A one-state solution would be as successful as Lebanon or Yugoslavia and needs to be avoided. The two state solution is not a boring, unimaginative solution driven by the unreasonable human need for a nation-state. It is means of keeping recognized boundries so that bloodbaths do not occur. That "good fences make good neighbors" was never truer than in the Middle East. Jews' demographic majority in mandatory Palastine means Palastinians losing out if their rights conflict with Jews. If Palastinains had a demographic majority, sooner or later there would be massacres of Jews, and the Arab world turn a blind eye just like they do in Darfur. The U.S. is not a counter-example. The U.S. succeeds because it is so big that no one denomination or ethnic group could ever hope to dominate. Put two groups with competing national narratives together in a small place and you have Northern Ireland. Without a Great Britain to supervise, you have a Bosnia or perhaps Rwanda.
Hello user Logout | profile
You have watched of 10 articles
Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg to give away 99 percent of fortune ($45b) to charity (AP)
from the article: One-state solution is a blueprint for a nightmare