Should Palestinians accept Israel as a Jewish state?

I have some qualms about any religion having the right to a country, but my specific problem with Israel is the denial of civil and religious rights to non-Jews. The simple solution would be to adopt the American plan where everyone is equal, regardless of religion. When Israel adopts the policy that everyone is equal regardless of race, creed or color, most of my problems would evaporate.

I like the idea. Maybe the US should demand that all Israelis recognise it as a Christian State before they receive any military aid. Maybe Japan should insist that all migrants are Buddhist. Maybe Indonesia should call itself the Islamic State of Indonesia....etc.

Since the founding of Israel the Arabs have attacked Israel, not the other way around. This is undisputed fact. During these wars, Palestinians who did not want to live under such circumstances had fled to neighbouring countries to live. In fact, some of these Palestinians are also refugees from Black September (1970), when the Jordanian government killed thousands of Palestinians (which of course no one seems to mention here) for fear of a government coup by the PLO. The Palestinians, consistently fight among their own people and are brutal at best. We've examples of this in Gaza when Hamas killed hundreds of Fatah police and government officials forcing them out of Gaza. We've seen this in Lebanon when the Lebanese army were forced to go into the refugee camps and kill extremist fighters there. We've seem Palestinian terrorists hold journalists from all over the world captive and let them go only under pressure from neighbouring Egypt. Nabka?? GIVE ME A BREAK!!

About "religious restrictions" - there are non in Israel. They are in Jordan, Saudi Arabia and other Arab and Moslem "bastions of freedom and tolerance", complain there. About Kosovo: "world" did not "stomp" on the Serbians because Serbians have claim over Kosovo: their claim, by the way is not questioned. "World", or precisely respectable European gentlemen, were scared of expelled Moslem Albanians running around their countries with guns in their pockets, so they bombed Serbia into submission because they could (and again: Moslem oil and Moslem minorities in Europe...), so, in a sense, yes, it was an anti-Christian Orthodox action. But as you correctly noted, "NO conquered people surrendered their rights"... And, finally, about " when a zionist has no plausible defense": Zionism and Zionists do not need any special defense. Their defense are the Bible and the History. This defense is impenetrable even to such a powerful enemy as potobac.

The British in 1917 perfectly understood something that many have not grasp yet even today: that Islam, as the religion of conquest, will never be satisfied in the position of minority until it reaches position of majority and domination, and suppression of minority. On the other hand, Jews, being very small minorities (except of Poland before WWII), never had neither the goal nor the desire to dominate politically and/or religiously in any country where they resided or reside. Consequently, in the world where Moslem Arabs have majority and domination in 22 countries, there is a place where Jewish political sovereignty must be guaranteed in accord with civil and religious rights of non-Jews; namely Land of Israel.

It is interesting that you don't argue anymore that political and civil rights are two different rights. So, you acknowledge that I am correct on that, thanks. Now, let's get back to hypocrisy stuff. Looking at our debates I can prove that it is you who is a hypocrite and this is why: hypocrisy is the act of pretending to not have feelings, beliefs or opinions, that one does actually have. You pretend that you do not have anti-Jewish feelings, beliefs and opinions. In my previous notes I proved, based on your own posts, that you have ones. That means you fall into the classic definition of hypocrisy. Next, about not allowing political rights to Arabs in the Jewish State of Israel: this is more difficult to explain to you because to understand this one should possess certain historical knowledge.

I am not advocating all Jewish immigrants to Israel go back to whence they came. All they should do is to remove religious restriction and make the same move South Africa did. As to the Jews being rightful owners and regaining their land, I can only say that the world quite correctly stomped on the Serbians who made the same claim over Kosovo. There is no difference between the two cases and the treatment should be the same to both. The Serbs are Christians; does the world's treatment of them means the world is anti-Christian (or is the claim of Jew-hatred just the reflexive response when a zionist has no plausible defense)?

What nonsense. The Canaanites didn't lose ownership of Palestine; it was taken from them. What happened was the same in both cases. As to surrendering their rights, I would suggest NO conquered people surrendered their rights, and that makes no difference at all. As to the tired old argument that there was no sovereign Islamic entity in Palestine and there were no Palestinians, I would point out that before 1776 there was no sovereign entity here and no Americans. Does that mean there is no USA and no Americans?

I suggest you are being completely hypocritical and would be totally incensed if another country were to not allow people having political rights because they are Jewish. If it is wrong to be done TO a Jew, it is wrong when done BY a Jew.

It's all a red herring to evade an end to the occupation. The founders of the state named it ISRAEL. The name ISRAEl isn't Jewish enough ??? Well,if not, then they should have named it YEHUDA .Give me a brake ! David

Imagine that they say that all immigrants from Europe, whose ancestors dominated, expelled and murdered multitude of Indians, must return back to their original lands in Europe. I am afraid the white Americans will have a hard time to prove that they are "ingenious" owners of the America. The same goes for the Jewish people, who are the rightful owners of the Land of Israel and regained their land, and to others who wants to take the ownership away from them, namely Arabs and their apologists, including outright Jew-haters.

The Israelites did not lose ownership of "Palestine", it was taken from them by force. The people were deprived from their land, but they did not surrender their rights. After Jewish people regained their strength, they took it back, as simple as that. As one rabbi put it succinctly: "I am coming Home". But to put it into historical perspective, the ownership of Land of Israel by the Jewish people was never questioned by neither Christian nor Islamic authorities. It is not a coincidence that for the hundreds of years of Moslem rule over the Land of Israel, they never created any sovereign Islamic or Arab entity on that land, and, of course, there never were any "palestinians" on that land. The name "Palestine" itself is deeply offensive to the Jews, but it is already another topic. I am not familiar with the history of England good enough to talk about Welsh's possible claim to England,but here is an analogy: Imagine that somehow American Indian tribes gained the strength, united and formed the United Tribes of America.

Political rights are NOT the same as civil rights. They can overlap but not the same. For example,political rights are considered to be negative rights, whereas civil rights belong to the positive rights category. Do your research.

Quote: Accepting this "Jewish" state WITHIN RECOGNIZED BORDERS would go a long way to securing peace and the reality of a 2 state solution. Your statement is correct, but the problem is there are NO RECOGNIZED BORDERS yet. Recognizing Israel as a Jewish state BEFORE any agreements on borders are established means for the Palestinians to give up any claims or the right of return to the illegal settlements within the Occupied Territories that Israel wants to keep - they would automatically be recognized as Jewish.

Firsts you are not correct that it was not Jews who speak against making the US a Christian nation. Every Jewish organization who has spoken about the matter has been unanimous in taking that position. By the way, I agree with them; it would make all non-Christians (not just Jews) second class. Finally, I get very tired of the constant repetition of what Arab States do. It is wrong for them, and the fact that someone else is wrong doesn't give you the right to be just as wrong.

I don't question that Israelites had early (not original) ownership of Palestine. The fact is, though, that they lost ownership and someone else took over. How they felt about that is not relevant,except as a historical footnote, because someone else had taken possession. To put your claim into context, can you imagine the Welsh claiming the right to take back England because they were the original owners?

Political rights are included in the term civil rights.

The Pals accept Israel as a Jewish state, but Israel pulls back to 1967 borders. Split Jerusalem, maybe. He too can "Put all his cards on the table" But he won't do that. As his father told Israeli radio, Netanyahu is merely creating demands he knows the Pals won't accept, in order to freeze negotiations. The whole question of 'Jewish State' is a diversion. If Pals accept a Jewish state, some new demand will be made. Because their recognition of a Jewish state was never the real issue. Freezing negotiations and stopping Obama's momentum was the issue.

Palestinians and Arabs have no other choice but to accept the sad reality that Israel exists, and will continue to exist. Israel is a key player in the region, and the most stable regime around, for centuries to come. Even if the USA falls or stops supporting Israel, someone else (including Turkey, Iran, and some Arab nations) will find Israel a good ally. The question is: will Israel ever recognize the right of Palestinians to self-determination, and respect their choice? Will Israelis rid themselves of the occupier-mentality? Will it suit the USA to allow Israel to normalize relations in the Middle East?

For the sake of peace not only between Israel and Palestine but also between any Jew and Muslim in any part of the world Palestine must at any cost and before it is too late recognise Israel as an independent and sovereign nation in the Middle East.

"the fact remains that that would not be a problem at all had not zionism created the problem in the first place." That's true - but it's a bit like saying that the abolitist movement was to blame for the civil war. "I't's those people that wanted freedom that are the cause of this mess"

Why not ask the Palestinians to convert to Judaism. They could then be Israeli citizens and all would be well. Of course, Hamas may have a problem with it, but they can just leave if they want. The more, the merrier.

I agree with Mark Lincoln when he states that the idea of Palestinians accepting Israel as a Jewish State is a case of the Israelis moving the goal-post after the Palestinian leaders started talking about recognizing Israel. In fact previously the Israeli leaders used to insist that Palestinians amend the PLO charter concerning Israel before they would discuss creation of a Palestinian State. Then it was that there should be free democratic elections, also forcing the Palestinians to create the post of Prime Minister in order to curb the power of Yasser Arafat. Then the Israelis wanted that Hamas should somehow be deprived of its power after it came to power in the elections that the US and Israel wanted in the Occupied territories. No matter what the Palestinians did, it has been an elusive goal- post for them. Even if they accept Israel as a Jewish state (and they are right to state that it is none of their business what Israelis prefer to call themselves) Israeli demands won't end.

Isn't that recognizing Israel. As for the Palestinians having to "APOLOGIZE FIRST" lets face it that is Bibi's real meaning to this condition and is absurd! One telling sentence that Roi says "If Israeli Arabs would accept Israel as a Jewish state that would go alomg way" then has the audacity to add in brackets (IF DONE SINCERELY). There,s the rub would it be believed by Israeli's filled with propaganda fed by fear and justfying hate! It looks like just one more hoop that the Palestinians must jump through. These hoops are machevelian politics that blocks any meaningful possibility for a fair and just peace. With peace how to keep land annexation and "settlement building" Quoting Col Eli Geva "the house is on fire" only Israeli's have the power to put it out and Bibi's vision will do anything but...PEACE EVER?

3. Your last point reveals finally that you suffer an illness called bigotry. You say "Jews in US...tell us..." It is not "Jews" saying, but secular individuals, atheists say so. But point is that the church and state are separated in the US, being a Christian is not a matter of "rights" or "citizenship", consequently being a "Christian nation" the US does not make non-Christians a "second-class" citizens. On the other hand, Israel is the Jewish state that was re-established by UN as the "state for Jewish People". However, as you know, non-Jews in Israel vote and being elected with the same rights as Jews. So, Moslems in Israel are OK, don't worry. The problem is that many Arab states explicitly state that they are "Moslem states" and Islam is the state religion. Non-Moslems (even Christian Arabs) are discriminated against in those states. Many Arab states explicitly call themselves "Arab" and accepted as such, in spite of sizable non-Arab minorities. Read their official names: "Syrian Arab Republic", Arab Republic of Egypt" Lybian Arab Jamahiriya". So, why Israel cannot be accepted by Arabs as the Jewish State? What you want for yourself you cannot deny to your fellow.

But most important to your question is that Israelites, the original owners of the land, are not disappeared from the history. They existed and nobody, including Moslems, did not question their original ownership of the Land of Israel. Jews always knew that they will come back and reclaim their inheritance. That's why Arabs supported attempts by Hitler to exterminate Jews. The hopes of Arabs were to eliminate original owners and claim the Land for themselves. Squatters wanted the rightful owners dead in order to say: we are legitimate heirs. Moslems took Land of Israel by conquest, but they lost the right to own the land because original owners claimed their rights.

2. Moslem connection to the Land of Israel does not come even close to the Jewish historical and religious ties with the Land of Israel. Israelites (not exactly Hebrews) conquered the land from Canaanites. However, mainstream historians agree that actually it was a slow and long penetration with a few, if any, violent conflicts. In the end, Israelites adopted much of the Canaanites culture, and even Hebrew language is a dialect of Canaanite native tongue. What Israelites brought to Canaan is the might military vigor and, of course, the new monotheistic religion. In contrast, Moslem conquest was bloody and quick thunderstorm, which was not interested in Jerusalem or the Land of Israel per say, just in the spread of Islam. Moslems authorities did not create in "Palestine" any separate political entity. Qur'an does not even mention Jerusalem on its pages, in contrast to Jewish Bible, that mentions it many times.

1. What was spoken in Balfour Declaration is implemented by Jews even in a greater extent than was asked (unfortunately). The Declaration was talking ONLY about religious and civil rights, which is done, but Jews gave Arabs POLITICAL rights as well. They should not of done that.

You wrote: "And exactly what will be the status of non-Jews in this "Jewish" state?" Answer: the status will be the same as of Jews in other Arab states.

There are four Palestinian groups, the PA, Hamas, Israel Muslims and ex-Palestinians living mainly in Jordan and Lebanon. Can a lasting peace be done without all the players having a place at the table in peace talks? Is the three state solution an option to allow the right of return for some exiles, since neither Israel or the PA is will to let them return to there area of control. Give them a choice of a small bit of land in the third state or money. The Zionist one state plan of more settlements with some from of Apartheid short term with later deporting most Muslims is a dead end for Israel since it is unlikely to work but is it is a nice dream.

The question is why is Israel trying to hold the PA to higher standand that Israel is willing to go itself? Israel seem to be trying to divide the different Muslims groups to gain better control over Israeli Muslims and setting a legal arument for limiting their rights or later removal. This could also lead to Israel give up part of northern Israel to a Palestinian state since most Israeli Muslim live and own land in the north.

This conversation is blessed. Dialogs will bring both sides to a better understanding,tolerance,empathy and hopefully peace.

Palestinians can change their mind too. They did it when they recognized the state of Israel. Maybe they'll insist on Israeli recognition of them as the NON-Jewish state if Israel keeps insisting. Is Israel willing to accept them as that with all its implications? Israel's new precondition is new. Nobody asked Egypt or Jordan to accept Israel as Jewish, just as a state.

Since you ask... Israel is fascist since it rejects in practice, if not explicitly, the norms of liberalism and parliamentary democracy in favor of an emphasis on naked force and chauvinistic nationalism. It is a a theocracy since the rationale for its creation ultimately rests on religious dogma and adherents of the state religion are favored to a greater or lesser extent when it comes to possession of land, protection from the state, political power, and even the right to be in Israel at all. Since you ask.

Most commentators split hair to fight the right of Israel to be a Jewish state & coexist in a sea of Islamic countries, not ashamed to call themselves Islamic. Nobody seems to find any fault with the creation of other Arab states out of the Ottoman block. In other words, Arab countries contemporary to Israel are more legit to most of the commentators. Why not apply the same principle for all? Why forget it was Arab countries that dispossessed the Pals by declaring wars they lost, asking them to leave the country & sticking them in camps for decades. With all this hostility, the small group of Jews in Israel could have disappear, but it did not. It thrives & persists and seem to be a thorn on the side of muslims & anti jews who calls Haaretz their 24 hrs posting place.

There is a way. If Israel would share its wealth and everything that brings them happiness with the Palestinians there would be no hate and pain. Israel made the Palestinian desert bloom, but does not share, its demise is near. That a lightning bolt of compassion may hit the hearts of all who cause pain. If it does not heal them that it may kill them.

keep dreaming about an one state solution...

The notion of a "Palestinian" people is so farcical that it beggars belief. My grandfather - a Jew - was born in then Palestine. Were he to have remained in the area once it became Israel (1948), would he and his offspring therefore not have remained Palestinian? There is no such thing as a "Palestinian people". Israel's granting of legitimacy to this non-people is an act of insanity and self-destructiveness. Arafat created this "people" in '64. Why the world - including Jews - has swallowed this evil fabrication is beyond my understanding.

Islam has its bigoted countries, Christans have the Vattican, Why cant Jews have a nation.

1. The Balfour DEclaration spoke of a Jewish homeland, but specified it must be established without prejudice to the religious and cicvic rights of the other inhabitants. This condition has clearly not been met. 2. You speak of the Jewish historical connection to the land. However, you neglect the fact that by emphasizing the Jewish connection, you are denying the equally valid Muslim connection. Jews took over the land by conquest, as did the Muslims. If the Jews can get primacy by conquest, why isn't the Muslim claim equally valid? 3. Jews in the US, as you know, tell us that making the US a Christian nation would make all other US citizens second-class citizens. Why isn't the same true on Muslms in Israel? What lis hateful to you, do not do to your fellow.

What would have happened to the 600,000 Jews in the Palestinian Mandate if the Arabs won the 1948 war. The same thing that did happen to the 12,000 who found themselves on the Arab side of the truce lines: expulsion (r maybe worse--this was only 3 years after WWII). Article 11 of UN Res 194 (so much a part of the Arab narrative) refers to "refugees" not "Arab refugees." It is time Mr. Sarah and others acknowledge that the Arabs lost in 1948 and consequences flowed from that defeat. Israel should not apologize for winning. Certainly Palestinian Arabs suffered and continue to pay the price of bad leadership. And, any long-term peace has to deal with this by helping and allowing them to start normal lives in countries where the inhabitants have similar language, religions and culture, not in Israel.

"The Balfour Declaration spoke in terms of a Jewish homeland" Completely unrelated to the state created 30 years later. "the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine talked about creating a Jewish state within the Mandate" It does not, but you can win this point - with a literal quote of the concerned passage. "1947 UN Partition resolution called for creating 2 states: 1 Jewish & 1 Arab" When you divide a territory along ethnic lines into two states, which provisional designations would you use? Besides, was this naming adopted for the state of israel?

If the Hebrews taking Palestine from the Canaanites was legitimate, why isn't the Muslims taking over when they conquered just as legitimate? If you can take it by conquest, why can't they?

This so-called "new" condition by Netanyahu is nothing new at all.The Balfour Declaration spoke in terms of a Jewish homeland, the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine talked about creating a Jewish state within the Mandate, the 1947 UN Partition resolution called for creating 2 states: 1 Jewish & 1 Arab. This is a not anything new,but something the Arabs have refused to accept for nearly 100 years.It is why they invaded the new state in 1948 and their rejection of this reality is the underlying reason there has been no peace.In essence, the Arabs reject any Jewish historical connection with the area.It is this insular view which has prevented peace.Accepting this "Jewish" state within recognized borders would go a long way to securing peace and the reality of a 2 state solution.They must acknowledge that the Jews are not the Romans or the Crusaders or the Turks, but people who like themselves, have an historic connection with this land and who are not going away.

"I have to admit that I frankly don`t see the point in hanging anything on Palestinian acceptance of the State of Israel as Jewish or not." To say it with Michael Jackson: You are not alone. Actually nobody but rightist Israelis sees the sense of recognizing what even israel itself refrains from putting in its official designation. State of Israel מ?ד?ינ?ת י?ש??ר?א?ל (Hebrew) Medīnat Yisrā'el دَوْلَةُ إِسْرَائِيلَ (Arabic) Dawlat Isrā'īl

I have to admit that I frankly don't see the point in hanging anything on Palestinian acceptance of the State of Israel as Jewish or not. It is more important for them to accept Israel as a sovereign entity. What Israel then chooses to do with that sovereignty is its business. As for responsibilities for the refugees, sure we all had a role, some fled, some where chased. Lets get on with it.

A homeland is not a state, and the British knew very well what they wrote to the Zionist leaders. The mandates which were the successors of German and Turkish territories were nothing but colonies under a new designation and handled by the madatories exactly like such, wrapped up into the legal proceedings created by the League of Nations. Not one of the mandates stipulated that it was temporary and should translate into the independence of the concerned territories. The Arabs were never concerned with the Balfour declaration as it was a business between the British government and Zionist leaders.

Balfour called for a JEWISH HOMELAND and was basically another word for a state. At that time the British & French empires were making big plans do divide up the Middle East once it was taken out of Turkish control and to create a series of small states which would be for a while at least the empires would play a kind of administrative role in the running of these countries although they were not going to be colonies. At the time of Balfour zionism was still more about just creating a safe haven for persecuted European jews rather than a religion based movement so a binational solution suited them fine as long as they were going to be safe. The arabs rejected Balfour which is why we got Transjordan. Slowly as a result of religion playing a more important role in zionism and the fact that arabs were becoming increasingly hostile to jews so it became obvious a binational state would never be a safe haven for jews so their goal became the creation of a jewish state.

"Many Arab states, and others, call themselves officially also Moslem states" But Israel does NOT officially call itself a Jewish state. Why should others recognize what is not even in Israel's self-designation???

"The Balfour Decleration the arabs rejected called for a binational state" 1) The Arabs neither rejected nor accepted the Balfour declaration. They were not addressed by it. 2) The declaration did not call for any state, binational or other. Creating states was not the fashion of the British Empire.

Of course Israel may declare that Palestinians have suffered horribly in their refugee camps the Arabs states have set up for them. Of course it can share some of the narratives, and massage the Karameh ("honor") of Arabs. But Israel should not believe that it will stop the ultimate goal of both Arabs and the whole political Islamic world to destroy Israel. The campaign is in full swing but it won't succeed. Israel is spiritually stronger, militarily stronger than the Iranian proxies, and has no alternative but to prevail, whereas Arabs and Muslims are simply venting out their frustrations onto Israel. If they were to drop their hateful projections, they wouold heal, not lose anything.

Clearly if only we could let the young and smart people from both sides reach an agreement together, a real and positive change can occur. Thank you Ben-Yehuda and Abu Sarah.

Definitely should palestinians accept Israel as a Jewish state. Israel has a legitimate claim to the land just as Palestinians wish their claim to the land to be realized through the establishing of a palestinian state. It is apparent from his way of answering that Abu sarah is trying to avoid giving a direct answer(yes or no)to whether Palestinians should recoginze Israel as a Jewish state!by hiding under the arguments of the current occupation, the rights of refugees and the arab citizens of Israel. It is better for Abu sarah and the palestinians in the "west bank" to think about themselves first and help in the establishing of their own state rather than claiming to be very much concerned about the rights of the arab citizens of Israel. Israel is a democarcy and will certainly guarantee the rights of all citizens as it already did. As for me, the most interesting question is: Rather than SHOULD they do, DO Palestinians WANT to accept Israel as a Jewish state ???!!!

The muslims and probably most world leaders want a single state for all like your talking about but at the end of the day the majority of Israels population don't want that they want Israel to be a JEWISH STATE. Not even the man who was nominated for a Nobel Prize within 10 days of his presidency can force Israel to change its national identity to suit the arabs. The arabs had their chances for this state for all but blew it. The Balfour Decleration the arabs rejected called for a binational state which in reality would have been an a huge arab state with a small jewish minority but the jews loved the idea. Right up until around the 1930s the jews would have been happy with a binational state but today they will never be happy with anything less than Israel remaining a JEWISH STATE.

...not "the new Jewish state" as listed on the document. See details with the URL below. Dutch http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/06/AR2008050602447.html

By the Fatah costitution. And you think it is OK to have 23 Arab states but not a single Jewish state? PS Many Arab states, and others, call themselves officially also Moslem states. When have you expressed objection to that?

That is an absurd claim.

It is heartening to see considered responses to each others issue. The world has let this problem fester for too long so in my opinion the world should help pay for any solution.

Is Palestine to be the non-Jewish State where Jews can live with rights parallel to those enjoyed by non-Jews in Israel? Will land in Palestine be owned by the Non-Jewish Agency? Will non-Jews homes be subject to bulldozing on an hour's notice for lack of a building permit? Will Israel recognize Palestine as the official Non-Jewish State? And just imagine what that phrase means?

What chutspah! There are refugee camps in Gaza, and the West bank, in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan (all places controlled by Arab governements, including the PA). In Israel, there aren't any. If the Palestinian narrative is really based on this simple falsity, it's time for brave Palestinians to start asking questions.

I think the question is problematic on its face: Netanyahu's address discusses a "Jewish" state and a "Palestinian" state. The "Jewish" state makes Israel quite exclusionary and also makes the "Palestinian state" deceptively secular in nature. I want to ask Netanyahu to say what he means: the Muslims need to deal with the fact that Israel intends to remain a Jewish state. Roi, he isn't actually asking Palestinians to "make peace with Israel." He's asking Palestinians to make peace with Jewish rule over, presumably, a good many holy sites. It's much more loaded than establishment of a "state". Does "Palestinian" mean Muslim? Does "Jewish state" mean that non-Jews will be expelled or not included in the negotiations? Will Israel continue to call itself a "democracy" whilst excluding some of its citizens? The question itself reveals the flaws continually present in these talks.

the holy land is not only for Jews, Muslims or Christians. It's the land of all faiths. Palestinians should return to their homes and Jews should remain in the west bank and live together in one democratic state. It's time to shift from the two state solution which is the main cause for the frozen peace talks.

When you're occupied by an ersatz democracy that is really a fascist theocracy, you lose whether or not you acknowledge them as a Jewish state. I'm not sure what the answer is here.

well said

did deKlerk demand that Blacks accept South Africa as a White state? I know you all think that that is ridiculous.

Where on earth did you come up with your interpretation of UN Resolution 181? Try: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine

I totally agree #4. I wish these two were in charge instead of the clowns that run the State of Israel along with the PLO. They could probably solve the dispute within a few months compared to these other people who can't figure out one plus one or tell you that one plus one is really three even though you know it's two. It's a shame not have leaders like these two individuals.

Very interesting and hopeful exchange. Thank you

your conversation brings fresh air of hope for some solution over this divided land, no matter how far it still is. It brings the reason to a table, while forums and headlines are full of bad emotions. Objectiveness is so difficult, if we mutually surrender to the feelings of threat and suspicions. God bless all the people who foster the good will.

The single essential point is that both Israelis and Palestinians recognize the right of the other party to a homeland. All the rest is just twaddle.

What exactly would a three-state solution entail? First off one would want to grant the Jewish people a state in which the halacha was practised and where Judaism was the dominant religion and legal code. Next, you would want to ensure a state for Palestinians, in which democracy and human rights was guaranteed. Finally, and crucially, you would want to accommodate those who fit into neither camp, either because they were not Jews per se, (not observant enough), secular Israelis or Palestinians who wished to live in areas not granted to the autonomous number 2 state. This would be the state on paper which together with the two states above, created a new state of Israelistine, a state which for now only exists in the imagination.

a very constructive discussion. hundreds more by equally willing people are needed. unfortunately, judging by the standard of many talkbacks, i'm not too optimistic.

Firstly, in terms of the UNO resolution 181 (29 November 1948) the country became a two-state solution - Israel and Jordan. Then, the Arabs, having stolen the land in their colonial drive in the 7th century CE and, under Arafat, stolen the name Palestine (the Roman term for Israel) have concocted some "narrative" that Israel is theirs. Tough. Muhammad Amin al-Hussein may have tried to continue Hitler's work but he failed. Tough. Live with it and get on with life.

Do you expect the palestinian state to be secular? Would you expect it to be defined as a "Muslim" state and if so what would the status be of non-Muslims in that state?Given the history of mistrust and emnity, I doubt the Palestinians have any great liking for Israelis and Israelis of them, but the point is that they need to come to a point of mutual toleration and in that state of non-belligerency, trust can build if between equals. I fear that netanyahu's demand has less to do with recongition of a "Jewish "state and far more to do with using such a demand as a stalling tactic while more land is taken for expanison and second as a means of getting off the hook for admitting Israel sorry role in creating a human tragedy of immense proportions.

Become a federation and support each other as one. Only through love can hate die.

If Israel has decided it is ready to give up its preposterous claims that it is a democratic state, then there will be no problem recognizing it as a Jewish state. I certainly will do so under those conditions. Otherwise it is an "Israeli State" which should mean equality for all its citizens. If ever there is a Palestinian state that's a different issue. "Palestinian" is not a religion, so there could be a Palestinian state that could also be democratic.

Dear mr. Ben-Yehuda, Regardless of the Arab nations re action to the Naqba and their assumed refusal to integrate the palestinian refugees into their societies, the fact remains that that would not be a problem at all had not zionism created the problem in the first place. Second, Israel has never admitted its role in creating the naqba, much less come up with a counter proposal to the Palestinian demand of full right of return. There has been no offer of compensation, no reconciliatory move to admit their complicity in the tragedy. Why? Further, the claim that both Egypt and jordan did not recognise Israel as a "Jewish" state is pertinent. It seems as if this demand must be made out of Israel's own insecurity and ghetto mentality of a nation under seige, than anything else. Take note of netanyahu's language:"just as we are asked to recognise...." Not "we do recognise" but "what others ask of us". And exactly what will be the status of non-Jews in this "Jewish" state?

How nice it would be if countries were led by this kind of people instead of that other kind.

It strikes me there is something pitiful about the two-state tango in which both Palestine and Israel are caught in an existential embrace from which they can never extricate themselves. Sure, recognition of a Jewish State contingent on there being a democratic Palestine in which human rights are preserved. But this leaves out an important third grouping. Those citizens who identify with a broader social project in which both Jews and Muslims (as well as Christians) may find a home within the context of a secular/democratic society. Such dreams of an Israelistine or Palesrael refuse to die out. They abound in the cherished ideals of those who seek a unitary state or one-state solution modelled upon the South African federal experience. South Africa is a unitary state with provinces that have a remarkable semblance of autonomy despite constant attack by those who wish to centralise power. Could a tripartite or federal solution work in Israel? Would such a solution necessitate three

Why should the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state, when Israel has eliminated any possibility of a Palestinian State. There's no solution left but the one state solution, and Israel is going to have to absorb all those Palestinians it dispossessed by confiscating their land, their fields, their orchards, and their towns for more settlements. The new Israel will probably not survive as long as the old Israel did, and don't expect the world to give you another do-over.

Of course, and Israel should accept Palestine as a state. The interesting thing is that after the leaders of the PA started talking about recognizing Israel, some Israelis insisted upon moving the goal posts by adding 'Jewish' state. As Israel has no constitution, and thus basic law and the declaration of independence suffice, it is fair to ask if Israel is an exclusively 'Jewish' state. It is not. Other religious groups, and even the fiercely secular, have - in theory - equal legal rights with Jews. Why would Israel insist that the Palestinians deny that 20% of Israelis are not Jews? Sounds like word games. An excuse to change the victory conditions after the game is over. . .