh Adumim, Gush Etzion, Ariel, some, but not all of East Jerusalem. Israel retains sovereignty over the Old City and the Temple Mount, but guarantees access for Palestinians.

We decided to nix the corridor between Gaza and Palestine. Some want a Jordan Valley corridor to remain with Israel. I would like to see Israeli control over the Hebron Holy Places and a corridor to same.

We are still on the fence about whether or not to allow dual citizenship.

That's the basics. Thoughts?

You are discussing only land, which is the easiest part to negotiate, but even so, both Arafat and Abbas have refused to allow any of the Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria to stay with Israeland both rejected giving up any part of east Jerusalem. Similarly, while polls have shown the majority of Israelis would be willing to make deep land concessions in a final status agreement, they have also shown Jerusalem is off the table.

The more difficult issue is security. First, Gaza cannot be allowed to become a state with control of its borders while it is still ruled by a gang of terrorists. Similarly, since Abbas so old and weak and the government structure of the PA so weak, the PA cannot be allowed to have control over its borders. Remember Israel turned Gaza over to the PA but despite more than a year of security coordination between the IDF and PA security forces and despite the fact the PA forces outnumbered the Hamas forces by 4 to 1 in Gaza, the PA quickly lost Gaza to Hamas. To prevent this from happening in Judea and Samaria, Israeli security forces must be in control of the borders and be able to operate throughout Judea and Samaria. In the last negotiations, it was Israel's insistence on discussing the security implications of any land deal that so enraged Obama and Kerry and finally ended the talks.

And we still haven't gotten to Abbas' insistence that the millions of so called refugees be allowed to return to Israel. I don't see any area in which Abbas and Netanyahu can agree.

I think the PA would have to have control over it's own borders. Gaza is a different demographic then the WB, a lot more extreme.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Bump for toomuchtime_



Something like this:

[

Three state solution based on contiguous Palestine, separate state for Gaza and land swaps.

Israel keeps Ma'aleh Adumim, Gush Etzion, Ariel, some, but not all of East Jerusalem. Israel retains sovereignty over the Old City and the Temple Mount, but guarantees access for Palestinians.

We decided to nix the corridor between Gaza and Palestine. Some want a Jordan Valley corridor to remain with Israel. I would like to see Israeli control over the Hebron Holy Places and a corridor to same.

We are still on the fence about whether or not to allow dual citizenship.

That's the basics. Thoughts?

You are discussing only land, which is the easiest part to negotiate, but even so, both Arafat and Abbas have refused to allow any of the Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria to stay with Israeland both rejected giving up any part of east Jerusalem. Similarly, while polls have shown the majority of Israelis would be willing to make deep land concessions in a final status agreement, they have also shown Jerusalem is off the table.

The more difficult issue is security. First, Gaza cannot be allowed to become a state with control of its borders while it is still ruled by a gang of terrorists. Similarly, since Abbas so old and weak and the government structure of the PA so weak, the PA cannot be allowed to have control over its borders. Remember Israel turned Gaza over to the PA but despite more than a year of security coordination between the IDF and PA security forces and despite the fact the PA forces outnumbered the Hamas forces by 4 to 1 in Gaza, the PA quickly lost Gaza to Hamas. To prevent this from happening in Judea and Samaria, Israeli security forces must be in control of the borders and be able to operate throughout Judea and Samaria. In the last negotiations, it was Israel's insistence on discussing the security implications of any land deal that so enraged Obama and Kerry and finally ended the talks.

And we still haven't gotten to Abbas' insistence that the millions of so called refugees be allowed to return to Israel. I don't see any area in which Abbas and Netanyahu can agree.

I think the PA would have to have control over it's own borders. Gaza is a different demographic then the WB, a lot more extreme.

Without Israeli security forces operating throughout Judea and Samaria, the PA would long ago have been overthrown by Hamas and Islamic Jihad. The security cooperation Abbas likes to talk about and which the Arabs in Judea and Samaria complain so much about is entirely about arresting Hamas and Islamic Jihad operatives who are as often after Abbas and after Israelis. It would be dangerous for Israel, Jordan and the PA for the PA to have control over the border.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The security cooperation Abbas likes to talk about and which the Arabs in Judea and Samaria complain so much about is entirely about arresting Hamas and Islamic Jihad operatives

Indeed, these are the people Hamas kicked out of Gaza in 2007 for obvious reasons.

 

[Hollie]

The security cooperation Abbas likes to talk about and which the Arabs in Judea and Samaria complain so much about is entirely about arresting Hamas and Islamic Jihad operatives

Indeed, these are the people Hamas kicked out of Gaza in 2007 for obvious reasons.

Indeed, the Hamas vs. Fatah civil war was a ruthless turf war that also included control over UNRWA welfare fraud

 

[toomuchtime_]

The security cooperation Abbas likes to talk about and which the Arabs in Judea and Samaria complain so much about is entirely about arresting Hamas and Islamic Jihad operatives

Indeed, these are the people Hamas kicked out of Gaza in 2007 for obvious reasons.

Exactly my point, if Israel were foolish enough to allow a fully sovereign Arab state in Judea and Samaria it would quickly turn into another Hamastan.

 

[montelatici]

Without a fully sovereign state of Palestine, i.e. with continued Israeli military occupation, it would not be a "two-state" solution. It would continue to be an Apartheid state, i.e. the same as South Africa with the Bantustans.

 

[Shusha]

[
You are discussing only land, which is the easiest part to negotiate,

Agreed. But I'm open to discussing other issues like citizenship, control of the Holy Places, water agreements, security, etc. I can't see why others wouldn't be.

but even so, both Arafat and Abbas have refused to allow any of the Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria to stay with Israel

Well, practically, if they think they are going to get a Jew-free 1949 armistice line at this point they are just kidding themselves. And I think Abbas, at least, knows that. I don't think his sticking points are Gush Etzion and Ma'aleh Adumim. Those are a given on all sides.

and both rejected giving up any part of east Jerusalem. Similarly, while polls have shown the majority of Israelis would be willing to make deep land concessions in a final status agreement, they have also shown Jerusalem is off the table.

Yep. We agree. Jerusalem is going to be a huge sticking point. Personally, if I were on Team Palestine -- I would give it to Israel (provided there was access to the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque for Palestinians) but use that concession to get something BIG that I wanted.

Israel has demonstrated, over the past 60-odd years that she will ensure access of Muslims to their Holy Places. The Jordanians/Palestinians have amply demonstrated that they will not, so in my mind, it is absolutely imperative that Israel retains sovereignty over the Old City and the Mount.

Some sort of international arrangement MAY be possible, but not until the international community, including the UN (if it manages to survive the next decade), drastically changes their tune about the Jewish connection to obviously Jewish religious and historical places. The fact that we have to argue obvious facts in that regard is the very reason why we won't give up Jerusalem, imo.

The more difficult issue is security. First, Gaza cannot be allowed to become a state with control of its borders while it is still ruled by a gang of terrorists. Similarly, since Abbas so old and weak and the government structure of the PA so weak, the PA cannot be allowed to have control over its borders.

Could not agree with you more. Eventually, though, as a long-term solution, Palestine will have to control its own borders. But it could be a gradual change. Doesn't have to happen overnight. We can do baby steps. Try, anyway.

To prevent this from happening in Judea and Samaria, Israeli security forces must be in control of the borders and be able to operate throughout Judea and Samaria.

I think you are arguing that the status quo must be maintained yet as the Palestinians aren't ready for a solution. We don't disagree.

And we still haven't gotten to Abbas' insistence that the millions of so called refugees be allowed to return to Israel. I don't see any area in which Abbas and Netanyahu can agree.

Again, this is something that any reasonable person will see can't be permitted to happen. We actually did discuss this, I neglected to mention. My solution is that any person of Palestinian origin who has been resettled anywhere in the world is no longer a refugee and therefore needs no more solutions. If they want to return to their ethnic home they can apply to immigrate just like anyone else. Any persons who are still truly refugees (ie stateless persons living in unacceptable conditions) should be given the choice of citizenship: Jordanian, Syrian, Palestinian, Lebanese and re-located to that country.

If we are going to provide compensation to people who lost homes and livelihoods due to the various wars -- and I don't see why we shouldn't -- both the Jewish and the Arabs should be compensated. And since the Jewish people have all ready been taken care of by the Jewish people, the Arabs should take care of the Arabs.

 

[Shusha]

Without a fully sovereign state of Palestine, i.e. with continued Israeli military occupation, it would not be a "two-state" solution.

I actually agree with this. Palestine has to be permitted to have full sovereignty. BUT that doesn't have to happen right away or all at once. AND she must be required to demonstrate peaceful intentions and control over extremist groups before she gains full sovereignty.

 

[Shusha]

So, another questions comes up for me....

Is it useful to determine borders (even if unilaterally, though preferrably mutually) without resolving all this other stuff? It seems to me this is what Israel is doing -- building up areas it intends to keep -- including, btw, quietly building Palestinian towns in Area C.

Is there a reason to do this more formally?

 

[Sixties Fan]

So, another questions comes up for me....

Is it useful to determine borders (even if unilaterally, though preferrably mutually) without resolving all this other stuff? It seems to me this is what Israel is doing -- building up areas it intends to keep -- including, btw, quietly building Palestinian towns in Area C.

Is there a reason to do this more formally?

Both the PA and Israel have been building on the areas they mean to keep.
The PA builds in areas A and B, per Oslo Accords
Israel builds in area C.

No Jews are living in Areas A and B
Arab Palestinians are living in Area C.

Israel does not illegally build on areas A and B.
The PA, with the EU, has been illegally building on area C, to try to add any land for the Palestinian side.

The border issues can only be determined through negotiations and a Peace Treaty as it happened with Egypt and Jordan.

 

[Shusha]

So, another questions comes up for me....

Is it useful to determine borders (even if unilaterally, though preferrably mutually) without resolving all this other stuff? It seems to me this is what Israel is doing -- building up areas it intends to keep -- including, btw, quietly building Palestinian towns in Area C.

Is there a reason to do this more formally?

Both the PA and Israel have been building on the areas they mean to keep.
The PA builds in areas A and B, per Oslo Accords
Israel builds in area C.

No Jews are living in Areas A and B
Arab Palestinians are living in Area C.

Israel does not illegally build on areas A and B.
The PA, with the EU, has been illegally building on area C, to try to add any land for the Palestinian side.

The border issues can only be determined through negotiations and a Peace Treaty as it happened with Egypt and Jordan.

We agree. But I'm not sure you answered my question.

Would it be a good idea for Israel to more formally divide Area C into two bordered areas-- land it intends to keep and land it intends to give away in a peace treaty and act accordingly -- such as not demolishing homes in the parts it doesn't want to keep anyway?

Its drawing a line in the sand, to be sure. But isn't it also sending a clear message that it intends to give Palestine a contiguous territory?

 

[Sixties Fan]

So, another questions comes up for me....

Is it useful to determine borders (even if unilaterally, though preferrably mutually) without resolving all this other stuff? It seems to me this is what Israel is doing -- building up areas it intends to keep -- including, btw, quietly building Palestinian towns in Area C.

Is there a reason to do this more formally?

Both the PA and Israel have been building on the areas they mean to keep.
The PA builds in areas A and B, per Oslo Accords
Israel builds in area C.

No Jews are living in Areas A and B
Arab Palestinians are living in Area C.

Israel does not illegally build on areas A and B.
The PA, with the EU, has been illegally building on area C, to try to add any land for the Palestinian side.

The border issues can only be determined through negotiations and a Peace Treaty as it happened with Egypt and Jordan.

We agree. But I'm not sure you answered my question.

Would it be a good idea for Israel to more formally divide Area C into two bordered areas-- land it intends to keep and land it intends to give away in a peace treaty and act accordingly -- such as not demolishing homes in the parts it doesn't want to keep anyway?

Its drawing a line in the sand, to be sure. But isn't it also sending a clear message that it intends to give Palestine a contiguous territory?

Here is what the Oslo Accords say:

West Bank Areas in the Oslo II Accord - Wikipedia

I see no reason for Israel to divide Area C.
Palestinians living on it comprise a very small percentage, which could be absorbed into Israel if it is negotiated that all of it will be annexed.

Parts of it were to be supposed to be transferred to the PA. Israel offered 97% of the West Bank during the 2000 and 2008 negotiations. The Arabs refused it.

Now, I do not see why Jews should be made to leave again (1948 they were all expelled by Jordan) their very ancient homeland of Judea and Samaria.

Jews not living in Judea, Samaria and all of Jerusalem is the Arab intention.

It comes from the Romans eventually closing Jerusalem to the Jews . Their Capital. Arabs think that if they can make the Jews lose all three, then not only Jews will lose the want to defend themselves, but would eventually give up more land, and eventually all of Israel, and return to being second class citizens.

There is not one thing the Arabs have honored as far as the Oslo Accords go.

They have not stopped teaching their generations hatred for Jews and Israel.
They continue to incite.
They have not changed their charters which require the destruction of Israel sot that a Sovereign Arab one will come into its place with Jews either a minority or gone.

One can discuss the Two State solution forever, but in the mind of the Arab leaders there is only one solution. One State, an Arab, Muslims State/Empire, with non Arab/Muslims as a minority as it had been for the past 1300 years, from the Arab invasion to the Ottoman Empire control of the land.

Can there truly be a Two State solution where Hamas and the PA will cease wanting Israel to be destroyed?

Not now, that is for sure.

It will require very powerful moderate leaders for that to happen, as it happened with Egypt and Jordan. An end of the endless donations to the PA and Gaza, which is only mostly pocketed by the leaders.

The two State Partition would have worked in 1937 or 1947, and even before, if it had not been to the Husseini Clan which started riots against the Jews and became the leaders of denying a Jewish State. Arafat is part of that clan.

There are many parts to this puzzle and unless the Arab side changes, or are made to change, no Two State Solution will ever come out for the coming future.

I hope I have answered some of your questions.

 

[Shusha]

I see no reason for Israel to divide Area C.

To ensure a contiguous Palestine.

 

[Shusha]

...Jews not living in Judea, Samaria and all of Jerusalem is the Arab intention.

...Arabs think that if they can make the Jews lose all three, then not only Jews will lose the want to defend themselves, but would eventually give up more land, and eventually all of Israel, and return to being second class citizens.

They have not stopped teaching their generations hatred for Jews and Israel.
They continue to incite.
They have not changed their charters which require the destruction of Israel sot that a Sovereign Arab one will come into its place with Jews either a minority or gone.

One can discuss the Two State solution forever, but in the mind of the Arab leaders there is only one solution. One State, an Arab, Muslims State/Empire, with non Arab/Muslims as a minority as it had been for the past 1300 years, from the Arab invasion to the Ottoman Empire control of the land.

We agree. In fact, one of the purposes why I try to hold discussion about actual solutions is to illuminate how ridiculously easy it is to solve the conflict IF one isn't intent on destroying Israel, but actually wants to work out a fair and reasonable solution.

The fact that the Arabs don't have yet another state or two in Palestine and Gaza is evidence that the problem is not too hard to solve. Its easy to solve. We've practically done it on this thread.

Not now, that is for sure.

It will require very powerful moderate leaders for that to happen, as it happened with Egypt and Jordan. An end of the endless donations to the PA and Gaza, which is only mostly pocketed by the leaders.

We agree wholeheartedly.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

I see no reason for Israel to divide Area C.

To ensure a contiguous Palestine.

If you want a contiguous Palestine, you would have to give them Hebron, which you said you're not willing to do.

 

[Sixties Fan]

I see no reason for Israel to divide Area C.

To ensure a contiguous Palestine.

Basically, the contiguous Palestine is all a ruse.

The Mandate for Palestine was to have ALL of the Mandate eventually become Jewish majority with a non Jewish population as a minority.
TransJordan was given to non Jews in 1925.

With all the riots from 1920 on, the Arabs have done nothing but refuse to divide any of the land.
They refused in 1937. In 1948. Four military wars between that and 1973 to destroy Israel. More wars from Gaza and Hizbollah to destroy Israel.

Rejection of the 2000 and 2008 Peace Talks.
They would have basically have had ALL of Judea and Samaria and East Jerusalem as a Capital.

They chose "intifadas" and more attempts to destroy Israel domestically and internationally.

BDS is nothing but an attempt to destroy any Pro Israel efforts in and out of Israel.

Nothing they have done or are going to continue to do, via BDS, the UN, UNESCO and others, is an effort to lead to negotiations and peace.


They have shown that they do not want peace but ALL of the Mandate for Palestine in the sovereign hands of Muslims.

So, truly, no. They made their beds, now they need to enjoy the thorns they put on it.

The Jews are not going to leave Judea and Samaria.

Land transfer, is possible.

Hamas is a totally different government from the PA and should have called the Independence of that area in 2007. But it wants ALL of the Mandate, not just Gaza.

It will be Four States, if negotiations ever come to be.

Jordan, Israel, Gaza and the Areas A and B of Judea and Samaria.

Right now, only two are countries. Jordan and Israel (which nearly wasn't thanks to the British and their intention of keeping the area to themselves)

 

[Sixties Fan]

...Jews not living in Judea, Samaria and all of Jerusalem is the Arab intention.

...Arabs think that if they can make the Jews lose all three, then not only Jews will lose the want to defend themselves, but would eventually give up more land, and eventually all of Israel, and return to being second class citizens.

They have not stopped teaching their generations hatred for Jews and Israel.
They continue to incite.
They have not changed their charters which require the destruction of Israel sot that a Sovereign Arab one will come into its place with Jews either a minority or gone.

One can discuss the Two State solution forever, but in the mind of the Arab leaders there is only one solution. One State, an Arab, Muslims State/Empire, with non Arab/Muslims as a minority as it had been for the past 1300 years, from the Arab invasion to the Ottoman Empire control of the land.

We agree. In fact, one of the purposes why I try to hold discussion about actual solutions is to illuminate how ridiculously easy it is to solve the conflict IF one isn't intent on destroying Israel, but actually wants to work out a fair and reasonable solution.

The fact that the Arabs don't have yet another state or two in Palestine and Gaza is evidence that the problem is not too hard to solve. Its easy to solve. We've practically done it on this thread.

Not now, that is for sure.

It will require very powerful moderate leaders for that to happen, as it happened with Egypt and Jordan. An end of the endless donations to the PA and Gaza, which is only mostly pocketed by the leaders.

We agree wholeheartedly.

It is actually Impossible to solve.

As long as they follow word for word of the Quran, and demand that Muslim conquered land remains in Muslim hands, there will be no solution.

Abbas has done everything to undermine Israel, and all Jewish holy places by turning one by one " a Muslim site".

The UN and UNESCO and UNWRA are part of the problem, as it is full of Muslim and Christian States which are against Israel.

They add to the rejection for negotiations and a final solution for the problem.

It was not like that with Egypt and Jordan. Those organizations were not as
taken by anti Israel elements as it is now.

 

[toomuchtime_]

[
You are discussing only land, which is the easiest part to negotiate,

Agreed. But I'm open to discussing other issues like citizenship, control of the Holy Places, water agreements, security, etc. I can't see why others wouldn't be.

but even so, both Arafat and Abbas have refused to allow any of the Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria to stay with Israel

Well, practically, if they think they are going to get a Jew-free 1949 armistice line at this point they are just kidding themselves. And I think Abbas, at least, knows that. I don't think his sticking points are Gush Etzion and Ma'aleh Adumim. Those are a given on all sides.

and both rejected giving up any part of east Jerusalem. Similarly, while polls have shown the majority of Israelis would be willing to make deep land concessions in a final status agreement, they have also shown Jerusalem is off the table.

Yep. We agree. Jerusalem is going to be a huge sticking point. Personally, if I were on Team Palestine -- I would give it to Israel (provided there was access to the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque for Palestinians) but use that concession to get something BIG that I wanted.

Israel has demonstrated, over the past 60-odd years that she will ensure access of Muslims to their Holy Places. The Jordanians/Palestinians have amply demonstrated that they will not, so in my mind, it is absolutely imperative that Israel retains sovereignty over the Old City and the Mount.

Some sort of international arrangement MAY be possible, but not until the international community, including the UN (if it manages to survive the next decade), drastically changes their tune about the Jewish connection to obviously Jewish religious and historical places. The fact that we have to argue obvious facts in that regard is the very reason why we won't give up Jerusalem, imo.

The more difficult issue is security. First, Gaza cannot be allowed to become a state with control of its borders while it is still ruled by a gang of terrorists. Similarly, since Abbas so old and weak and the government structure of the PA so weak, the PA cannot be allowed to have control over its borders.

Could not agree with you more. Eventually, though, as a long-term solution, Palestine will have to control its own borders. But it could be a gradual change. Doesn't have to happen overnight. We can do baby steps. Try, anyway.

To prevent this from happening in Judea and Samaria, Israeli security forces must be in control of the borders and be able to operate throughout Judea and Samaria.

I think you are arguing that the status quo must be maintained yet as the Palestinians aren't ready for a solution. We don't disagree.

And we still haven't gotten to Abbas' insistence that the millions of so called refugees be allowed to return to Israel. I don't see any area in which Abbas and Netanyahu can agree.

Again, this is something that any reasonable person will see can't be permitted to happen. We actually did discuss this, I neglected to mention. My solution is that any person of Palestinian origin who has been resettled anywhere in the world is no longer a refugee and therefore needs no more solutions. If they want to return to their ethnic home they can apply to immigrate just like anyone else. Any persons who are still truly refugees (ie stateless persons living in unacceptable conditions) should be given the choice of citizenship: Jordanian, Syrian, Palestinian, Lebanese and re-located to that country.

If we are going to provide compensation to people who lost homes and livelihoods due to the various wars -- and I don't see why we shouldn't -- both the Jewish and the Arabs should be compensated. And since the Jewish people have all ready been taken care of by the Jewish people, the Arabs should take care of the Arabs.

We agree on a lot of things, but as far as Israel is concerned, there is no Palestine, there is only the PA and the PA has no borders. Land and border issues cannot be profitably discussed without also discussing the security implications of any land or border agreement, and it is unimaginable that Israel's security can be protected without Israel's security forces operation throughout Judea and Samaria; it is also unimaginable that the Arabs would agree to this. So no matter how clever we are on this forum about working out equitable arrangements on land, borders and refugees, there can be no sovereign Arab state in any part of the territories unless Israel can be persuaded it no longer has to have its security forces operate throughout the territories, and I can't see that happening in the foreseeable future.

 

[Sixties Fan]

[
You are discussing only land, which is the easiest part to negotiate,

Agreed. But I'm open to discussing other issues like citizenship, control of the Holy Places, water agreements, security, etc. I can't see why others wouldn't be.

but even so, both Arafat and Abbas have refused to allow any of the Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria to stay with Israel

Well, practically, if they think they are going to get a Jew-free 1949 armistice line at this point they are just kidding themselves. And I think Abbas, at least, knows that. I don't think his sticking points are Gush Etzion and Ma'aleh Adumim. Those are a given on all sides.

and both rejected giving up any part of east Jerusalem. Similarly, while polls have shown the majority of Israelis would be willing to make deep land concessions in a final status agreement, they have also shown Jerusalem is off the table.

Yep. We agree. Jerusalem is going to be a huge sticking point. Personally, if I were on Team Palestine -- I would give it to Israel (provided there was access to the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque for Palestinians) but use that concession to get something BIG that I wanted.

Israel has demonstrated, over the past 60-odd years that she will ensure access of Muslims to their Holy Places. The Jordanians/Palestinians have amply demonstrated that they will not, so in my mind, it is absolutely imperative that Israel retains sovereignty over the Old City and the Mount.

Some sort of international arrangement MAY be possible, but not until the international community, including the UN (if it manages to survive the next decade), drastically changes their tune about the Jewish connection to obviously Jewish religious and historical places. The fact that we have to argue obvious facts in that regard is the very reason why we won't give up Jerusalem, imo.

The more difficult issue is security. First, Gaza cannot be allowed to become a state with control of its borders while it is still ruled by a gang of terrorists. Similarly, since Abbas so old and weak and the government structure of the PA so weak, the PA cannot be allowed to have control over its borders.

Could not agree with you more. Eventually, though, as a long-term solution, Palestine will have to control its own borders. But it could be a gradual change. Doesn't have to happen overnight. We can do baby steps. Try, anyway.

To prevent this from happening in Judea and Samaria, Israeli security forces must be in control of the borders and be able to operate throughout Judea and Samaria.

I think you are arguing that the status quo must be maintained yet as the Palestinians aren't ready for a solution. We don't disagree.

And we still haven't gotten to Abbas' insistence that the millions of so called refugees be allowed to return to Israel. I don't see any area in which Abbas and Netanyahu can agree.

Again, this is something that any reasonable person will see can't be permitted to happen. We actually did discuss this, I neglected to mention. My solution is that any person of Palestinian origin who has been resettled anywhere in the world is no longer a refugee and therefore needs no more solutions. If they want to return to their ethnic home they can apply to immigrate just like anyone else. Any persons who are still truly refugees (ie stateless persons living in unacceptable conditions) should be given the choice of citizenship: Jordanian, Syrian, Palestinian, Lebanese and re-located to that country.

If we are going to provide compensation to people who lost homes and livelihoods due to the various wars -- and I don't see why we shouldn't -- both the Jewish and the Arabs should be compensated. And since the Jewish people have all ready been taken care of by the Jewish people, the Arabs should take care of the Arabs.

We agree on a lot of things, but as far as Israel is concerned, there is no Palestine, there is only the PA and the PA has no borders. Land and border issues cannot be profitably discussed without also discussing the security implications of any land or border agreement, and it is unimaginable that Israel's security can be protected without Israel's security forces operation throughout Judea and Samaria; it is also unimaginable that the Arabs would agree to this. So no matter how clever we are on this forum about working out equitable arrangements on land, borders and refugees, there can be no sovereign Arab state in any part of the territories unless Israel can be persuaded it no longer has to have its security forces operate throughout the territories, and I can't see that happening in the foreseeable future.

This article shows how impossible Arabs have made it for Gaza and the PA to come to negotiations.

As long as they believe that they can make Israel cede more land, or anything else, they will never sign a Peace treaty.

Arabs still suffer from Israel Derangement Syndrome (Petra Marquardt-Bigman) ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News